The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Another interesting article on the state of play regarding renewables. I am purposely keeping the CC debate and vested interests separate of the renewable issue, for the purpose of the debate on the Power Grid.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...ut-grid-instability/11993776?section=business
From the article:
Energy Security Board (ESB),
ESB chair Dr Kerry Schott told the ABC's AM program that the surge in wind and solar generation has been an added complication in the grid's ability to handle new energy sources.
While climate change is expected to worsen, the ESB report also highlights "remarkable growth" in renewable energy generation driven by falling technology costs, government programs and consumer preferences, with rooftop solar now accounting for 5 per cent of energy production.

In its annual health report on the national energy market, the ESB forecasts that renewable generation will expand from 16 per cent of the market in 2018-19 to 27 per cent by 2022, before surging to 40 per cent in 2040.
Gridlock on renewables investment
However, this forecast is threatened by a recent slump in renewables investment.

Spending on large scale renewable energy projects fell by more than 50 per cent in 2019 — from 51 projects worth nearly $11 billion to 28 projects worth $4.5 billion.
"With the slowdown that is underway in new renewable energy investment then certainly our existing commitments to Paris, let alone our ability to go beyond that into the future, certainly becomes much more difficult and quite questionable," Kane Thornton, the chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, said.

A major disincentive to newcomers is Australia's national electricity grid.

It is struggling to cope with the rate of development of renewable energy, leading to many solar and wind plants having their output slashed, while other new projects have experienced long waiting times to get connected in the first place.
Dr Schott warned that the surge in renewables also posed a return threat to the grid and its ability to consistently keep the lights on.

"The system wasn't built for it [renewables], but neither was anyone else's system in the world and everyone is going through the same type of change," she said.
The renewable energy sector wants the Federal Government to increase its energy market mandate by lifting the Renewable Energy Target to prepare for the phasing out of coal plants.

"They are going to retire," said Ms Watson.

"They do need massive refurbishment costs to be found. They are struggling with financing. They are struggling with insurance so it's inevitable that our coal fleet is going to disappear."

The ESB report forecast that, by 2042, almost all of the ageing coal fired power stations will be replaced by wind and solar combined with pumped hydro and battery storage.

"If you've got flat demand and not a lot of need for energy in general there's not going to be a lot of need for renewable energy," Matt Harris, head of Renewables and Climate Change at Frontier Economics, observed.
The renewable energy sector wants the Federal Government to increase its energy market mandate by lifting the Renewable Energy Target to prepare for the phasing out of coal plants.

"They are going to retire," said Ms Watson.

"They do need massive refurbishment costs to be found. They are struggling with financing. They are struggling with insurance so it's inevitable that our coal fleet is going to disappear."

The ESB report forecast that, by 2042, almost all of the ageing coal fired power stations will be replaced by wind and solar combined with pumped hydro and battery storage.
The Energy Security Board was established by the COAG Energy Council and is charged with coordinating a reform blueprint produced by Australia's chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel.

 

[sptrawler]

Industrial size electrolysis plant being developed in the U.K
https://www.itm-power.com/news/industrial-scale-renewable-hydrogen-project-advances-to-next-phase

 

[basilio]

I think this company and their technology could make a avery big splash in the renewable energy market

AFC Energy lays out string of markers for hydrogen fuel cells
Snapshot

• Has developed a scalable alkaline fuel cell system
  
  
• The fuel cells use hydrogen to make clean electricity
  
  
• To supply electric car charging and replace diesel generators

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.u...f-markers-for-hydrogen-fuel-cells-211982.html

 

[sptrawler]

I think this company and their technology could make a avery big splash in the renewable energy market

AFC Energy lays out string of markers for hydrogen fuel cells
Snapshot

• Has developed a scalable alkaline fuel cell system
  
  
• The fuel cells use hydrogen to make clean electricity
  
  
• To supply electric car charging and replace diesel generators

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.u...f-markers-for-hydrogen-fuel-cells-211982.html

Good article Bas, it is going to be really interesting to watch the development of these new technologies with regard H2 and batteries, the amount of research going on will be unbelievable.

