The future of energy generation and storage

[basilio]

Dubbo sounds like it may be getting an interesting generating plant, if it goes ahead.

https://asm-au.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ASM_Dubbo-newsletter_25_OCT2020.pdf

From the article:
ASM is exploring options for the Dubbo Project to be a true carbon-neutral operation. As part of this, we are investigating the potential for largescale renewable energy generation – solar, wind, hydrogen and biogen. This would complement the power cogeneration plant that is already part of the plant’s design. Generated energy would be used onsite, stored and/or exported to the grid.

As far as I can see almost every new mining operation is going to involve some clean renewable energy source. I'd be confident that it comes down to the economics of the situation. For a start the cost of upgrading power supplies to support a new intensive industry on the end of a power line would be prohibitive. So it's al round..

 

[SirRumpole]

The ups and downs of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

 

[rederob]

Well it's good to see you agree with most of what I pointed out, as you say we are not cost competitive, so putting another cost on top would have made it worse.

Silex made its decision to cease production before the carbon price took effect because it was no longer competitive, so stop flogging a dead horse.

I still think some industries are sensible to support and subsidies, in much the same way as is happening now through agencies such as ARENA,

ARENA funds pre-commercial innovations.
Abbott vowed to get rid of ARENA and everything else that Labor put in place to support renewables. That's why our renewables footprint today is so much lower than China, the UK, USA, Germany Japan and host of other western nations.
I might need to call you Homer Van Winkle and see if I can wake you up, but maybe you still need to sleep for another 10 years!

 

[SirRumpole]

Why no thorium reactors yet ?

 

[SirRumpole]

Great video on hydrogen production , storage and transport including two Australian innovations.

 

[sptrawler]

Silex made its decision to cease production before the carbon price took effect because it was no longer competitive, so stop flogging a dead horse.

I'm not flogging a dead horse, the manufacturing and actual invention of solar panels happened in Sydney, they were being produced at the same time that Labor's political platform included emission reduction, the Homebush manufacturing plant in Sydney closed because as you said it wasn't competitive.
I said if they added the cost of a carbon tax on top of the cost to manufacture i.e electricity, aluminium, the increase in wages as a result of the inflationary pressures, it would have made the manufacturing of the panels even less competitive.
Stop ducking and weaving.

ARENA funds pre-commercial innovations.
Abbott vowed to get rid of ARENA and everything else that Labor put in place to support renewables. That's why our renewables footprint today is so much lower than China, the UK, USA, Germany Japan and host of other western nations.
I might need to call you Homer Van Winkle and see if I can wake you up, but maybe you still need to sleep for another 10 years!

Arena is still there and is still funding pre-commercial innovations, also the coalition is still in Government and still funding it, thankfully Rudd and Abbott have moved on, well in body not in mouth.
So whether Abbott vowed to get rid off ARENA or not, has little to do with solar panels, this was about Rudd allowing the solar panel factory to shut down, try to stay on track.

By the way I keep saying we are doing well with reducing our carbon footprint, I'm pleased you also finally agree on that issue.
Also what's amazing it is on Scomos watch, who would have thought.

Australia is the runaway global leader in building new renewable energy

Australia is installing renewable energy at more than ten times the global average. This is excellent news, but raises serious questions about integrating this electricity into our grids.

theconversation.com

From the article:
In Australia, renewable energy is growing at a per capita rate ten times faster than the world average. Between 2018 and 2020, Australia will install more than 16 gigawatts of wind and solar, an average rate of 220 watts per person per year.

This is nearly three times faster than the next fastest country, Germany. Australia is demonstrating to the world how rapidly an industrialised country with a fossil-fuel-dominated electricity system can transition towards low-carbon, renewable power generation.

 

[rederob]

I'm not flogging a dead horse, the manufacturing and actual invention of solar panels happened in Sydney, ....

Nope.

I said if they added the cost of a carbon tax on top of the cost to manufacture ....

You are avoiding the fact that the carbon price did not affect manufacturing employment, but it declined significantly for several years after it was removed.

So whether Abbott vowed to get rid off ARENA or not, has little to do with solar panels, this was about Rudd allowing the solar panel factory to shut down, try to stay on track.

