The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Yes, the boilers would be getting tired.
They must be hoping on some big projects getting finished in the near future.

And then the next day this, it just shows how the road to hell is littered with good intent.
Conflicting objectives will make it a slow progress, which is why making timelines and grandiose statements always come back to bite you on the butt, ask anyone who has run large construction projects.

 

[sptrawler]

Not a lot of noise from the loonies, who do they blame for the reality now, hopefully it makes more people actually think about the issues more deeply and less emotionally .

Where there’s smoke there’s ... NSW Labor preparing us for coalkeeper

The only thing that upsets climate and energy ministers more than the risk of climate change is the threat of blackouts, so get used to more coal.

www.smh.com.au

 

[SirRumpole]

If they want net zero by 2035 or whenever then they just have to fast track the approval process and get the stuff built instead of letting every environmental/cultural group drag out the process.

 

[Smurf1976]

If they want net zero by 2035 or whenever then they just have to fast track the approval process and get the stuff built instead of letting every environmental/cultural group drag out the process.

Renewables of all forms supplied 8.0% of Australia's total energy in 2020-21 with that including wood, bagasse, wind, solar both as electricity and as heat, hydro, ethanol, biodiesel, biomethane etc.

I really don't think the general public is grasping the sheer scale of what's required to get to a totally or even predominantly renewable energy supply. It's doable but we're not talking about choosing where to put a wind farm here, rather it's a case of putting lots of them in lots of places with the key criteria being the wind resource.

In practice we'll almost certainly see slow progress and ongoing politics for decades to come. 30 years from now there'll still be people arguing that we should get to net zero - still arguing because we won't have achieved it in that time with the approach being taken.

It's either consultation, impact studies and all the rest or alternatively it's getting it done.

 

[sptrawler]

Just to support @Smurf1976 and his summation, this article explains the enormity of the issues, the problem is the politicians and the media are presenting it as if it can be done in a very short period, when in reality as smurf said it will take years.
This is an explanation of the issues the U.K have.

 

[SirRumpole]

Just to support @Smurf1976 and his summation, this article explains the enormity of the issues, the problem is the politicians and the media are presenting it as if it can be done in a very short period, when in reality as smurf said it will take years.
This is an explanation of the issues the U.K have.

View attachment 162122

The UK is proposing 8 new nuclear reactors.

Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production

The government wants to boost UK energy production and independence as household bills soar.

www.bbc.com

 

[sptrawler]

The UK is proposing 8 new nuclear reactors.

Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production

The government wants to boost UK energy production and independence as household bills soar.

www.bbc.com

I'm sure they aren't just putting them in, because they feel like spending the money, as your article says they also want to produce H2 to decarbonise the transport sector.
IMO having nuclear as firming capacity and then using it to produce H2 when it isn't required for firming, makes perfect sense.
The cost to provide the firming if you don't use nuclear and the extra emissions for alternatives, has to weighed up against the higher initial cost of nuclear.
I guess it depends how serious you are and what the alternatives are, the U.K is a different proposition to Australia, bigger load, smaller area available and worse climate.

 

[SirRumpole]

I guess it depends how serious you are and what the alternatives are, the U.K is a different proposition to Australia, bigger load, smaller area available and worse climate.

And nuclear submarines and weapons to feed.

 

[sptrawler]

And nuclear submarines and weapons to feed.

I'm not looking from that perspective, just from a basic energy flow scenario, what weapons people build and use is really a generational thing IMO.

Who knows what the next weapons will be biological/ ecological, A.I, high power space mounted lasers, weaponised viruses?

Our generation just focus on nuclear because it is in our lived history, in WW1 they were amazed and in awe of aeroplanes and tanks.

I'm sure there will be more effective and selective weapons than nuclear bombs developed, the real problem with nuclear bombs is, you blow the crap out of a place but you can't go there or use the land for years.
Much better to develop less intrusive weapons, ones that kill the people but don't leave a long lasting residual.

At the moment the main problem apparently is global warming, to not take the most direct route to decarbonising would be stupid, especially if your issue is they may make weapons with the waste because that could kill everyone.

When supposedly everyone will be killed if we don't get on top of global warming, it seems like a ridiculous argument.

