The money is in the batteries, quick to put in, fast payback, not in long term storage that takes years to pay for itself, that's why the Govt's have to do it.
They will soon change their minds when people are sitting in the dark with the food in the fridge going off. Lol
Hydro was built years ago Snowy and Tasmania, plus the DC link.
www.abc.net.au
Given that you say new fossil fud, plants are being built and we are running out of gas, can you comment on the cost/benefit factors of supercritical coal plants?Looking at this issue and trying to be politically neutral, as a series of brief points:
If we wanted to build a 100% renewable energy system then technically it's doable but, to do it practically and economically, does rely on what could generically be termed hydro megaprojects. That is, short duration storage in the form of batteries and small hydro schemes using old quarries etc isn't sufficient - that approach can be done technically but at huge cost.
Hydro megaprojects - primarily in Queensland, NSW and Tasmania. Far less but not zero in Victoria and basically no opportunity in SA (though SA does have viable sites for shorter duration storage which as a role to play).
On the climate issue, within the industry most seem to broadly accept the concept but consider the issue overstated. They accept the concept since common sense says altering the atmosphere would bring consequences and because science supports that notion. They consider it overstated due to the politics - if it were as serious as claimed then mainstream environmentalism would be campaigning for hydro and nuclear not against them. The basic thinking being environmentalists ought know about the environment and they clearly don't have climate at the top of the list of concerns, it's third place at best.
Which brings us to what's actually happening.
On one hand quite a few people and organisations have attempted to come up with a workable "100% renewable" plan in the Australian context and, on paper at least, a number of them actually have devised a plan. Disclosure that I'm one of them.
On the other hand we have the practical reality that, in practice, we're not doing "100% renewable" and we're not actually doing "net zero by 2050" either. Politicians can waffle on all they like, I'm not sure who they think they're fooling, but everyone from engineers and energy company CEO's to suburban electricians and plumbers doing domestic work know full well it's not on track. Some aspects are going too slowly, others are outright stalled completely. That's the harsh reality of it.
At present there's about 20 separate projects for new fossil fuel based electricity generation under active consideration, not including Kurri Kurri and Tallawarra B both of which are presently under construction.
Without naming it, I'll add that physical site works have commenced on one of two of those projects and one's well advanced, there's zero chance it's not being built despite not being formally announced as such.
Three of those projects, including one that has commenced site works, are coal based. 12 are gas based, including the one that's well advanced, and the other 5 are unspecified fuels (eg petroleum liquids or multi-fuel plant).
Separate to those, there's also 5 or so based on biomass combustion, including one that has a physical site already owned by the company. Biomass is of course renewable but certainly not without environmental impact and ongoing cost.
Not all of those fossil and biomass projects will go ahead to be clear but point is, more than a few companies have realised the situation. The time for "good" options is running out and it seems unlikely there's going to be a change of track. That being so, there's at least some ongoing future in fossil fuels whether anyone likes it or not and that includes building new capacity (declaration of bias - personally I'm not at all keen on this outcome).
Now about those plumbers and electricians at the pointy end of what's being installed at the consumer level. Ask and they'll all tell you the same - pretty much every new house gets the same basic setup and here in SA that means ducted reverse cycle A/C, electric oven, gas or less commonly induction cooktop and, the big problem, a gas water heater located such as to preclude straightforward replacement with electric. That water heating alone sinks "net zero", we're locking in gas use for a very long time to come with these new builds. Then there's design of the building itself typically paying little regard to energy efficiency, but that's another story....
Meanwhile lurking in the background of all this is a steadily ageing generation fleet and declining gas production. On the subject of the latter, for Longford gas plant capacity during winter 2022 was about 1040 TJ / day, this year about 825 TJ / day has been the limit and for 2024 it's forecast at 700 TJ / day. So gradually coming down as the Gippsland Basin (Bass Strait) fields decline. Also some smaller declines elsewhere eg the ending of production in the Sydney Basin and a bit of decline in the Otway.
Then there's the weather and this may turn out to be significant. In short the Bureau of Meteorology outlook is quite strongly biased toward warmer and dryer than average conditions across practically the entire country over the coming months.
Put all that together and we're heading for some sort of reckoning. On one hand we've got an ageing generation fleet and insufficient progress building any sort form of replacement. On the other hand action on climate change has thus far largely been "fake it 'till you make it". Meanwhile the weather outlook, if correct, will put both to the test - putting electricity supply under pressure whilst at the same time likely swinging pubic sentiment toward demanding actual action on climate not just words. Meanwhile we're running out of gas in several states.
I don't intend that as doom and gloom, just a summary of where it's at really. You can only keep talking for so long, a point comes where action not words is what counts, and on every measure the action is lacking. That's not a political comment to be clear - this problem goes back decades under governments of both major parties and with the full backing of various minor parties and others. Time's just about up for the charade though, real action is required on all fronts going forward.