Get a grip, they were going to close regardless.

By the way I keep saying we are doing well with reducing our carbon footprint, I'm pleased you also finally agree on that issue.
Also what's amazing it is on Scomos watch, who would have thought.

Scomo has had nothing to do with it. Indeed, his Energy Minister's reluctance to provide policy certainty needed for the private sector to invest at necessary levels has caused the feds to buy and fund Snowy! Luckily wind and solar prices are now so cheap they are growing around the place like mushrooms.

It has been your view that a price on carbon is an economic negative, but that has not been the case for Australia. Harking on about one small factory closure that was not competitive is a weak defence. As was shown in Europe, carbon trading schemes spurred employment growth and new industries. Luckily we have forward thinkers with lots of cash to splash now, and the likes of Twiggy and hydrogen will hopefully spur the government to accelerate our development of the rapidly emerging sector.

 

[sptrawler]

Your avoiding the fact that you said that the manufacturing shut down because it wasn't financially competitive and I said an added carbon tax would have made it even less competitive.

 

[rederob]

Your avoiding the fact that you said that the manufacturing shut down because it wasn't financially competitive and I said an added carbon tax would have made it even less competitive.

You know the horse is dead, don't you?
I said Silex decided to stop production before the carbon price took effect (initially a year beforehand) and that manufacturing employment while the carbon price was in place was relatively unaffected. Part of the reason was probably because the government allocated around 40 per cent of carbon price revenue to help businesses and support jobs.
It's a desperate and irrelevant argument you are running.
Regarding Silex's closure:

CEO Michael Goldsworthy blamed the “triple whammy” of cheap Chinese modules flooding the market, the high Australian dollar, and inadequate government support.​

You seem keen to run the Coalition lie about the negative effects of carbon pricing, and your introductory post on this matter made it clear that if it remained in place we might not have industries to save. @SirRumpole rightly called you out on this, and noted because we are so far behind many nations it will cost us. Ironically, you have been making this point about Silex's closure (despite it never actually being a relevant factor).

Luckily most of our larger mining, oil and gas producers have preempted the inevitable and now regularly report on their efforts to be carbon neutral by 2050. Despite this Scomo still hasn't been able to get the Coalition on the same page on reaching this target. We remain a joke on the international stage because Scomo continues to be a policy vacuum.

 

[sptrawler]

You know the horse is dead, don't you?
I said Silex decided to stop production before the carbon price took effect (initially a year beforehand) and that manufacturing employment while the carbon price was in place was relatively unaffected. Part of the reason was probably because the government allocated around 40 per cent of carbon price revenue to help businesses and support jobs.

Silex may have closed two years earlier, many other manufacturing jobs that struggled through would have had the impost of higher electricity prices and higher input costs, Abbott removed it before it gained traction.
You of course had selective hearing when you listened to the podcast, what you quoted above is the same blurb Labor did when they removed tariffs in the 1980's and 1990's, they allocated business support programmes to help support businesses face the cheap overseas competition and retrain those who were affected.
We all now how that worked, the Midland workshops closed 800 apprenticeships lost per year, SEC reduced their intake of apprentices, manufacturing collapsed and all those apprenticeships were lost. Then what happened 457 visas to bring in tradespeople.

You also try to infer it wouldn't affect business, then in the same breath say the Government allocated 40% of the tax to support affected businesses and jobs, is that a two way bet or just plain BS?

The argument I'm running is, a carbon tax will be a universal one that is applied to all countries, not an half ar$ed Australian tax for Australian companies, so that Australian's can pick up the added costs to their day to day living that the companies passed on to them.

What argument you're running I don't understand, Australia had had a stellar 10 years since the carbon price was dumped and there is no carbon tax on yet, but we as you say are moving toward it, so suggesting we would have done better with a tax that we didn't apply is an absolutely fascinating take on it.
Currently Australia is leading the world in the uptake and adoption of renewables, so I'm sure we will adapt to a carbon tax as quickly and effectively as other countries.

 

[rederob]

You of course had selective hearing when you listened to the podcast, that you quoted, you're quoting the same blurb Labor did when they removed tariffs in the 1980's and 1990's, they allocated business support programmes to help support businesses face the cheap overseas competition.
We all now how that worked.