 

[sptrawler]

Another good article by Bas, posted in the EV thread. The opening couple of paragraphs, explains the issues the U.K see, regarding the grid and adopting BEV's.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/12/20191231-afc.html
From the article:
In the UK, a recent study commissioned by Scottish Power found that to meet EV deployment targets, almost £100 billion (US$131 billion) of new investment is required to upgrade the network and deploy dedicated EV charging stations throughout the country.

For fleet operators, commercial vehicles and even private and public car park operators, large scale rapid charging is a corporate necessity, which in instances cannot be met without localized grid upgrades. AFC Energy’s system is designed to meet these needs by delivering an EV charger that can be safely fueled using a variety of hydrogen sources while operating at optimum efficiency to enable rapid charging rates when and where it is required.

It just highlights how complicated the adoption of renewables and BEV's are going to be, back of the napkin just do it, ain't going to cut it. IMO

 

[sptrawler]

A good article, for those wondering if the Government is formulating a plan.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ables-to-next-challenges-20200227-p5453y.html
From the article:
The government's plan to use technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will look beyond wind and solar energy to the "next challenges", including hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and methane produced by livestock.

Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor says a long-term emissions reduction road map, which will not hand out "massive government subsidies", will be ready by November, in time for the next round of international climate talks.

The government says it won't commit to an emissions reduction target before it can work out the economic cost of the transition, but has not ruled out setting a target to achieve net zero emissions.

The government has criticised the Opposition for its commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Mr Taylor said in Parliament on Thursday the Opposition had no plan to achieve its emissions reductions, was "making it up as they go along" and risked missing the target or damaging the economy.

He will tell a Committee for Economic Development of Australia forum in Sydney on Friday the government has invested more than $10 billion on 670 wind and solar-related projects, valued at $35 billion, and they are now "coming to an end of value".

RELATED ARTICLE

PARIS AGREEMENT
Australia must hit net zero by 2050 to meet Paris: scientists
"We must move our investments to the next challenges. Hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, lithium and advanced livestock feed supplements to name a few," he will say.

Doesn't sound to me, like they don't have a plan.

 

[Humid]

: Australia sourced 79% of our electricity from fossil fuels in 2018; renewable investment has tanked post-2020 Renewable Energy Target; and as Crikey has noted multiple times, and despite the millions of dollars already pissed away at carbon capture and storage, the most effective form of sequestration is trees.

 

[sptrawler]

: Australia sourced 79% of our electricity from fossil fuels in 2018; renewable investment has tanked post-2020 Renewable Energy Target; and as Crikey has noted multiple times, and despite the millions of dollars already pissed away at carbon capture and storage, the most effective form of sequestration is trees.

The other option, is to sign up to Albos, make a wish foundation.

 

[sptrawler]

Getting back to the Governments announcement, to me it shows they are making measured decissions, there really is no need for the Government to throw more money at solar and wind generation it is already cheaper than coal.
So to start and subsidies storage initiatives makes perfect sense.

 

[Humid]

The other option, is to sign up to Albos, make a wish foundation.

2050 ain’t goin to effect us
Live in the moment old boy

 

[SirRumpole]

Getting back to the Governments announcement, to me it shows they are making measured decissions, there really is no need for the Government to throw more money at solar and wind generation it is already cheaper than coal.
So to start and subsidies storage initiatives makes perfect sense.

Why spend $4 million of our money on a feasibility study for a new coal plant ?

Seems to be market interference to me.

 

[sptrawler]

Why spend $4 million of our money on a feasibility study for a new coal plant ?

Seems to be market interference to me.

Or it could be the feasibility study, finds it isn't feasible, then it is a committees decision not the governments.
Much easier for the voter to swallow, than just tell them it isn't happening, get stuffed.

