The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Following on from the above post, now the missus has run out of jobs for me.
Why I think it needs to be debated now, even though it isn't probable at this point in time, a lot of decisions as to where things are put will have a long term consequence.

For example if it does become feasible, cost effective and practical to have small reactors, where would it be sensible to put them with regard interfacing them in the grid, for system security, complimenting the renewables and also with an eye to water supply for the reactors.

Then if there is an arbitrary decision to the location of transmission lines, solar/ wind farms, consideration for the future location of a reactor could be thrown into the thought and decision process, it may make no difference at the moment, but in years to come it may save a huge amount of extra cost and time if they actually do need to be installed. If there is no extra cost, why not?

Doing the preliminary groundwork at this early stage makes a huge amount of sense IMO, it may save a lot of money, heartache and public backlash, if the discussions are held now.

I think it would be a master stroke by Bowen, to actually assemble a forum of experts from all the relevant fields and get a genuine discussion and learned consensus on the issue, at this point in time.
It would show a huge amount maturity and objectivity on the issue as he still continues along the chosen path, but also negates the nuclear issue as it is allowed for in contingency planning.

Again all just my thoughts, I'm obviously bored, holiday in 3 weeks.

Yes it should be out in the open and debated with a neutral moderator. Something the ABC used to do.

 

[mullokintyre]

Lets be clear on what the AEMO and the market movers and shakers are on about.
As always, follow the money.
From Evil Murdoch press

Energy companies have won a critical battle with the country’s market regulator over household and business bills as authorities move to prop-up a national reference price, a move that will bolster corporate margins.
The Australian earlier this year revealed how a spate of energy companies had urged the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) to change how it calculates the default market offer, the annual prices households and businesses pay, to reflect the surge in rooftop solar that is distorting the market.

In a win for the industry, The Australian understands that the AER has indicated to the sector that it will tweak the formula, a change that will likely lead to a higher default market offer than what would have been delivered without any alteration.

The AER did not comment specifically when contacted by The Australian.

“We are currently working through the DMO [2024/25] determination process, considering the issues as set out in our issues paper. We are always considering the impact of the changing market when we set prices. This year we have access to new customer consumption data (interval meter data. This enables us to consider new options for representing usage patterns in our model,” said an AER spokesman.

The default market offer is calculated annually; the AER considers the wholesale cost of electricity, the toll of transporting electricity and the cost of compliance with government rules and regulations.

Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

Lets be clear on what the AEMO and the market movers and shakers are on about.
As always, follow the money.
From Evil Murdoch press

Mick

That just convinces me that governments have to do more in this area to curb the greed of the corporations.

 

[sptrawler]

That just convinces me that governments have to do more in this area to curb the greed of the corporations.

Just another display of the failings of privatisation, the Govt need the generators and the generators want to maximise profit, tax payers creamed yet again.

 

[sptrawler]

I just cant get away from the feeling Australia is being played, I can't see how whoever puts in the renewables required gets sufficient return on equity.
It will be interesting IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another (hopefully) near miss coming up later today, Sunday 10th March in SA and Vic.

SA:
Demand = 2879MW
Capacity = 2723MW
Time of peak = 19:00

Vic:
Demand = 8770MW
Capacity = 9039MW
Time of peak = 18:00

Noting all time is actually Queensland time, that's the industry standard approach for consistency. So that is 19:00 local time in Vic and its 19:30 local time in SA.

The lights should stay on, and there's always transmission from Tas and NSW into Vic, but still it's reasonably tight, there's not a lot of room for anything to go wrong.

 

[farmerge]

Another (hopefully) near miss coming up later today, Sunday 10th March in SA and Vic.

SA:
Demand = 2879MW
Capacity = 2723MW
Time of peak = 19:00

Vic:
Demand = 8770MW
Capacity = 9039MW
Time of peak = 18:00

Noting all time is actually Queensland time, that's the industry standard approach for consistency. So that is 19:00 local time in Vic and its 19:30 local time in SA.

The lights should stay on, and there's always transmission from Tas and NSW into Vic, but still it's reasonably tight, there's not a lot of room for anything to go wrong.

Rather glad that
a) I am residing here in WA,
b) don't have any problem with electricity supply unless there is a break in the transmission,
c) we have a substantial roof top solar set-up so power is not a priority on the worry list.

 

[SirRumpole]

Liquid air energy storage revisited.

Projects are going ahead, including in Australia.

 

[basilio]

Liquid air energy storage revisited.

Projects are going ahead, including in Australia.

