The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

It isnt a problem as such in Australia small population, lots of flat land for renawable installations.

Yep - I'm assuming here that the discussion is Australian centric given it's an Australian forum.

As has always been the case, what's best in one place isn't necessarily best in another and that's true even with non-renewable technology. It comes down to what resources are available locally or, if nothing exists locally, can most easily be brought in and that varies hugely with location.

 

[sptrawler]

Yep - I'm assuming here that the discussion is Australian centric given it's an Australian forum.

As has always been the case, what's best in one place isn't necessarily best in another and that's true even with non-renewable technology. It comes down to what resources are available locally or, if nothing exists locally, can most easily be brought in and that varies hugely with location.

That is what seems to be missing in the debate, a sense of scale, in proportion to the world issue we are a micro grid at best in reality we are small commune.

 

[qldfrog]

Yep - I'm assuming here that the discussion is Australian centric given it's an Australian forum.

As has always been the case, what's best in one place isn't necessarily best in another and that's true even with non-renewable technology. It comes down to what resources are available locally or, if nothing exists locally, can most easily be brought in and that varies hugely with location.

And in term of resources, where the hell would Australia find the nuclear technicians needed for nuclear reactors.... import them from Pakistan?

 

[rederob]

The only premise to all that is, you have enough energy to move around, that is the whole issue.
It isnt a problem as such in Australia small population, lots of flat land for renawable installations.
It all boils back to cherry picking, best case scenario.
As Ive said it will be self resolving.

It hasn't been "self resolving" for the past decade where Europe, China and even the USA have the jump on us.
And it does not get "self resolving" without a commitment to the necessary infrastructure.
Aside from that, there still remains no national policy that is providing major energy investors with the certainty they need to commit the billions needed to replace aging generators.
Instead we still have a government making inquiries in nuclear and coal.
And that's occurring against Australia being a global leader in gas production and a backdrop of gas prices being ridiculously low.
That's how advanced Australia is!
Maybe you can explain who this "self" is that is resolving our energy issues?

 

[sptrawler]

It hasn't been "self resolving" for the past decade where Europe, China and even the USA have the jump on us.
And it does not get "self resolving" without a commitment to the necessary infrastructure.
Aside from that, there still remains no national policy that is providing major energy investors with the certainty they need to commit the billions needed to replace aging generators.
Instead we still have a government making inquiries in nuclear and coal.
And that's occurring against Australia being a global leader in gas production and a backdrop of gas prices being ridiculously low.
That's how advanced Australia is!
Maybe you can explain who this "self" is that is resolving our energy issues?

It is simple really, as smurf has explained coal generation is aging and it won't be replaced by coal, so as you and Bas have so often commented renewables are the cheapest form of generation at the moment, therefore as the government's won't let you sit there in the dark it will be self resolving.
So you needn't keep pedaling your political agenda.

 

[rederob]

It is simple really, as smurf has explained coal generation is aging and it won't be replaced by coal, so as you and Bas have so often commented renewables are the cheapest form of generation at the moment, therefore as the government's won't let you sit there in the dark it will be self resolving.
So you needn't keep pedaling your political agenda.

Except that it is not.
If it were then there would be no energy curtailment.
By the way, the concept of "self resolving" is meaningless without process.
Finally, I don't have a political agenda as this is a simple matter of policy failure in our energy market.

 

[macca]

Finally, I don't have a political agenda as this is a simple matter of policy failure in our energy market.

Shouldn't this line be in the ASF joke thread ?

 

[rederob]

Shouldn't this line be in the ASF joke thread ?

Sorry @macca, I should have realised that the idea of the federal government having a "policy" - any policy - was a joke.

 

[macca]

Sorry @macca, I should have realised that the idea of the federal government having a "policy" - any policy - was a joke.

I agree that a firm policy would be an improvement, I really should have trimmed my quote a bit better.

I consider the "joke" to be your statement of " not having a political agenda"

I support the right to free speech and am more than happy to listen to lefties, I am surrounded by them in my family actually but to say you have no political bias when you obviously do, is funny IMO

 

[rederob]

I agree that a firm policy would be an improvement, I really should have trimmed my quote a bit better.

I consider the "joke" to be your statement of " not having a political agenda"

I support the right to free speech and am more than happy to listen to lefties, I am surrounded by them in my family actually but to say you have no political bias when you obviously do, is funny IMO

I am a humanist.
I do not have a political agenda. My comments in this thread make clear that energy policy in Australia is an oxymoron. I really don't care about which party is to blame.
The tendency in so many threads at ASF is to "label" people rather than deal with the substance of issues. I don't get sucked in.