 

[sptrawler]

IMO it tells you we are doing fine, when even Ross Gittens is starting to acknowledge it.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...s-low-carbon-electricity-20200227-p544ws.html
From the article:
To coin a phrase, Australia’s governments are making heavy weather of their efforts to give us an electricity system that’s secure, reliable and affordable – with declining carbon emissions. Progress is slow in every respect bar one: the move to renewable energy is showing “remarkable growth”.

 

[IFocus]

Why spend $4 million of our money on a feasibility study for a new coal plant ?

Seems to be market interference to me.

To block the Nats.

 

[Smurf1976]

Why spend $4 million of our money on a feasibility study for a new coal plant?

Comes down to one word - politics.

That aside though, well hypothetically if we were going to build a new coal plant then first choice of where to put it would be a toss up between NSW and Vic with a revival of the early-1990’s idea of a black coal station in southern NSW a likely front runner along with building units 3 & 4 at Loy Yang B in Victoria.

Running a very distant third would be southern or central Queensland and trailing a long way behind that somewhere in SA which would be scale limited.

If it was a purely political exercise intended to fail then you’d propose WA, NT, Tas or northern Qld where there’s either no point, no coal or too many transmission constraints to make it workable without spending a fortune.

Any proposal in those locations is about political power not electrical power.

 

[Smurf1976]

If it was a purely political exercise intended to fail then you’d propose WA, NT, Tas or northern Qld where there’s either no point, no coal or too many transmission constraints to make it workable without spending a fortune.

Expanding on this point:

WA in the south-west there's no point since there's already enough coal-fired capacity. In the north-west it could be more useful but problem is there's no coal without hauling it huge distances which makes it uneconomic.

NT - no coal and not a lot of demand for electricity. It was actually proposed back in the 1980's but once gas became available that was a no brainer given the modest level of consumption so the 300 MW coal plant that was to supply the whole of Darwin and surrounds never went ahead.

Tas - there's coal which is already mined on a small scale for other uses (industry) and suitable sites for a coal-fired power station have been identified in the past. It is however pointless in that it simply doesn't stack up financially against wind and hydro, a conclusion which has been reached every single time the idea has been examined and there's been plenty of such occasions since the 1960's including one I was involved with. All up, 5 locations have been contemplated for the power station and none of them ever stacked up economically with lack of scale being the killer in all cases. Coal resources in Tas preclude the building of a single large plant of high capacity located next to the mine and that reality kills the economics. The coal deposits are just too scattered in individually small quantities for that to work.

SA - any coal plant would be either small scale or would involve a major transmission upgrade to NSW / Vic additional to what's already there or planned. Plus it would be a new mine built from scratch, there's a need for water supply and so on. It would make far more sense to put the plant in Vic or NSW and transmit power to SA than to do the reverse.

North Qld - transmission constraints are such that it would be an expensive place to put it given that the output would be flowing south anyway. It would be far cheaper to build it in a southern or central location where there's coal readily available and transmission infrastructure already exists.

In contrast in Vic there's a site already cleared and leveled for 2 x 500 MW. The mine's already running to supply the other 6 x 500 MW that were actually built, the transmission lines are already of adequate capacity and so on. If we were going to build coal then that would be by far the easiest but note that there's zero private sector interest in the idea.

Second easiest would be NSW. Either sort out more coal supply to Mt Piper and put the third and fourth units in the existing power station. So it's much the same concept as Victoria apart from the inadequate coal supply problem but everything else is sorted already. Or could revive the idea of building a new coal-fired plant in southern NSW as was proposed in the early 1990's for supply to both NSW and Vic from a ~2800 MW station.

Note that I'm not arguing that we ought to build coal, just that if we were going to well then the idea of putting it in northern Qld is a silly one which makes sense only if the intent is to fail. If the intent was to actually generate electricity then there's far better places for such a thing than that.