Exciting story. Proven, clean, simple, scalable technology that offers cost effective longer term energy back up to renewable energy systems.
I particularly liked the introduction where Farrel throws up a graph outlining how the different technologies line up with regard to cost and capacity to provide back up energy for renewable energy systems.

 

[basilio]

Peter Dutton wants to bring the Nuclear Option back into political discussion in Australia.

I can totally understand his position. Given that such a big change in direction as well as costing a very big chunk of the public purse perhaps we should have plebisite to allow the Opposition to fully explain/cost its argument and gain support for its view. It could be held next election day. One thing it would do would be separating voting for a new government from agreeing to a very big change in public policy and energy direction. Two simple questions .

1) Do you support removing Australia’s ban on civilian nuclear energy?

2) Would you support a nuclear generator in your local area?

The idea is explored here

Peter Dutton wanted a plebiscite on marriage equality. Why not hold another on his nuclear fantasy? | Paul Karp

What better way to test if Australians are up for nuclear energy than by asking them: Do you support removing the current ban? Would you support a reactor in your area?

www.theguardian.com

 

[SirRumpole]

I particularly liked the introduction where Farrel throws up a graph

That's actually a guy called Dave Borlance from "Just have a think", Matt Farrell is on "Undecided", both are good sources of information.

 

[basilio]

That's actually a guy called Dave Borlance from "Just have a think", Matt Farrell is on "Undecided", both are good sources of information.

Oops. My bad.

 

[sptrawler]

Peter Dutton wants to bring the Nuclear Option back into political discussion in Australia.

I can totally understand his position. Given that such a big change in direction as well as costing a very big chunk of the public purse perhaps we should have plebisite to allow the Opposition to fully explain/cost its argument and gain support for its view. It could be held next election day. One thing it would do would be separating voting for a new government from agreeing to a very big change in public policy and energy direction. Two simple questions .

1) Do you support removing Australia’s ban on civilian nuclear energy?

2) Would you support a nuclear generator in your local area?

The idea is explored here

Peter Dutton wanted a plebiscite on marriage equality. Why not hold another on his nuclear fantasy? | Paul Karp

What better way to test if Australians are up for nuclear energy than by asking them: Do you support removing the current ban? Would you support a reactor in your area?

www.theguardian.com

It always amuses me that there always has to be a rider with plebisites.

Why not just:
1) Do you support removing Australia’s ban on civilian nuclear energy?

Too simple ?

Everything has to be loaded.

Maybe ask on the same plebisite:

1. Do you support windfarms?

2. Would you support having a turbine in your back yard?

 

[basilio]

It always amuses me that there always has to be a rider with plebisites.

Why not just:
1) Do you support removing Australia’s ban on civilian nuclear energy?

Too simple ?

Everything has to be loaded.

Maybe ask on the same plebisite:

1. Do you support windfarms?

2. Would you support having a turbine in your back yard?

The Plebiscite on Nuclear Energy ? This would be about making a radical new change to our current energy direction. I could see the point of asking such a question as both a general idea and getting further feedback on how people would view such a power station within their local region.

As far as wind farms go ? They are already up running and proven. That horse his getting ready for the next race.

 

[mullokintyre]

The Plebiscite on Nuclear Energy ? This would be about making a radical new change to our current energy direction. I could see the point of asking such a question as both a general idea and getting further feedback on how people would view such a power station within their local region.

As far as wind farms go ? They are already up running and proven. That horse his getting ready for the next race.

Well Nuclear energy is also up and running, just not in Australia.
According to world Nuclear org

• About 60 reactors are under construction across the world. A further 110 are planned.
• Most reactors under construction or planned are in Asia.
• New plants coming online in recent years have largely been balanced by old plants being retired. Over the past 20 years, 107 reactors were retired as 100 started operation.

Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe.
In 2022 these provided 2545 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity.
According to Statista.com, wind power provided about the 7.3% of power during the same year.
And the beauty of Nuclear is that it goes 24 hours a day seven days a week and requires no firming backup.

Mick

 

[sptrawler]

Well Nuclear energy is also up and running, just not in Australia.
According to world Nuclear org

• About 60 reactors are under construction across the world. A further 110 are planned.
• Most reactors under construction or planned are in Asia.
• New plants coming online in recent years have largely been balanced by old plants being retired. Over the past 20 years, 107 reactors were retired as 100 started operation.

Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe.
In 2022 these provided 2545 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity.
According to Statista.com, wind power provided about the 7.3% of power during the same year.
And the beauty of Nuclear is that it goes 24 hours a day seven days a week and requires no firming backup.

