The future of energy generation and storage

SirRumpole said:

Tax is also paid from cash flow.

Click to expand...

Tax is "Paid from" cashflow, But it based on your "profit", not your "cashflow".

eg, If you have $1,000,000 and you give it to me interest free, and I pay it back to you over 20 years at $50K a year, you are generating a $50K per year "Cashflow" but not a $50K "Profit", it would be wrong for the government to tax you, you are simply getting your capital returned to you.

Its the same when you put the money into a capital asset with a certain life, part of the cashflow is not profit, its just your capital returning to you.

If I paid you $55K a year for 20 years, you have made a profit of $5K each year, $5 K would be your taxable income, not the entire $55K cashflow.

So far as tax and energy companies are concerned, for the record government owned corporations, at least in the case of Hydro Tas, do indeed pay tax despite most assuming they don’t.

There are some significant differences in how it’s administered, since strictly speaking the federal government is precluded from taxing the states, but state owned corporations do ultimately have the same costs as their private rivals. The differences are administrative in how it’s done.

Not sure what arrangements apply to Snowy but from memory something was put in place such that they don’t gain a competitive advantage through not paying tax despite being government owned.

I guess the only question that hasn't been asked by the media, is how Labor expect to achieve their 50% carbon reduction target, I wonder why?
It is a great story, they should have some underlying expertise behind their ridiculous claim, that could be checked for authenticity.
What a laugh that would be, why can't the ABC and SMH get onto that?
If they can come up with a plausible way to achieve that, with proven technology in the required time frame, I will vote for them.

sptrawler said:

I guess the only question that hasn't been asked by the media, is how Labor expect to achieve their 50% carbon reduction target, I wonder why?
It is a great story, they should have some underlying expertise behind their ridiculous claim, that could be checked for authenticity.
What a laugh that would be, why can't the ABC and SMH get onto that?
If they can come up with a plausible way to achieve that, with proven technology in the required time frame, I will vote for them.

Click to expand...

Yes, heading into the election the alternative governments policy on energy needs to be put under the spotlight. We haven't heard much from them apart from a few hand waving arguments and distractions.

I believe they said they would back all the Finkel recommendations, we need to know if they stand by that.

SirRumpole said:

Yes, heading into the election the alternative governments policy on energy needs to be put under the spotlight. We haven't heard much from them apart from a few hand waving arguments and distractions.

I believe they said they would back all the Finkel recommendations, we need to know if they stand by that.

Click to expand...

I guess this all depends on if they happen to win government and if they will hold a majority in the senate. If they need the Greens to form government then energy policy will be stuffed in this country for another 3 years.

Looks like Carnegie is having trouble, getting the Albany wave generation project, off the sea bed. So to speak.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-21/carnegie-wave-farm-plans-in-doubt-wa/10249500

Apparently the companies building the solar farms in Queensland, are finding it difficult to find local workers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-...g-backpacker-labour/10302500?section=business

sptrawler said:

Apparently the companies building the solar farms in Queensland, are finding it difficult to find local workers.

Click to expand...

I suspect they’re onto the same dodgy practices as some farmers.

Locals need not apply. Anyone not needing the labour hire company’s overpriced backpacker accommodation has zero chance of getting the job picking fruit or whatever.

Not uncommon in farming so wouldn’t surprise me if others are doing the same thing in places well away from the cities.

Maybe it is naivety, but have things ALWAYS been so cut down the left and right.

This seems to be another issue where reasonable people presented with the same information could come up with a similar answers.....if politics are removed.

Either there is a net positive or a net negative?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...d/news-story/4c6dbf0505b6b0a6697ab8fc97cdf9b2

Tesla's SA battery defies it's critics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420

SirRumpole said:

Tesla's SA battery defies it's critics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420

Click to expand...

It is doing a good job of rapid response frequency control.

Both yesterday (Monday, a public holiday) and the previous day in SA there was a period of negative prices for electricity on the spot market and also a shutdown of large scale solar generation.

Reason is simply that the weather was mild in Adelaide, and with SA’s population so heavily concentrated in one city there’s no real within state diversity in terms of weather and electricity demand, plus high generation from wind and solar there was simply nowhere for the power to go.