 

[Humid]

A good article, for those wondering if the Government is formulating a plan.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ables-to-next-challenges-20200227-p5453y.html
From the article:
The government's plan to use technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will look beyond wind and solar energy to the "next challenges", including hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and methane produced by livestock.

Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor says a long-term emissions reduction road map, which will not hand out "massive government subsidies", will be ready by November, in time for the next round of international climate talks.

The government says it won't commit to an emissions reduction target before it can work out the economic cost of the transition, but has not ruled out setting a target to achieve net zero emissions.

The government has criticised the Opposition for its commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Mr Taylor said in Parliament on Thursday the Opposition had no plan to achieve its emissions reductions, was "making it up as they go along" and risked missing the target or damaging the economy.

He will tell a Committee for Economic Development of Australia forum in Sydney on Friday the government has invested more than $10 billion on 670 wind and solar-related projects, valued at $35 billion, and they are now "coming to an end of value".

RELATED ARTICLE

PARIS AGREEMENT
Australia must hit net zero by 2050 to meet Paris: scientists
"We must move our investments to the next challenges. Hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, lithium and advanced livestock feed supplements to name a few," he will say.

Doesn't sound to me, like they don't have a plan.

Solar

• Renewables

• Storage

• Electric Vehicles

• Podcasts

All Rights Reserved

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLEANTECH BITES CLIMATE COAL GOVERNMENTS
The insanity of Angus Taylor’s fossil fuel technology roadmap

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor made one significant admission on Friday in his speech about the proposed “technology roadmap” – the Coalition’s new marketing term to disguise its lack of action on climate and emissions.

Wind and solar, Taylor told a CEDA event in Sydney, are now commercially viable, quite obviously the cheapest source of new energy, and didn’t need more federal government support. Not many people would disagree with that.

What the renewable energy industry wants from Taylor, however, is not more subsidies. It wants a plan, and a target, and some effort from the government to smooth the transition to a zero carbon grid by removing the increasing number of regulatory and government hurdles Taylor seems determined to keep in their way.

Investment in wind and solar is falling away rapidly. And as the Clean Energy Regulator has pointed out, it’s not because the renewable energy target has been met and exceeded. There are powerful commercial reasons to invest in more wind and solar, including its substantially lower costs and increasing corporate and consumer demand.

What’s holding it up is a combination of factors that all point to a lack of government leadership: the policy uncertainty, the hostility of government ministers and backbenchers, insufficient infrastructure; out-of-date rules that make investment more risky; new rules that are proving counter-productive; a lack of co-ordination with the states; and modelling mistakes that have caused huge problems in western Victoria and south-west NSW.


Wind and solar are not just the cheapest forms of new generation, they are the reason why Australia’s electricity emissions have fallen so dramatically in recent years, and the Australian Energy Market Operator reckons they could easily cut electricity sector emissions by another 85 per cent over the next 20 years.


Not a bad place to be if your aim is to take the science seriously, and if you can also combine this with the electricifaction of transport, and many industries.

Indeed, AEMO’s 20-year blueprint says Australia can safely, securely, and at lower cost, use wind, solar, storage and demand management and navigate towards a grid that is 90 per cent renewable by 2041.

Plenty of energy experts think that can be done even quicker, but to do that the government needs to remove the regulatory impediments and rule-making obstinacy that is making new investment in wind and solar almost impossible.


But Taylor appears in no hurry to address any of these issues. Taylor has never been a great fan of so-called “intermittent technologies”, having campaigned on behalf of a particularly nasty internet group against wind energy before he became an MP, seeking to remove the renewable energy target once he was elected, and then declaring there was “too much wind and solar” once he became energy minister.

And he’s not alone. As Labor pointed out on Friday, over the past few weeks senior Coalition ministers have compared wind and solar to “dole bludgers” and the “new asbestos”; and the aversion to new technologies extends to batteries and electric vehicles, which the Coalition reckons are about as useful as a big banana, and will likely “end the weekend.”

