Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

I am aware that not everyone sees any good at all in the Evil Murdoch press, but Robert Gotliebson creates a most interesting narrative which, if it has any skerrick of truth, would be a game changer for Victoria and Australia..
From the article




So, if even a modicum of what he writes, the Napthine Liberal government can take as much, if not morte than the existing Labour government for the problems Victorians now face.
The problem is, even if Andrews is defeated in the November election, there is no guarantee that the replacement power brokers will ever let this report see the light of day, as they are just as complicit.
Politics guaranteed to screw anything up.
Mick
It's all about being re elected, not about what is best for the people IMO, Victoria is the most dependant on coal and doing the least to reduce its reliance on it IMO.
And that is from someone who lives in W.A, so if I can see it, most on the East Coast must be able to see it, but having said that separating Victorians from their centre of the universe belief is very difficult, I have worked with many and they all had similar traits. ?
I can see why Dan keeps getting voted in, he epitomises them. :roflmao:
 
So, if even a modicum of what he writes, the Napthine Liberal government can take as much, if not morte than the existing Labour government for the problems Victorians now face.
I'm not a geologist but my understanding is that the best description would be to say that potential has been identified.

Akin to saying you've spotted a stock that seems to have bottomed on the chart or you've come across this 10 year old kid who's unbelievably good at playing cricket. There's reason to believe you might have found greatness but it's not actually proven thus far, it could still go wrong.

The rational approach would be to complete the work required to determine what's really there then act based on that information.

Where the problem is, as per my previous post, is too many words not enough facts. Too much politics and ideology, not enough pragmatic reality.

In one camp are those who'll oppose finding out what's there even if we're going to import the stuff instead.

In another camp are those who, if a large reserve was found, wouldn't say oh great that means we've got enough for as long as we'll need it. No, they'd want to rip it out of the ground as fast as possible, arguing something about net present value, then put us back in the same "out of gas" situation we're in right now.

What's missing is the sensible voice that says OK, so we've found x, that'll last the next 40 years then and by that time we won't need it anyway so all good, we won't need to use it all but we won't need to import any either. That's the sensible middle ground but it doesn't appeal to those looking to get rich quick and it doesn't suit those needing a divisive political wedge either. :2twocents
 
In another camp are those who, if a large reserve was found, wouldn't say oh great that means we've got enough for as long as we'll need it. No, they'd want to rip it out of the ground as fast as possible, arguing something about net present value, then put us back in the same "out of gas" situation we're in right now.

Consumption always rises to match supply, there is no concept of "saving for a rainy day" when it comes to resources.

Probably the Arabs have the right idea when it comes to oil, limit production to increase prices and at let the market decide whether they want to pay the price or move to other alternatives.
 
This is a bit of a side issue to the topic at hand and perhaps hearsay, but a political contact tells me that here in WA, power line repairs will no longer be done on total fire ban days.

This could conceivably mean local blackouts for several days or even weeks, if so.
 
Higher prices here to stay stays AEMO.



Although not mentioned in this article, there were reports on ABC TV that government owned entitities like Snowy Hydro and Qld coal generators reduced supply to increase prices.

Good video interview with Bruce Mountain who explains the situation well.


Surely this is not the behaviour we expect from OUR government, and it's about time they started acting for us , not themselves.
 
A I said, it doesn't take much to take the shine and enthusiasm off domestic solar installations.

Another issue will be, when the panels are removed will people bother replacing them, if they aren't subsidised? The labour cost alone these days will be high, the only person I know who has had any problems was the guy over the road his inverter broke and he wasn't going to bother fixing it until I suggested he check if it is still covered by warranty, which it was.
Next time it goes, or the panels fail, I'm sure it won't be repaired.
In W.A there is no more feed in tariff for new domestic solar installations , so I doubt there will be the same uptake as earlier, when feed in tariffs were reasonable.


From the article:
Household hesitancy appears to be driving the drop in solar uptake, with increases to both installation and general living costs potentially impacting consumer decisions.

According to the AEC, households are typically paying almost $1,000 more to install a system of the same size and capabilities in 2022 than that seen the year prior.
 
A I said, it doesn't take much to take the shine and enthusiasm off domestic solar installations.




From the article:
Household hesitancy appears to be driving the drop in solar uptake, with increases to both installation and general living costs potentially impacting consumer decisions.

According to the AEC, households are typically paying almost $1,000 more to install a system of the same size and capabilities in 2022 than that seen the year prior.
The obvious solution is for the government to subsidise the installation.
(With Lingua in maxilllan ).
Mick
 
The obvious solution is for the government to subsidise the installation.
(With Lingua in maxilllan ).
Mick
Already too many solar installations on houses. Government should be stopping all subsidies and there should be minimal payment only for supplying the grid.
 
there were reports on ABC TV that government owned entitities like Snowy Hydro and Qld coal generators reduced supply to increase prices.
Snowy has no choice.

It's either hike prices so as to keep production down to sustainable levels or suck the scheme dry with not a drop left, that being the outcome if they do nothing.

That's a fundamental problem with the market. It's designed to dispatch power but it's not designed to manage energy at all. That works in a 100% fossil fuel based system with unlimited fuel available but it fails when fuel is constrained and it fails even more as reliance on intermittent generation and storage increases.

It's a fundamental market design problem that an individual generating company can't legally get around by any means other than hiking price. :2twocents
 
Interesting video on pumped hydro, going through the principles and some of the proposed and underway projects.