IMO the fastest way to decarbonise, is to replace the fossil fuel with a clean electrically derived alternative, that means making the maximum clean energy as fast as possible with current technology.

IMO that means nuclear to provide firming and continue installing renewables as fast as humanly possible, then as the renewable generation place a greater and greater role, the nuclear continues producing hydrogen to replace fuel in heavy transport, until such time as there is enough renewables installed to close the nuclear plants and run on pure renewables.

IMO any other pathway will take way too long to install enough generation capacity to have the desired result in the available time frame.

Of course even the nuclear path really is dependent on getting the manufacturing of small modular reactors up and running, if they don't I really don't think they will decarbonise ever on a World scale, some countries like Australia will probably achieve it but we wot have a competitive manufacturing base by then and I think it will probably send us broke due to cost and having a unreliable electrical supply.

Time will tell, but even Australia has a hell of a long way to go and on a World scale we are miniscule.

 

[IFocus]

And nuclear submarines and weapons to feed.

Yep nuclear power is just a spin off from making weapons grade material or cover for making weapons grade material.

Realistically if Australia doesn't go nuclear weapons (will never happen we can't process ) nuclear will never add up cost wise.

 

[basilio]

Came across this Australian technology offering a simple path to creating and more importantly storing renewable energy.
Its operational and has big partners as customers for its technology. All the technology is well sorted and cheap to manufacture.

Just as importantly the processes are based on 1mw modules which can be easily replicated. Makes individual construction far simpler.

The Australian solar tech that may have found a low cost solution to deep storage

Australian concentrated solar tech is about to get rolled out on a massive scale after latching on to a simple and low cost solution for deep storage.

reneweconomy.com.au

Technology - Renewable Energy Storage | Solar Power Technology | RayGen

raygen.com

 

[basilio]

This is another initiative that will enable large scale production and storage of solar power on the vast roof areas of commercial warehouses and factories.

Massive solar and battery deal promises to cut commercial energy costs in half

A $500 million deal will install 50MW of solar and 300MWh of battery storage across ESR Australia’s commercial property portfolio by 2033.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

This is another initiative that will enable large scale production and storage of solar power on the vast roof areas of commercial warehouses and factories.

I'll be cautious without knowing the full details but one problem with a lot of such projects is they save the customer money not by genuinely reducing cost but by shifting it.

That is, the saving is based not simply on the energy generated but on avoiding network charges the customer would otherwise pay. Trouble is, there's no actual cost saving for the network and someone has to pick up the tab.

As a concept that's essentially the same as a scheme to make big profits via some (legal) arrangement that avoids paying tax. For the individual it works nicely but for society as a whole it's just shuffling money from one to another.

The eventual solution at some point will almost certainly be fixed network charges payable regardless of actual usage. There'll be a lot of yelling and screaming, there sure was when Tasmania tried it 28 years ago, but ultimately it's the fix for that problem. Bearing in mind that numerous other industries have already adopted that approach - mobile phones, internet, car registration, practically all common forms of insurance, council rates, rental leases, hotels and even things like gyms and swimming pools. They're all a case of a flat fee for the service regardless of the amount of actual use.

That's not to say solar's a bad idea, only that its true value is in the energy produced and that's it. It might enable someone to avoid paying for the network, but it's not reducing the cost of it - they're still connected and in most cases will still have the same or similar peak demand on it.

 

[SirRumpole]

The eventual solution at some point will almost certainly be fixed network charges payable regardless of actual usage. The

Don't we already have this ? There is a "daily supply" item on my bill which is a fixed charge regardless of usage.

 

[basilio]

Came across this website today. I read a couple of exceptionally good articles and thought it might be of interest to people in the business of exploring/developing renewable energy solutions and policy.

The business page section highlights how business is evolving and adapting for sustainability in a new energy economy

Business – FORESIGHT

foresightdk.com

Markets​

Design, operation and management of energy markets based on renewables and greater efficiency

Markets – FORESIGHT

foresightdk.com

 

[sptrawler]

Don't we already have this ? There is a "daily supply" item on my bill which is a fixed charge regardless of usage.

It is called different names in dofferent States, but basically it is all the other charges, other than actual usage.
Those other charges are the ones that will increase
In W.A from memory the supply charge doubled when McGowan took office, but the report in the media was that on average peoples bills will increase by approx 12%.
It sounds so much better, than saying your supply charge is being doubled, but as smurf says, it is the only option the Government has.