So there was not much hope that Taylor and the Coalition would do the obvious – embrace the cheapest and cleanest sources of clean energy, and embrace the plans that could accelerate their integration into Australia’s grid.

Technology roadmaps might be an OK idea, and potentially useful for finding solutions to livestock emissions, but not if they are buried in ideology and denial, and if they ignore the obvious and cheapest solutions then they are complete waste of time.

Instead, Taylor’s speech focused mostly on the sort of technologies that will support fossil fuels such as coal and gas, rather than accelerating their exit. This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry and the right wing vandals in the government and conservative media want to hear.


Absurdly, Taylor is now proposing that the country ignore the cheap emissions abatement options and throw more money at things like carbon capture and storage, that has had more than half a billion thrown at it by the Australian government for no discernible outcome.

The other big focus was on hydrogen, and particularly fossil fuel hydrogen. Taylor was particularly enthusiastic about the Latrobe Valley brown coal hydrogen project, a pilot scheme that will spend $500 million to produce just three, yes, three tonnes of hydrogen.

“Whether it’s a migration from gas and coal to hydrogen or widespread use of low-cost geological and biological sequestration – it is crucial that we take that approach,”Taylor said. There was no mention of “green” or renewable hydrogen.

Taylor even had the cheek to say this: “It is crucial the government not crowd out private sector investment,” as he touted his Underwriting New Generation Investment scheme.

Yet that is exactly what UNGI has done – crowd out private investment. The scheme lacks transparency about its scale, scope and intent, and just serves as a road block. Just ask the CEOs of AGL, of Origin Energy, of Infigen Energy, or even the chair of the Energy Security Board. It’s so blindingly obvious to everyone, some wonder whether it is deliberate.


Taylor then went on to say this:

“We all know that the climate and emissions reduction challenge is truly one characterised by the tragedy of the commons.

“Where the net benefits of global emission reductions, whilst very real, are distant from the costs.

“It’s a debate that has become incredibly polarised.

“Between the keyboard warriors and the quiet Australians.


“Between the establishment and the disruptors.

“Between the inner-city and the outer-suburbs and regions.

“Between the opposition and the Government.

“Between emotion and economics.

“It is truly like no other agenda in modern Australia.”


He’s right on a couple of those points – the political aspect, the incumbents and the new players, and emotion and economics. But you need to tip it upside down and back to front to understand what’s really happened here.

The Coalition has struck out at every reasonable climate and energy policy for the past 10 years. Thankfully, it has not been 100 per cent successful, and the renewable energy target stayed in place, albeit reduced, and Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency helped bring down the costs of key technologies, wind and solar, and now storage.

They are now, as Taylor admits, cost effective, and delivering significant emissions reductions.

Scott Morrison says no-one can tell him a pathway to cut emissions or how much it will cost. Perhaps he doesn’t get out much, or doesn’t get to hear from people other than the ex Minerals Council chiefs that dominate his inner coterie.

The experts have already mapped out pathways, whether it be to 90 per cent renewables (AEMO), a transition to zero emissions with considerable job, industry and economy-wide benefits (CSIRO), to a huge new renewable export industry (Garnaut, ARENA and many others); or the science, which says – above all – we must reduce our emissions to zero by 2050, and we must act quickly over the next decade.


Instead, the Coalition government shows no interest in anything much beyond obfuscation. It wants to dig up gas, fund new coal fired power station. Again, delay, delay, delay seems the primary goal.

Taylor fancies himself as a numbers man, and likes to say Australia only accounts for 1.3 per cent of global emissions, so why should it bother about zero emissions targets. But here’s a another number: Australia’s share of global losses from climate change events is estimated at 5.9 per cent. That is some sort of leverage to disaster, and some sort of exposure.