 
Already too many solar installations on houses. Government should be stopping all subsidies and there should be minimal payment only for supplying the grid.
I'm pretty sure there is no payment at all, for supplying the grid in W.A, for new domestic solar installations.
I also agree with you, unless the domestic installation can stand on its own merit it is pointless to just endlessly subsidies it, because the grid will be dependant on it.
So it won't be sustainable, unless it makes sense for people to install it without subsidies, if it requires subsidies it just becomes another indirect tax.
The problem is as we have pointed out endlessly, the amount of solar/wind required to supply the load and charge the storage, is far more than it is economically viable for the private sector to put in on a cost base analysis.
So who puts it in?
The problem is in the past the generators were paid for what they generated and that was fine, because they start up plant and put it on line and get paid and then when it isn't required to be run they shut it down. Easy.

The problem in the future is, no one knows when they will be able to produce, some days are overcast and there is no wind, but people need power so that isn't acceptable.
So they need storage and lots of it, to get through every night and to supply the load the next day and to recharge the storage to get through the next night.
So everyone says that's easy just put in more storage and more solar and more wind generators.
But when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing you only need 1/3 of the supply that you needed during the bad days, who pays for all the power that is now being produced but isn't required and who decides who isn't going to get paid?
Because it cost them a lot of money, to put in that extra solar/wind and storage infrastructure, they want a return on capital.
Messy, messy, messy.:roflmao:
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure there is no payment at all, for supplying the grid in W.A, for new domestic solar installations.
I also agree with you, unless the domestic installation can stand on its own merit it is pointless to just endlessly subsidies it, because the grid will be dependant on it.
So it won't be sustainable, unless it makes sense for people to install it without subsidies, if it requires subsidies it just becomes another indirect tax.
The problem is as we have pointed out endlessly, the amount of solar/wind required to supply the load and charge the storage, is far more than it is economically viable for the private sector to put in on a cost base analysis.
So who puts it in?
The problem is in the past the generators were paid for what they generated and that was fine, because they start up plant and put it on line and get paid and then when it isn't required to be run they shut it down. Easy.

The problem in the future is, no one knows when they will be able to produce, some days are overcast and there is no wind, but people need power so that isn't acceptable.
So they need storage and lots of it, to get through every night and to supply the load the next day and to recharge the storage to get through the next night.
So everyone says that's easy just put in more storage and more solar and more wind generators.
But when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing you only need 1/3 of the supply that you needed during the bad days, who pays for all the power that is now being produced but isn't required and who decides who isn't going to get paid?
Because it cost them a lot of money, to put in that extra solar/wind and storage infrastructure, they want a return on capital.
Messy, messy, messy.:roflmao:
Yes, messy. Needs planning.

The major solar plant pays for itself without subsidies which is why a state like Texas has so much privately owned solar grid power installed.
 
Yes, messy. Needs planning.

The major solar plant pays for itself without subsidies which is why a state like Texas has so much privately owned solar grid power installed.
It only pays when it can sell all it supplies, the problem isn't that, the problem is all the extra capacity you need that isn't required, sorry Knobby but you don't seem to be understanding the underlying problem. The U.S is a massive interconnected grid, your East Coast is a massive sized, lightly loaded, extremely stretched, centralised generational supplied taxpayer subsidised spider web. ?

 
It only pays when it can sell all it supplies, the problem isn't that, the problem is all the extra capacity you need that isn't required, sorry Knobby but you don't seem to be understanding the underlying problem. The U.S is a massive interconnected grid, your East Coast is a massive sized, lightly loaded, extremely stretched, centralised generational supplied taxpayer subsidised spider web. ?

Yea, needs planning.
 
Yea, needs planning.
As Rumpy said it needs more than planning, planning is about putting in place things that make things fit, this is way beyond that and is what is causing all the problems.
There needs to be a whole humungous amount of $hit installed that isn't going to make money, but it will be green, who pays for that humungous amount of $hit is where the last Government and this Government came to an impasse.
The last Government was chucked out because they wanted the private sector to sort it out and pay for it, this Government has to work out how they can fulfil the promise of putting it in without costing the consumer a massive cost increase.
It will be interesting IMO, to me it is looking like another NBN, the taxpayer pays for all the backbone and the privates jump in and charge you guys more for supplying what you already have. At least you will be able to sit huddled around a scented candle, back patting.
Thankfully I live in W.A. :xyxthumbs
Hopefully everyone comes to their senses and calls a halt to the stampede, take a breath and get everyone to settle down and workout a sensible path based on technical and logistical constraints, with engineering, logistical and planning taking the precedent.
But that wont happen. :roflmao:
 
Last edited:
As Rumpy said it needs more than planning, planning is about putting in place things that make things fit, this is way beyond that and is what is causing all the problems.
There needs to be a whole humungous amount of $hit installed that isn't going to make money, but it will be green, who pays for that humungous amount of $hit is where the last Government and this Government came to an impasse.
The last Government was chucked out because they wanted the private sector to sort it out and pay for it, this Government has to work out how they can fulfil the promise of putting it in without costing the consumer a massive cost increase.
It will be interesting IMO, to me it is looking like another NBN, the taxpayer pays for all the backbone and the privates jump in and charge you guys more for supplying what you already have. At least you will be able to sit huddled around a scented candle, back patting.
Thankfully I live in W.A. :xyxthumbs
It should work out cheaper as long as the rent seekers don't get there way.
 
Top