This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
Smurf1976 said:
The problem is a political one.

You might be paying 25 cents / kWh retail but those generating the power are only getting around 20% of your money, the rest being networks, retail and GST.
Click to expand...

My bill charges me 152.81c per day "supply charge" That pays for "networks" as I understand it. My usage is charged at 22.18c/kWh. Before GST.

I'm looking at a battery bank to go with the solar but if I stay connected to the grid I'll still get billed the 152.81c + GST. I think the supply charge was inflated to establish a high price for the "poles and wires" when they are sold off.
 
With the crisis in South Australia. it is proving to be a fact that renewable energy from wind and solar is not viable having reached too far away from cheap coal fired base load power.

South Australians are now paying the price with very little gain in the reduction of green house gases.

How will South Australia be able to maintain heavy industry let alone build submarines there.

Surely it is a wake up call for the other states to do their homework.

We have an abundant of cheap coal in this country to last 1000 years and what about nuclear.... if the Greens are so worried about green house gases nuclear is the way to go also with abundant uranium deposits.

And yes I can expect the Greens to hit back and remind us about two nuclear accidents over the last 25 or 30 years...But with modern science and innovation such accidents have been dramatically reduced when one considers there is now over 600 nuclear power plants around the world.

Time to stop the madness...Renewable energy can go too far.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/1e9ba12eb6060732e300c64cf19d3560

South Australia is discovering the harsh realities of being the world leader in integrating high levels of intermittent renewable energy.

In the name of action on clim*ate change, that state is an accid*ental experiment in how far you can push technologies such as wind and solar photovoltaic into the grid before something breaks. It is, quite possibly, the most important energy story in the world.

The popular rhetoric around big renewable ambitions is now being tempered with the long-warned-of realities — higher costs and increased risks around reliability, or, as our parents used to say: “It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt.”

Those getting hurt are, of course, the state’s industrial customers, who are reeling at the higher cost of electricity in South Australia, and behind them households who are facing steep increases in energy bills.

It is a crisis that has been years in the making, like getting run over by a steamroller. Suddenly the inevitable blame game begins. Popular targets include the privatisation of energy assets, the *National Electricity Market, high gas prices, unreliability in the inter*connectors between South Australia and Victoria, or all of the above.

The simple reality is this: increasing intermittent renewables at scale reduces emissions but ultim*ately increases prices as well as reliability risks.

More than 41 per cent of South Australia’s generation now comes from wind and solar. This is very, very high compared with most large industrialised grids. Until now, the only big renewables *regions were, like Vancouver in Canada or Tasmania, powered predominantly by controllable hydro-electricity. Denmark talks big on its wind energy, but when the wind doesn’t blow it can *import almost all of its power needs from neighbouring Sweden or Germany.

South Australia, by contrast, sits at the edge of Australia’s NEM. It is connected by two transmission lines, which can supply about 25 per cent of South Australia’s maximum demand from Victoria. The rest has to be generated inside South Australia.

In the pre-renewables days, power was supplied by brown-coal generators at Port Augusta and gas power stations located around the state. It was much like the rest of the Australian electricity sector: cheap, stable, and high in greenhouse emissions.

As solar and particularly wind increased capacity, they intermittently took more market share from the conventional power stations. Instead of running all or most of the time, as they were *designed, the conventional fossil-fuel generators have increasingly jumped in and out of the market.

This reduced emissions, but it also reduced the viability of these generators. At low levels of renewables, they could afford to operate. At higher levels, they have begun to exit the market permanently. The coal generators have now gone, and half of the gas plants of Torrens Island and Pelican Point were scheduled to be mothballed, the first step to permanent exit.

Some reader comments.

NEWS


OPINION
Canary in the coalmine shows way on renewables

Wind generators can only be guaranteed to run at a fraction of their name-plate capacity in heatwaves. Picture: Kelly Barnes
MATTHEW WARRENThe Australian12:00AM July 25, 2016




82 COMMENTS


+ Follow
Share
Post comment
NEWEST | OLDEST | TOP COMMENTS
Lawrence
Lawrence 59 MINUTES AGO
Above all if the CO2 catastrophists are really honestly terrified of this necessary-to-life gas, why have they NOT EVER campaigned for the urgent introduction of NUCLEAR power generation into our network?

Where are the professional Engineers in Australia who have remained silent on this wind/solar generation destruction of the system of power that generates the very affluence of western developed nations like ours?




FLAGSHARE2daleKenLIKEREPLY
Brian
Brian 1 HOUR AGO
Even if South Australia decided to go nuclear it would take around 10 years to get approval (6 years for the planning and environmental paperwork and 4 years for the environmentalist's court cases to run their course). Then say another 5 years to build a nuclear plant. I think we need to face facts. The Greens have had their way and the Australian standard of living will collapse over the next decade. The lack of reliable power will create interesting problems for those living in inner city high rise buildings dependent on power hungry facilities such as air conditioning and lifts.
 