Any policy that ignores the urgency, and the technologies now at hand, is just insane. But it wouldn’t be the first time the Coalition has reached out for a “technology roadmap”, as Richie Merzian, the head of climate policy for The Australia Institute notes: John Howard produced a similar ruse more than two decades ago.

“The Howard Government used the promise of technology as the fig leaf to reject meaningful policy and reject the Kyoto Protocol, and all it did for Australia was keep emissions high and burn our international credibility,” Merzian says. “This Government risks repeating the same mistake.

Fig leafs. The Coalition is quite good at that. Remember Malcolm Turnbull’s description of Tony Abbott’s emissions reduction fund? Nothing much has changed.




Giles Parkinson
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of The Driven. Giles has been a journalist for 35 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review.


NEXTHow the Tesla big battery has smoothed the transition to zero emissions grid »
PREVIOUS« Australia's first detailed database on household solar, batteries and EVs goes live


SHARE

• 
  

29 FEBRUARY 2020 10:21 AM

RELATED POST

• Queensland energy minister “deeply concerned” over Coalition plans for new coal generator
• Clean Energy Council slams AEMC on MLF decision, says it will undermine investment
• Industry joins call for ARENA funding extension, as Taylor ducks commitment

RECENT POSTS

• Battery
• CleanTech Bites
• Governments
• South Australian Government
• Storage
• Tesla

How the Tesla big battery has smoothed the transition to zero emissions grid
The Tesla big battery has reshaped thinking about a renewables grid - it has cut prices, kept the lights on…

1 March 2020 11:00 AM

• Battery
• Electric Vehicles
• Markets
• Renewables
• Rooftop PV
• Smart Energy
• Solar
• Storage

Australia’s first detailed database on household solar, batteries and EVs goes live
Australian Energy Market Operator launching nation’s first detailed database of rooftop solar, battery storage, electric vehicles and other consumer-owned resources.

29 February 2020 8:55 AM

• Angus Taylor
• Australian Federal Government
• Coal
• Governments
• People
• Queensland Government

Queensland energy minister “deeply concerned” over Coalition plans for new coal generator
Queensland energy minister details concerns over potential negative consequences of a new, unneeded, coal-fired power station in Queensland.

29 February 2020 12:16 AM

• Battery
• CleanTech Bites
• Renewables
• Solar
• Storage
• Tesla
• Wind

Hornsdale big battery doubles savings to consumers, and keeps lights on
Tesla big battery at Hornsdale delivered $116 million of savings to consumers in 2019, and played critical role in averting…

28 February 2020 2:14 PM

• Press Releases

Future Battery Industry Strategy powers economic growth and jobs
new report has revealed Western Australia's Future Battery Industry Strategy is driving the creation of new and operational jobs.

28 February 2020 2:03 PM

• Renewables
• Solar

Solar Insiders Podcast: Tesla, IKEA eye Australia solar market
Tesla gauging interest in its solar modules and solar tile products, while IKEA brings its flat pack solar package to…

28 February 2020 1:53 PM

• Solar
  
  
  • Renewables
  
  
  • Storage
  
  
  • Electric Vehicles
  
  
  • Podcasts

All Rights ReservedView Non-AMP Version

 

[sptrawler]

Well there was at least one paragraph that actually said what the problem was:
What’s holding it up is a combination of factors that all point to a lack of government leadership: the policy uncertainty, the hostility of government ministers and backbenchers, insufficient infrastructure; out-of-date rules that make investment more risky; new rules that are proving counter-productive; a lack of co-ordination with the states; and modelling mistakes that have caused huge problems in western Victoria and south-west NSW.

Now if you take out the anti Government crap:

insufficient infrastructure; out-of-date rules that make investment more risky; new rules that are proving counter-productive; a lack of co-ordination with the states; and modelling mistakes that have caused huge problems in western Victoria and south-west NSW.