View attachment 172937

Mick

Jeezuz Mick don't state the obvious, the narrative is at work. Lol
They don't even mention we are going to have nuclear reactors sitting in Sydney harbour and they aren't saying anything about that, loonies can't even string a logical argument together, but that's the media. Lol

It will be interesting if the two questions end up being.
1 Do you want nuclear power or 2. Do you want rolling blackouts at least then the ideological BS would stop.

I don't think we will need nuclear power, but to put your head in the sand over it is crazy, just mindless behaviour.
All aspects of power generation and distribution need to be considered on their merit, not on the recomendation of loonies, both left and right.

 

[Smurf1976]

1) Do you support removing Australia’s ban on civilian nuclear energy?

2) Would you support a nuclear generator in your local area?

The big problem I see with this isn't the consideration of nuclear energy but that it's going even further down the track of having what ought be professional decisions informed by engineering, science (including environmental), economics, etc be made instead by laypeople with no real knowledge.

There'd be a very large portion of the population that couldn't even identify what is and isn't a suitable site for location of a nuclear facility in a purely technical sense without even considering the rest.

Where all this has gone wrong is simply that the blind are leading the sighted. We've shifted from an energy planning approach lead by experts to one lead by populist politics.

Same goes for various other things eg transport, water, housing, building standards and so on. Those who actually know what they're doing have been sidelined by politicians with at best a theoretical understanding and in most cases not even that. Hence we now have buildings crumbling, major road projects that result in traffic debacles and so on.

Meanwhile in twist that can only be described as comedy, the same politicians extol the virtues of higher education. Had they a little more of that themselves, they'd realise there's not much point having highly educated people if you're simply going to ignore what they say in their field of expertise in favour of what some activist or academic from an unrelated field says on the subject...

Now realise this isn't limited to energy, it's across the board on a wide range of subjects. We're being lead by fools meanwhile the experts stand there shaking their head in dismay. Ultimately this denial of reality is not how success is achieved, it's not how we remain a First World country or innovate and fix problems. Rather, it's how we become Argentina.

 

[sptrawler]

ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT @Smurf1976

 

[sptrawler]

The big problem I see with this isn't the consideration of nuclear energy but that it's going even further down the track of having what ought be professional decisions informed by engineering, science (including environmental), economics, etc be made instead by laypeople with no real knowledge.

There'd be a very large portion of the population that couldn't even identify what is and isn't a suitable site for location of a nuclear facility in a purely technical sense without even considering the rest.

Where all this has gone wrong is simply that the blind are leading the sighted. We've shifted from an energy planning approach lead by experts to one lead by populist politics.

Same goes for various other things eg transport, water, housing, building standards and so on. Those who actually know what they're doing have been sidelined by politicians with at best a theoretical understanding and in most cases not even that. Hence we now have buildings crumbling, major road projects that result in traffic debacles and so on.

Meanwhile in twist that can only be described as comedy, the same politicians extol the virtues of higher education. Had they a little more of that themselves, they'd realise there's not much point having highly educated people if you're simply going to ignore what they say in their field of expertise in favour of what some activist or academic from an unrelated field says on the subject...

Now realise this isn't limited to energy, it's across the board on a wide range of subjects. We're being lead by fools meanwhile the experts stand there shaking their head in dismay. Ultimately this denial of reality is not how success is achieved, it's not how we remain a First World country or innovate and fix problems. Rather, it's how we become Argentina.

Slightly off topic, but does highlight what you are saying @Smurf1976 where common sense and expert advice, hits up against political fiddling.
It sounds like there is a real mess going on with Sydney traffic.

Harbour Bridge two-way toll needed to fix Rozelle Interchange: Allan Fels

The former competition watchdog chairman warns the $6.7 billion Western Harbour Tunnel is at risk of becoming a white elephant.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
The author of a major review of Sydney’s toll road network says a failure to introduce two-way fares for the Sydney Harbour Bridge will lead to worse traffic congestion after the Western Harbour Tunnel opens.

Former competition watchdog chairman Allan Fels warned that keeping one-way tolling on the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel risked turning the $6.7 billion Western Harbour Tunnel into a potential white elephant.
Fels’ proposed shake-up of Sydney’s roads would see two-way tolls introduced on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Tunnel, as well as the Eastern Distributor to help lower fees across the rest of the network.

Recommendations in the review – commissioned by the Minns government – released last week, would see 74 per cent of motorists in Sydney pay either less or the same amount on tolls if subsidies were used.

In an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, Fels said introducing two-way tolling was not only an issue of “fairness” but also the “function” of Sydney’s road network after the opening of the $6.7 billion Western Harbour Tunnel in 2028.

Once complete, the new tunnel will connect drivers between the Warringah Freeway and Rozelle Interchange.