 

[sptrawler]

As I said, if the coal generation is being shut down, it will be replaced by whatever is suitable, or else the generators don't have a business.
If the generators leave a vacuum, then it will be the responsibility of the governments to again get involved in power generation, which IMO would be a good thing.
The one thing for sure you wont be sitting in the dark and if by some chance that did happen, it would bring the whole issue to a head.
So again, as I said, it will be self resolving IMO.
The energy curtailment has been explained over and over on this thread, just because you wish to use it as a vehicle for your political agenda, makes it obviously you are still front and center in the Labor party cheer squad but the veneer is wearing thin.
By the way, you have not at any stage tried to hide your political affiliation, so don't get all shy about it now.

 

[SirRumpole]

As I said, if the coal generation is being shut down, it will be replaced by whatever is suitable, or else the generators don't have a business.
If the generators leave a vacuum, then it will be the responsibility of the governments to again get involved in power generation, which IMO would be a good thing.
The one thing for sure you wont be sitting in the dark and if by some chance that did happen, it would bring the whole issue to a head.
So again, as I said, it will be self resolving IMO.
The energy curtailment has been explained over and over on this thread, just because you wish to use it as a vehicle for your political agenda, makes it obviously you are still front and center in the Labor party cheer squad but the veneer is wearing thin.
By the way, you have not at any stage tried to hide your political affiliation, so don't get all shy about it now.

7 years of no energy policy (or should I say failed energy policy) by the Conservatives is not a problem ?

Anyone looking objectively at the LNP's record on energy non-policy would conclude that they are pathetic when it comes to forward thinking on this issue, it's only their rusted on supporters that deny there is a problem.

 

[Smurf1976]

The tendency in so many threads at ASF is to "label" people rather than deal with the substance of issues.

I'm not aiming this reply at you personally, just using your comment as the trigger really, but I think that's become a very widespread situation in society.

We've reached a point where pretty much everyone is pigeon holed. There's a label attached and they fit in whichever box.

Corporate HR departments do it, call centres do it, companies conducting market research do it, politicians do it and so on. Everything gets distilled to whichever standard boxes it fits in and that's where it ends. As a concept the approach is so common as to be normal across pretty much the whole of society.

 

[sptrawler]

7 years of no energy policy (or should I say failed energy policy) by the Conservatives is not a problem ?

Anyone looking objectively at the LNP's record on energy non-policy would conclude that they are pathetic when it comes to forward thinking on this issue, it's only their rusted on supporters that deny there is a problem.

I thought there was a policy announcement, coming up toward the end of the year?
7 years ago the whole energy generation space was completely different, so if an energy policy was made then it would be in the trash can now anyway, even as we speak there are many saying snowy2 is an absolute waste of taxpayers money.
So I guess they should just put out anything, what the real issue is a certain sector wants a blank government cheque, as usual.
The whole Eastern States grid is a mess IMO, the State Governments have sold off the bulk of the generators and now want the Federal government to sort the mess out, which usually means the taxpayer.
Five years ago an investigation into the cost of electricity, found that the State Governments had been gold plating their networks, now we find the network actually needs a whole lot more spent on it because it isn't fit for purpose with the advent of renewables.
It sounds like the same old song sheet to me.
Thankfully I'm in W.A.

 

[Smurf1976]

even as we speak there are many saying snowy2 is an absolute waste of taxpayers money

The basic problem with Snowy 2.0 is that it isn't the most rational thing to build right now since in the short term, so long as there's an under-utilised fossil fuel generation backbone, small pumped hydros and batteries could do the job of shifting supply from midday to 6pm more cheaply than Snowy 2.0 can do it.

I'm strongly in favour of it however for reasons of pragmatism. It is needed to be in service about 2029-30 in practice but there's no guarantee at all that whoever's in government in 2023 could be relied on to simply give it the proverbial rubber stamp to proceed. They might start debating, arguing, wasting time and so on. Do that and then in practice we build new fossil fuel generation instead and it'll probably be open cycle gas turbines.

Or in other words, it's being built a bit earlier than it needs to be built but I'm seeing it as a "now or never" thing due to the way politics works. That being so, well the interest on a few $ billion for a few years is just the price we pay for the political process being what it is.

 

[sptrawler]

The basic problem with Snowy 2.0 is that it isn't the most rational thing to build right now since in the short term, so long as there's an under-utilised fossil fuel generation backbone, small pumped hydros and batteries could do the job of shifting supply from midday to 6pm more cheaply than Snowy 2.0 can do it.