Realising that my previous post may have been a bit confusing, I should clarify that they're proposals and nothing more. I emphasise that point - proposals not commitments.
Wonder how long it will be before they force those still on gas to exit that energy source.
When they have enough generation capacity to cover the change over, so it will be a long time yet. ?
I fully agree but the key thing is, none of this is new. Hydro-electricity having been in use for 145 years now and has always been in the top 3 sources of electricity globally.
Yes, I admit, we are talking to the wrong audience, it's the politicians not ASF members who need to be convinced.I fully agree but the key thing is, none of this is new. Hydro-electricity having been in use for 145 years now and has always been in the top 3 sources of electricity globally.
Pumped storage is slightly newer, but reversible pump turbines have been around about 90 years now and earlier attempts using separate pumps date back to the early 1900's.
Now here's a chart of wind and solar generation in Victoria over the past day:
View attachment 160406
So we're at 9 hours and counting with minimal output, and 8 hours and counting with practically no output at all.
Now here's the 30 days to 31 July (inclusive):
View attachment 160405
Quite simply renewables can work but the amount of storage required is measured in days or even weeks, it's not measured in minutes or a couple of hours, and with present technology that leaves us with one option only at reasonable cost - large scale hydro.
Plus a strong transmission network to tie the whole thing together and achieve geographic diversity of generation. Putting wind and solar a long way away from where they're used is exactly what we want if the aim is reliability. Because extreme weather tends to be at least somewhat localised - scattering the generation around smooths it out somewhat.
Plus on-river hydro is the practical fix for the seasonal problem of heating loads in cooler climates coinciding with low solar yield. It just so happens that the very conditions that are bad for solar, clouds, tend to produce rain which benefits hydro. Excellent.
Now I say that fully aware that all of this runs straight head on into an ideological barrier and that's why I mention it. If as a society we can't come to grips with what's required, if we can't agree to break some eggs, then we'd better be hoping climate science is wrong because otherwise we're cooked.
That the lights are on in Victoria without wind or solar comes down to three things. Coal, hydro, gas in that order. If we want to ditch the coal and gas, we're going to have to get serious about hydro. Very serious.
With regard to the ongoing discussion about climate change, be it on this forum or elsewhere, I'll simply say this. There's no point bleating about climate if you're not willing to do what's necessary to fix it. Or in other words, if you're not willing to accept that big wind, solar, hydro and transmission projects are needed and that we're doing to have to break some eggs to get them built then you're not really in favour of stopping the use of fossil fuels. And if you think it's urgent enough that we need "net zero" within the next 20 years, well that means we really don't have time to mess about - a "wartime" approach is required.
That's not saying we ought dam the lot and cover the rest in solar panels, but quite simply the scale of what's required and the available resources mean some painful decisions need to be taken and sacrifices made. Either that or we carry on emitting CO2.
Politically it's all really quite strange. It's hard to see why the Coalition would oppose building wind, solar, hydro and transmission given that mostly means jobs and development in regional areas aka Nationals heartland. It's likewise hard to see why the Greens would rationally oppose such things, given the supposed urgency of the climate issue they'd logically grit their teeth and accept some carefully chosen loss of land and scenery etc as a necessary consequence of saving the planet. As for Labor, well the supposed "workers' party" would want jobs for workers wouldn't it? All this means rather a lot of those.
Trouble is, politics seems more intent on perpetual conflict than on fixing the problem.
Wind + Solar + Hydro + Batteries + Transmission.
Whether you believe in Climate Change, is in some ways , not the whole argument.Wind + Solar + Hydro + Batteries + Transmission.
Individually none are up to the task but put them all together and we have a fully functional, working system to not only replace existing fossil fuel electricity generation but to allow greatly increased load. That is, switch from gas to electricity in homes and business, electrify transport and so on and put all that plus the existing electrical load onto a fully renewable electricity system.
Technically it's doable. A lot of complexity but it can be done.
Economically it's affordable if we're clever and focus on picking the best options subject to meeting the technical criteria.
We don't need to dam every last creek and run a transmission line through every National Park although if it's to work then we can't avoid a few sacrifices there. But it's doable without wrecking the place and if we consider what's at stake with the climate issue well I'll argue that electrical infrastructure getting in the way of the view of the scenery is by far the lesser of the available evils. Not ideal, but it beats the alternatives.
In terms of the need for storage and transmission well there's 436MW of wind and solar going to waste between Vic and SA right at this moment. It's surplus to what can be used locally and the lines are maxed out to NSW and Tas. That's one reason why investors are losing enthusiasm - there's no point building if it's going to go to waste, that really kills the economics.
The problem with the ALP as I've said before, they have great big picture ideas, it's the implementation they fall down on.
Indeed - as I've often reminded people, the limits to oil and gas in particular was the original energy problem. It's why it became an issue in the first place.
I wouldn't mind a dollar, for how many times we have said that in this thread over the years. Lol
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