Because it will allow motorists travelling between the north and west to bypass the CBD, the tunnel is expected to ease congestion on the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel and, crucially, the Anzac Bridge and Rozelle Interchange.

However, the new tunnel will be tolled in both directions. That, Fels said, means that leaving a one-way charge on the Harbour Bridge would lead to a “significant distortion” of traffic and discourage motorists from using the new western crossing.

“If it remains free to cross to the north on the bridge and the tunnel, it will cause quite a bit of congestion,” he said.
“Instead of using the new nice tunnel that we quite want people to utilise, a significant portion of the traffic from the west will go straight into the Rozelle Interchange congestion situation. If they use the Western Harbour Tunnel, there will be a significant reduction in the problem.”

The government is yet to formally respond to the inquiry but the recommendation that motorists be charged twice crossing the bridge – at present, only southbound motorists on the bridge and tunnel pay tolls, while only northbound journeys on the Eastern Distributor are charged – is politically difficult.
Labor campaigned on a promise not to introduce new tolls on old roads, and would need to break its promise to deliver on Fels’ recommendation to allow lower fares across the rest of the network.

“The interim report of the toll review has brought into sharp focus how Sydney’s patchwork of 13 toll roads – soon to be 15 – is not serving the interests of the public in the way toll prices are set and who the burden falls upon hardest, but also the way in which traffic and congestion is managed,” he said.

A key recommendation of Fels’ report was for tolls to be charged at a decreasing rate the longer motorists drive across the networks. Fels said that as well as fairness, that was partly a response to a “haphazard” pricing structure which has developed over several years.

 

[SirRumpole]

Slightly off topic, but does highlight what you are saying @Smurf1976 where common sense and expert advice, hits up against political fiddling.
It sounds like there is a real mess going on with Sydney traffic.

Harbour Bridge two-way toll needed to fix Rozelle Interchange: Allan Fels

The former competition watchdog chairman warns the $6.7 billion Western Harbour Tunnel is at risk of becoming a white elephant.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
The author of a major review of Sydney’s toll road network says a failure to introduce two-way fares for the Sydney Harbour Bridge will lead to worse traffic congestion after the Western Harbour Tunnel opens.

Former competition watchdog chairman Allan Fels warned that keeping one-way tolling on the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel risked turning the $6.7 billion Western Harbour Tunnel into a potential white elephant.
Fels’ proposed shake-up of Sydney’s roads would see two-way tolls introduced on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Tunnel, as well as the Eastern Distributor to help lower fees across the rest of the network.

Recommendations in the review – commissioned by the Minns government – released last week, would see 74 per cent of motorists in Sydney pay either less or the same amount on tolls if subsidies were used.

In an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, Fels said introducing two-way tolling was not only an issue of “fairness” but also the “function” of Sydney’s road network after the opening of the $6.7 billion Western Harbour Tunnel in 2028.

Once complete, the new tunnel will connect drivers between the Warringah Freeway and Rozelle Interchange.

Because it will allow motorists travelling between the north and west to bypass the CBD, the tunnel is expected to ease congestion on the Harbour Bridge and Tunnel and, crucially, the Anzac Bridge and Rozelle Interchange.

However, the new tunnel will be tolled in both directions. That, Fels said, means that leaving a one-way charge on the Harbour Bridge would lead to a “significant distortion” of traffic and discourage motorists from using the new western crossing.

“If it remains free to cross to the north on the bridge and the tunnel, it will cause quite a bit of congestion,” he said.
“Instead of using the new nice tunnel that we quite want people to utilise, a significant portion of the traffic from the west will go straight into the Rozelle Interchange congestion situation. If they use the Western Harbour Tunnel, there will be a significant reduction in the problem.”

The government is yet to formally respond to the inquiry but the recommendation that motorists be charged twice crossing the bridge – at present, only southbound motorists on the bridge and tunnel pay tolls, while only northbound journeys on the Eastern Distributor are charged – is politically difficult.
Labor campaigned on a promise not to introduce new tolls on old roads, and would need to break its promise to deliver on Fels’ recommendation to allow lower fares across the rest of the network.

“The interim report of the toll review has brought into sharp focus how Sydney’s patchwork of 13 toll roads – soon to be 15 – is not serving the interests of the public in the way toll prices are set and who the burden falls upon hardest, but also the way in which traffic and congestion is managed,” he said.

A key recommendation of Fels’ report was for tolls to be charged at a decreasing rate the longer motorists drive across the networks. Fels said that as well as fairness, that was partly a response to a “haphazard” pricing structure which has developed over several years.

Bob Carr was right. Sydney is full.