Post on topic please.
Whitlam's 25% reduction in tariffs in 1973 kicked off where Australia headed and you seem to forget the many other factors that led to manufacturing losses. They included labour costs, strong dollar, inability to match manufacturing at scale that that was occurring globally, very small consumer market, introduction of containerisation and generally lowering distribution costs.

The difference that Australia will have this time around is, a carbon tax will be a universal one that is applied to all countries, not an Australian tax for Australian companies, so that Australian's can pick up the added costs to their day to day living that the companies passed on to them.

Old ground!
Nearly all our major competitors have already put in place or are soon to put in place this "tax" so some might not be affected at all, and others minimally. We are completely exposed. Moreover, the FTA with the UK will turn into a white elephant as they too will be playing catchup and it makes no sense to continue a trading arrangement that will be uncompetitive.

 

[sptrawler]

Post on topic please.
Whitlam's 25% reduction in tariffs in 1973 kicked off where Australia headed and you seem to forget the many other factors that led to manufacturing losses. They included labour costs, strong dollar, inability to match manufacturing at scale that that was occurring globally, very small consumer market, introduction of containerisation and generally lowering distribution costs.

After Whitlam in the 1970's, tariffs were again increased by Fraser to assist business, probably the only decent thing he did IMO.
The main tariff reductions were in the Hawke and Keating years, also at the same time the dollar was floated and fell 50%, the result was still the same, we were uncompetitive with 3rd world wages and 3rd world costs, everyone new that would be the case without tariff protection.
The same applied to the carbon tax, it would have put an impost on business, that impost would have to have been passed on to the consumer or with export products added to the price of the product.
How that would have helped a Country, that even by your reckoning already suffers from huge disadvantages on manufacturing scale, strong currency, very small consumer market, is very hard to fathom.
It may have forced us to be cleaner, but if done 10 years ago whether that would have resulted in benefits is dubious, it has been only recently that big advances in renewable technology and devices has occured, 10 years ago solar panels, batteries etc were crap.
Even gas turbines have improved recently, to get 50% efficiency 10 years ago combined cycle was required, now high efficiency open cycle turbines are getting near 50%, so the wastage over the period caused by technological advancement would have to factored into the overall cost.
10 years ago molten salt storage generation was the goto medium, now it has all but been abandoned, yet we were going hell for leather toward it, as I've previously posted.
So IMO the big white elephant, would have been the early adoption of a carbon tax, the same usually applies to the early adoption of anything.

Old ground!
Nearly all our major competitors have already put in place or are soon to put in place this "tax" so some might not be affected at all, and others minimally. We are completely exposed. Moreover, the FTA with the UK will turn into a white elephant as they too will be playing catchup and it makes no sense to continue a trading arrangement that will be uncompetitive.

Agreed with caveats, China has introduced a tax this year the U.S hasn't yet, as I posted and they emit 40% of global emissions.
I would assume a universal carbon tax will be adopted and as I have already said I believe Australia will adopt it or design a tax that fits in with it.
That is the logical course of action, an intelligent Government of a rather small country on the world stage would follow IMO.
Not do as Labor did and try to impress on the world stage, by kicking an own goal, that showed political immaturity IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

So far as manufacturing's concerned, the big problem is that we basically swapped manufacturing for being the world's quarry.

The factories shut and in their place came massive production of coal, iron ore and natural gas.

Economically that model works only so long as the world keeps buying lots of coal, iron ore and natural gas ,we've got some to sell, and we can live with the impacts of extracting it which will inevitably rise over time as the most easily accessed deposits are used first.

There's no point living in the past, what's done is done, but if we're going to make another change, if we're going to not be the king of coal anymore, well then we need something else not to employ people, that's dead easy, but to bring in the big $ exports.

Hydrogen might do it if we can sell enough of it at a high enough price. Maybe. It does have the problem that there's rather a lot of countries that can potentially compete since having sun or wind and a shipping port isn't particularly uncommon.

If hydrogen doesn't do it well then realistically there aren't too many options that don't involve manufacturing of some sort. Either way, be it hydrogen or manufacturing, it requires electricity as a key input and lots of it.