Transmission was running at maximum from SA to Vic, the battery was being charged and the rest went to waste.

In keeping with recent discussion about the emphasis of posts on ASF I’ll point out that this is an economic issue far more than it is any problem technically. Those buying electricity on the spot market were paid to take it, not the reverse.

That has implications for those with existing storage (eg the Tesla battery) as well as anyone considering building new large scale storage (eg the various pumped hydro proposals or more batteries). If the spot price is negative then you’ll make a cash profit simply charging, whatever you get from selling at a later tine is another profit on top. That’s akin to running a shop and on a random Sunday a truckload of stock turns up which the supplier then pays you to take. Can’t lose.

For the generators, some gas-fired plant was still running and must remain so for reasons of system strength (that’s a technical issue - in simple terms it’s about the ability to cope with faults without the entire grid going down). They’d have been making money through providing those services and/or under direction from AEMO. At the corporate level AGL is the most consistent operator in that space but not the only one. Origin and Engie also have plant located in SA with the required technical capabilities. There’s not much profit for them under such circumstances however but they do have means to avoid bleeding cash if the original investment costs are ignored.

As I said, what I’m referring to here is a financial occurrence far more than a technical one. Turning off zero marginal cost solar generation and/or selling at negative prices doesn’t pose a problem technically but it’s either a dead loss or an outright winner financially depending on which side of the market you’re on.

Smurf1976 said:

As I said, what I’m referring to here is a financial occurrence far more than a technical one. Turning off zero marginal cost solar generation and/or selling at negative prices doesn’t pose a problem technically but it’s either a dead loss or an outright winner financially depending on which side of the market you’re on.

Click to expand...

Does any of this have an impact at the consumer end ?

Do customers get money deducted from their bills ?

SirRumpole said:

Do customers get money deducted from their bills ?

Click to expand...

You should have posted that in the joke thread.

sptrawler said:

You should have posted that in the joke thread.

Click to expand...

Probably, it's still a valid point though. Competition, best return for the consumer, that sort of neo Liberal stuff.

SirRumpole said:

Do customers get money deducted from their bills ?

Click to expand...

Directly = not apart from a very small number of large users who have choosen to be exposed directly to the spot market.

For everyone else any effect comes about via a reduction in the average spot price which in due course reflects in contracts and retail prices.

It’s certainly not the first time it has occurred, I’m just drawing it to attention.

The big problem with wind and solar in SA is that it’s pretty much either a feast or a famine. Just a few hours after yesterday’s surplus solar the comvined wind + solar output was stuff all and most electricity in SA wasncoming from gas plus a bit from interstate.

Storage is the obvious solution especially if it’s going to cost nothing to fill it up. Batteries are one way to do that and on a larger scale there’s pumped hydro.

Biggest project being looked at in SA in that area is a 300 MW pumped hydro scheme on the outskirts of Adelaide at Highbury (about 15km from the Adelaide CBD). Company looking at this one is Tilt Renewables (ASX: TLT).

Smurf1976 said:

Biggest project being looked at in SA in that area is a 300 MW pumped hydro scheme on the outskirts of Adelaide at Highbury (about 15km from the Adelaide CBD). Company looking at this one is Tilt Renewables (ASX: TLT).

Click to expand...

Smurph, do you know how many hours storage the quarry would have, at MCR.

sptrawler said:

Smurph, do you know how many hours storage the quarry would have, at MCR.

Click to expand...

I found the info smurph, interesting proposition.

It isn't only Liberal Governments that sell off assetts, the W.A Labor government is selling its Albany wind farm.
https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/synergy-sells-albany-wind-farms-for-34m-ng-b88980794z

From the article:
Privatising Synergy’s green assets sparked controversy last year with claims from private power providers that it was “crowding out” the market for projects required to meet the Federal Government’s 2020 renewable energy target.

There were also claims Cbus had been brought into the deal to appease unions upset about foreign ownership of the fund, though these were dismissed by Energy Minister Ben Wyatt.

Mr Wyatt said Bright Energy Investments was the most “fiscally responsible” way of the State meeting its renewable energy obligations.

I'm not commenting whether it is right or wrong, just pointing out that it happens just as much as when the Libs are in office, just when labor do it it slides through to the keeper.