You actually get to exactly what we have been saying for years.
The States own their own grids, the States were whipped in recent times, for "gold plating their grids" which forced up the price of electricity, the States are now being told they didn't spend enough on their transmission grids.
Not only that but the transmission system needs to be reconfigured, because in reality the grid is now the wrong way round, because in the last 7 years renewables have become really cheap. The problems in problems in western Victoria and south-west NSW, have been well reported and are being addressed as the author knows, or should know.
Most of the problems have been caused by renewables becoming so cheap, so quickly, it breeds articles like this IMO.

Unfortunately it is a shame IMO, they can't just stick to reporting the facts, rather than try and wrap it in a anti Federal Government wrapper. All that does is disenfranchise the sector more, a bit like what Sol did with Telstra, they think it will sway someone, all does is sway the ones you don't want to, away from you as Telstra found out.
Obviously the fact Taylor said, the Federal Government was reducing subsidies to solar and wind, touched a nerve.Just my opinion.
We will see at the next election how well the media do, swaying the silent majority, IMO they aren't doing very well. Time will tell.
Humid you are never going to get ahead of the curve, unless you start and think about the issue holistically, that goes to all aspects of life.

 

[Smurf1976]

a lack of co-ordination with the states; and modelling mistakes that have caused huge problems in western Victoria and south-west NSW.

Biggest issue is that ideology trumps pragmatic reality.

If we're going to have multiple generating sources connected to the same transmission line well then it helps if the engineers all work together and make sure that the overall outcome is a workable one.

Trouble is, the ACCC calls that "collusion" and gets really, really unhappy with it even though it's exactly what needs to be happening.

Therein lies the problem that technical reality doesn't fit nicely with political ideology which says everyone ought to be siloed and the result is serious stuff ups costing a fortune economically and also environmentally via lost output of renewable energy for which the full financial and environmental cost is still being incurred regardless.

It's much the same with diesels running in SA last night from 7pm to 8:15pm. Could easily have been avoided, there was plenty of gas-fired plant sitting there doing nothing, but thou shalt not collude.....

I do "get" the economic argument there by the way and I've nothing against the ACCC as such but from a technical perspective it's as frustrating as heck seeing this sort of thing happen and it comes at a real economic cost for consumers and an environmental cost as well. There needs to be a better way, one which doesn't obstruct efficient operation, and it needs to happen ASAP.

On other matters, for those in SA only, if you have any thoughts of installing a battery at home then I suggest you hurry up. This coming Friday there will be a public announcement that the state government subsidy is being reduced with the date of that being effective 15 April. So not a lot of time left if you want the full amount - system doesn't need to be installed by that date but you need all the paperwork sorted so that really only gives a few weeks left for installers to quote etc.

Value of the subsidy is presently $500 / kWh or for those eligible for a concession it's $600 / kWh and capped to a total of $6000 in either case. New amount will be lower but not zero.

Note that I'm not saying you should or shouldn't install a battery, just that if you are going to do so then hurry up if you want the full subsidy amount. Note that this subsidy applies to properties located in SA only.

 

[sptrawler]

Tasmania to get into hydrogen production.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03...smania-government-to-invest-millions/12015654
From the article:
In a statement, Premier Peter Gutwein said the Government's goal was to have a renewable hydrogen generation facility up and running by 2022-2024.

The Government has identified Bell Bay in the state's north and Burnie in the north west as potential hydrogen industry hubs.

"Our vision is to … be commercially exporting hydrogen by 2030, creating hundreds of local jobs and injecting billions into the Tasmanian economy," Mr Gutwein said.
Energy Minister Guy Barnett said a 100-megawatt renewable hydrogen production facility had been found to be a viable first-stage.

"Bell Bay is well suited to host a 100MW facility and has the capacity to expand to a 1,000MW facility by 2030 and expand further if national and international demand grows as predicted," he said.

"The plan indicates that a 1,000MW renewable hydrogen facility (approximately enough power for 1 million households) would create an estimated 1,000 to 1,200 local jobs, and support a further 2,000MW of renewable energy investment in our state."