As for anything that comes out of Glasgow well it's politics and let's be blunt, politics is about as reliable as a candle in a cyclone. Can anyone point me to even one political commitment, from any democratically elected government anywhere in the world, made 29+ years ago that can in practice be enforced today? Those attending will be well aware that by the time 2050 rolls around it's unlikely that even one of them will still be a political leader of any sort indeed many won't even be alive.

After all, Australia's going to cut its emissions 15% by 2005 as a former PM promised....

As for energy supply in the Australian context, well things could get rather "interesting" given that the ACCC now has the forward LNG netback price at $41.42 for January 2022 and nothing below $18 through to March 2023. Bearing in mind that anything over $10 is generally referred to using the word "crisis", that's outright off the charts indeed it's quite literally cheaper to burn high octane petrol in a boiler than to use gas at that price, a bizarre situation indeed.

Depending on the extent to which that flows into the domestic market pricing, things could get "interesting" to say the least. Really interesting albeit not in a good way. Bearing in mind there the various proposals to import LNG to some combination of NSW (most likely), SA and Victoria to supply local consumption. Someone's going to need seriously deep pockets there.

 

[sptrawler]

This is the whole issue, we have become a one trick pony, with no sustainability, digging up finite resources is all that we do.
The whole ranting, chanting mob, somehow think this is a magic pudding that just keeps on giving, yet still criticise it.

The reality is, as you say @Smurf1976 , if this hydrogen gig doesn't work, life as we know it is going into decline.
We have a dig it up and sell it economy, the same as most third world countries, however we are living a first world lifestyle based on the fruits of the post war Australian infrastructure boom.

That will peter out eventually, and the lifestyle we enjoy, and indeed the welfare system we enjoy, will become unaffordable.
Why we are constantly trying to accelerate that demise, defeats me.

If we all left Australia tomorrow morning, shut everything down, it would have next to zero effect on climate change, but it would change 25 million peoples lives completely.

It doesn't have to be that way, if we conform and fit in with the changes the world makes in an orderly manner, Australia and the 25 million people may be able to continue with their pretty special lifestyle, why are we so focused on stuffing everything up?
It is as though an outside force, is trying to make Australia self implode IMO.

 

[orr]

As for anything that comes out of Glasgow well it's politics and let's be blunt, politics is about as reliable as a candle in a cyclone. Can anyone point me to even one political commitment, from any democratically elected government anywhere in the world, made 29+ years ago that can in practice be enforced today? Those attending will be well aware that by the time 2050 rolls around it's unlikely that even one of them will still be a political leader of any sort indeed many won't even be alive.

I'll put forward the work done on regulating CFC's, steming from scientific work on the detriments to the atmosphere, is one.
And that would be a chourus of Governments world wide.
Not least because of cheaper and better alternatives.

Starting to spot a few similarities??

 

[sptrawler]

I'll put forward the work done on regulating CFC's, steming from scientific work on the detriments to the atmosphere, is one.
And that would be a chourus of Governments world wide.
Not least because of cheaper and better alternatives.

Starting to spot a few similarities??

Absolutely, it highlights that any change can only be brought about by multilateral change, not by individual change.
This took me 2 seconds to find:

The Montreal Protocol not only binds its signatories to prohibit the use of CFCs in their jurisdictions, it also introduced sanctions that prohibited trade in certain chemicals with non-signatories, creating a significant incentive for countries to sign up. What is striking as well is the effectiveness of the implementation of Montreal Protocol. It is the only global treaty to achieve universal ratification of 197 countries, and has achieved a compliance rate of 98%. As such, Montreal is evidence of the effectiveness of outright bans.

Which is exactly how Australia should be addressing CO2 emissions, as we are such a low contributer on a global scale, as opposed to a per capita scale.
If we look at the world in 2030, my guess is Australia will be at the head of any chart, because we have a small population with a high net wealth and a topography and weather element, that supports renewables.
But to do it in an orderly manner, without costing the taxpayer heaps, relies on a sensible approach, which when weighed against the actual global effect , makes common sense.

I'll take it a step further from @Smurf1976 prognosis, if we don't get the hydrogen gig up, and if we don't make our super funds invest in our future, we are wasting our time.
The super funds have trillions of our dollars, yet overseas super funds buy up our assetts, I find that weird.
Why do our super funds not invest in our future in a big way?
Maybe then I would put my money into them, rather than having politicians trying to force me to invest in them?