I'm strongly in favour of it however for reasons of pragmatism. It is needed to be in service about 2029-30 in practice but there's no guarantee at all that whoever's in government in 2023 could be relied on to simply give it the proverbial rubber stamp to proceed. They might start debating, arguing, wasting time and so on. Do that and then in practice we build new fossil fuel generation instead and it'll probably be open cycle gas turbines.

Or in other words, it's being built a bit earlier than it needs to be built but I'm seeing it as a "now or never" thing due to the way politics works. That being so, well the interest on a few $ billion for a few years is just the price we pay for the political process being what it is.

I agree completely, but as you say it makes a statement and in a lot ways lights the way and direction needed.
A lot of small pumped storage and battery installations can be put in, but they don't make much of an impression, even if the combined output is more than Snowy 2.
It is a bit like Sydney Harbour bridge, when it was built it was probably a lot bigger than what was actually needed at the time, how many times have we seen in the past that something that everyone assumed was going to be too big, actually wasn't big enough in the end.
Storage is never going to go astray, when talking renewables IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

I agree completely, but as you say it makes a statement and in a lot ways lights the way and direction needed.

If you look at say 2036 (the date is significant) then clearly Snowy 2.0 is needed as is Battery of the Nation and we need a lot of other storage projects built by then too.

In theory building the cheap ones first, those with limited energy storage relative to peak power, would give an economic advantage but only to the extent that interest rates are high enough to matter which it seems they probably won't be.

The danger in trying to optimise, in getting the sequencing optimal, is ending up with nothing at all........

 

[sptrawler]

If you look at say 2036 (the date is significant) then clearly Snowy 2.0 is needed as is Battery of the Nation and we need a lot of other storage projects built by then too.

In theory building the cheap ones first, those with limited energy storage relative to peak power, would give an economic advantage but only to the extent that interest rates are high enough to matter which it seems they probably won't be.

The danger in trying to optimise, in getting the sequencing optimal, is ending up with nothing at all........

The other point IMO is, I really don't see the Federal Government getting heavily involved in small to medium sized pumped storage and battery storage installations, I would see that as private sector and State Government level.
With Snowy2 and the Tassie battery that is seriously big money commitment, which the Federal Government will have to either fund or underwrite.
The Federal Government getting heavily involved at the State infrastucture level, will cause nothing but problems, where the States need assistance one would think the process would be through grants etc.
I would have thought with transmission upgrades etc, it would still be a State managed function, not a Federal function.
The AEMO I would expect, to give the lead on what infrastructure the States need to upgrade to facilitate renewable deployment.
As has been stated on numerous occassions, wind/solar is cheaper to install than coal, so there will be plenty of willing investors ready to put money in, no private investor would stump up the money for Snowy 2 or the Tassie battery and it will take quite a while to build, so return on capital will be atrocious somewhat like the NBN.
Also as you say, with politics it may get started, stopped, started again etc, we are better off having it and not needing it yet, than needing it and not having it.
But from personal perspective, I don't give a ratz, it is purely from a professional perspective, that I find it interesting

 

[SirRumpole]

The whole Eastern States grid is a mess IMO, the State Governments have sold off the bulk of the generators and now want the Federal government to sort the mess out, which usually means the taxpayer.

The States were basically forced to sell their networks by the Howard/Costello "asset recycling" scheme, where the States didn't get any new money for infrastructure unless they sold the assets they already had.

So it's really the Libs fault that we are in the mess we are now.

 

[rederob]

As I said, if the coal generation is being shut down, it will be replaced by whatever is suitable, or else the generators don't have a business.
If the generators leave a vacuum, then it will be the responsibility of the governments to again get involved in power generation, which IMO would be a good thing.
The one thing for sure you wont be sitting in the dark and if by some chance that did happen, it would bring the whole issue to a head.
So again, as I said, it will be self resolving IMO.

Problems which require "intervention" cannot be "self resolving." That's a principle of reasoning.
Whatever was the role of governments in energy generation, there is now a new framework in most States and it dictates economic imperatives rather than supply concerns.
The economic imperative is to produce electricity at the least cost. Renewables do that. However, at neither the grid scale nor home solar pv is there an appropriate infrastructure to drive that agenda. Anyone interested in why can read the numerous reports over the years at AEMO's website or from the Clean Energy Council.
In January last year Victorians were the subjects of "sitting in the dark" and only luck and record investment in renewables in 2019 saved them in 2020.

The energy curtailment has been explained over and over on this thread, just because you wish to use it as a vehicle for your political agenda, makes it obviously you are still front and center in the Labor party cheer squad but the veneer is wearing thin.

First, energy curtailment is significantly due to poor policy (a rational market does not shut out the cheapest source of supply) and, secondly, I don't have any association with Labor and typically vote "independent" first or Green if there is there is not a good independent candidate.