 

[IFocus]

Mean while back at the farm

Barnaby Joyce raises eyebrows over net-zero ructions - Michael West

Questions have been raised about the feasibility of Barnaby Joyce’s shadow cabinet spot if he doesn’t toe the line on net-zero. The Liberals and Nationals agreed to a net-zero emissions by 2050 policy in a deal brokered by Mr Joyce, when he was leader, and then-prime minister Scott Morrison in...

michaelwest.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

Don't we already have this ? There is a "daily supply" item on my bill which is a fixed charge regardless of usage.

We do but in most states it's not enough.

The traditional model of electricity utilities was to recover part of the fixed network costs via a fixed supply charge and the rest via higher consumption prices than would otherwise be the case.

That worked in the past but it doesn't really work in a world where large numbers of consumers can and actually are generating a portion of their own supply meanwhile it's desirable to encourage a shift from other fuels, notably gas, to electricity for environmental reasons. Trying to recover fixed costs via variable consumption ends up shooting everyone in the foot rather badly since it ends up with escalating prices and an incentive to stick with gas etc.

Ultimately the recovery of fixed costs will need to be separated from consumption charging but politically it's a minefield. That said, well there's plenty of people paying $2 or even $3 per day for communications on a fixed basis and there's no outcry.....

 

[SirRumpole]

Labor's chance to boost Australian manufacturing.

The reason why Australia's two wind tower producers have no orders

Wind tower producers are calling for supply mandates to ensure Australian businesses do not lose out to cheaper overseas alternatives during procurement rounds for energy developments.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

Labor's chance to boost Australian manufacturing.

The reason why Australia's two wind tower producers have no orders

Wind tower producers are calling for supply mandates to ensure Australian businesses do not lose out to cheaper overseas alternatives during procurement rounds for energy developments.

www.abc.net.au

It was as recently as 2009 that we closed down our solar panel manufacturing, why would there be a complete change in the way we do things? That isn't the way Australia rolls, we buy manufactured goods from overseas and send the raw materials there so they can make the goods, that's our job.
The funny part is, it all happened on Labor's watch, go figure.
Where's the narrative, when you need it? It was still going on about 'work choices' which had already been thrown out, same as it still is today.
It's time people focused on our financial future and our kids living standards, rather than cherry picking issues and actually doing nothing to stem our slide into a 3rd world nation and both sides of politics are responsible.

This article is from 2012, when the Governments were paying feed in tariffs for people to put rooftop solar on their houses.

Silex Systems closes Homebush solar PV manufacturing plant

Silex says the mothballed plant to be permanently closed because it can no longer compete against cheap Chinese imports.

reneweconomy.com.au

Silex Systems has abandoned plans to revive its solar panel manufacturing plant in Sydney’s Olymic Park, and has announced its immediate closure and decommissioning.

Silex bought the then mothballed plant from BP Solar for $6.5 million in 2009, but ceased production of solar cells in August last year as part of a restructuring. It then mothballed the module manufacturing again in November, but after resuming limited production in February, it has now decided to cut its losses after trading conditions failed to improve.

Goldsworthy said SilexSolar will continue to progress some commercial-scale project work already underway, and will also continue to support existing installed product warranties, but he sounded downbeat about the future of that part of the business.
“It’s still a price driven business, it’s pretty difficult to compete,” he told RenewEconomy. He noted the US anti-dumping action against Chinese manufacturers and said the same thing should happen here.

Goldsworthy told RenewEconomy in February that the company was working on numerous opportunities, including a possible bid into the ACT Government’s large scale solar auction. He would not comment on the result of that bid, although it is thought Silex did not make the shortlist of bidders.
Around 100 people may have lost their jobs all told. The August closure resulted in the loss of about 30 manufacturing jobs, while suspension of the panel manufacturing caused another 45 workers to be retrenched. Around 20 people remained employees of SilexSolar


In 2009, the ACT Government established a scheme for payments to ACT households and businesses generating renewable electricity. This was established under the Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Act 2008 (the Act). This is referred to as the Small and Medium Feed-in Tariff Scheme.