 

[Smurf1976]

I'll put forward the work done on regulating CFC's, steming from scientific work on the detriments to the atmosphere, is one.

I agree that one has actually remained in place but then there's a proper treaty covering it and nobody has really tried to back out of it since there's no real incentive to do so.

My question is more about when there's no such treaty and if someone didn't want to do it? Can they be forced to stick to what was promised by a government that's no longer in office?

For example what happened to the commitment to cut 15% by 2005? That was actual government policy after all. Can that be enforced today? Can government be forced to do it?

Or what about, say, the famous commitment that no Australian child would grow up in poverty? Can that be enforced today?

Or at the state level whatever happened to the multi-function polis in Adelaide? What happened to the Tasmanian steelworks? And so on. At least one of SA's other promised cities that was never built ended up being used as a zoo.

Etc.

I agree that a government might choose to stick to something when it suits them but I'm not seeing that a political commitment is actually enforceable if they choose to do something else. If it is, well there's a pretty long list of past political promises that are outstanding.....

 

[sptrawler]

It is like saying if a the Party commits to net zero emissions by 2050, WTF does that mean? It shuts the lunatics up and sends them on another crusade, or whatever takes their fancy?
Unless there is a logical proven way that it can be achieved, all it is doing is proving public opinion can make politicians tell lies and kick the can down the road. ?
It is weird logic, " We want a commitment to zero carbon by 2050".
"OK we will give that commitment".
"Thank you, now we want a commitment to save the whales".
"OK, we will save the whales"
You have my vote.
Maybe the question, how are you going to do it MW by MW, would be appropriate?
Or how many vessels are you going to commission, to police it, would be appropriate?
Rather than the media I just wanting the headline snatch grab.
As Big Bang Theory would say,"Dumb ar$e". ?

 

[SirRumpole]

It is like saying if a the Party commits to net zero emissions by 2050, WTF does that mean? It shuts the lunatics up and sends them on another crusade, or whatever takes their fancy?
Unless there is a logical proven way that it can be achieved, all it is doing is proving public opinion can make politicians tell lies and kick the can down the road. ?
It is weird logic, " We want a commitment to zero carbon by 2050".
"OK we will give that commitment".
"Thank you, now we want a commitment to save the whales".
"OK, we will save the whales"
You have my vote.
Maybe the question, how are you going to do it MW by MW, would be appropriate?
Or how many vessels are you going to commission, to police it, would be appropriate?
Rather than the media I just wanting the headline snatch grab.
As Big Bang Theory would say,"Dumb ar$e". ?

All true, but 9 years later the LNP still have bugger all.

They couldn't organise a beer in a pub.

 

[rederob]

So IMO the big white elephant, would have been the early adoption of a carbon tax, the same usually applies to the early adoption of anything.

Use data.
I have shown that almost 10 years ago it had no material effect on manufacturing employment or employment generally. The "price" argument you ran gets no traction because of the myriad of other factors that contribute to what people pay for goods and services.
On the other hand, early adopters of the tax, like European nations, developed new industries and created employment.

I would assume a universal carbon tax will be adopted and as I have already said I believe Australia will adopt it or design a tax that fits in with it.

Well if you think it's going to be universal then what you say next is redundant:

That is the logical course of action, an intelligent Government of a rather small country on the world stage would follow IMO.

Your next sentence is another unsupported opinion:

Not do as Labor did and try to impress on the world stage, by kicking an own goal, that showed political immaturity IMO.

And one which you actually contradict with the argument you ran. That is, any exposed businesses at the margin of profitability could go out of business by needing to play catchup.
However, had Labor's carbon price remained in play we would have the bonus of being at a competitive advantage with nations who are presently like us!

Back on topic proper, you should note that in the electricity market the States have been crying out for a decision on carbon for many years, and that the lack of such a decision has been a major impediment to large scale investment. Taylor got so frustrated by the system (which was critical of his incompetence) that he replaced the COAG Energy Council with an Energy Ministers’ Meeting (EMM), and this now gets overridden by the Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee (ENCRC).