South Australia should develop it's reserves of Geothermal energy in the Cooper Basin. Technical issues to overcome, but if you don't try you don't achieve.
 
SirRumpole said:
South Australia should develop it's reserves of Geothermal energy in the Cooper Basin. Technical issues to overcome, but if you don't try you don't achieve.
Click to expand...

Petratherm were pretty close at Paralana, but failed to secure a capital shortfall of measly $5M. Two years ago, they had to give up:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/petratherm-shelves-paralana-geothermal-project/5611990
Looks like Tony Abbott saw the big rig and found it too ugly; just like wind turbines.
Wind and Waves are also around-the-clock options that lack government support.
 
SirRumpole said:
South Australia should develop it's reserves of Geothermal energy in the Cooper Basin. Technical issues to overcome, but if you don't try you don't achieve.
Click to expand...

Tim Flam Flannery did his dough on Geothermal....He got his fingers well and truly burnt....$80,000,000 down the drain.

Nuclear is the way to go.
 
noco said:
Tim Flam Flannery did his dough on Geothermal....He got his fingers well and truly burnt....$80,000,000 down the drain.

Nuclear is the way to go.
Click to expand...

How would you know noco, you don't even understand the modern Green's makeup.

In fact you have failed to provide answers to a lot of questions on your "Pauline Hanson" thread.
 
Geothermal indeed not Nuke Noco, if you scratch behind the surface, Nuclear energy is NOT economic.
Forget environment impact etc; if we do not have fusion, fission is a money pit;
the ONLY reason countries do nuclear energy is for weapon: France Uk US/USSR/China/etc or independance (Japan)
Geothermal is definitively a proper answer for SA but huge initial cost before returns.Would sort out the intermittent wind issue Solar thermal could help as well with 2/3 days smoothing ability until we have proper interconnection
 
SirRumpole said:
South Australia should develop it's reserves of Geothermal energy in the Cooper Basin. Technical issues to overcome, but if you don't try you don't achieve.
Click to expand...

Who is going to pay for that? and if it fails who is going to pay for that?

Meanwhile who is going to pay for lack of generation?
 

So true, so perspicuous !!!

But wait...!! There is a solution !!! It rises from a million sources in unision.

It warms the earth like a comforting blanket.

Yes it's the billions of gigatons of hot air expelled by Society of Flat Earthers and Naysayers doing their level, level best to beat back the barbarian Warmists.

Go Boys!!!! Rant, Rave, Resile !! Save us and our children...!!

 
Chemical reaction batteries, aren't the answer.IMO

Jump in at your own peril. Just my opinion.
 

I deleted the post, because I thought it may be a bit outrageous, but seeing your response it obviously wasn't.

Geothermal, will have an effect on the core temperature, as the warming of the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuel does.

With the change in atmospheric conditions, the vegetation changes, as CO2 increases.

We are yet to see how the Earth reacts, to cooling of the core, due to geothermal generation as it is small scale.

Funnily enough we are yet to see the outcome of all the solar absorption by the solar panels.

But I do love your perspective basilio, looking at life through a tube.lol
 
sptrawler said:
Who is going to pay for that? and if it fails who is going to pay for that?

Meanwhile who is going to pay for lack of generation?
Click to expand...

It's an infrastructure development so who pays for those ?

At least the government should do a serious feasibility study and make a decision if it's worthwhile.
 

I did see the funny/outrageous side of your post. That was the cheeky smiley.

But on a practical note I just cannot see how even the widespread use of geothermal energy can have more than an infinitesimal effect on earths core temperature.

On the other side of the coin replacing non renewable, polluting fossil fuel energy with clean, long term energy has great advantages. I think if the figures stack up in the right circumstances that is one of the options we should explore.
 
Very creative new option for renewable energy. A hybrid wind and solar farm. Solar for the hot warm days, Wind for nights, windy weather. Only one connection to the grid saves a packet

It's such a simple idea I'm surprised it has taken so long to be considered.

If you could add a big battery bank to smooth out times there is little sun/wind it could be almost base load.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lias-first-hybrid-wind-solar-farm-gets-funded
 

Good idea , but why do the Chinese have to own it ?
 
This is a big deal in terms of action on CC. Also sends a big signal to the coal industry about it's future.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ak-hailed-turning-point-climate-change-battle
 
SirRumpole said:
Good idea , but why do the Chinese have to own it ?
Click to expand...

Because no one in Australia had the courage to put up the idea?
It is a shame but at least it is happening.

I suspect China will probably construct a million similar farms and throw in the battery bank that will make them effectively base load power stations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
805
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
562
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
634
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
647
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...