The future of energy generation and storage

Only a feasibility study at this stage, but plans are afoot to build a large solar/hydrogen project in the Kimberley.

SirRumpole said:

Only a feasibility study at this stage, but plans are afoot to build a large solar/hydrogen project in the Kimberley.

First-of-its-kind multi-billion-dollar clean energy project backed by federal government

As the race towards developing green hydrogen plans continues, the Australian government says it's throwing $1.6 million behind a giant billion-dollar project in outback WA.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

Well there is a hydro station there not doing much and an all season port at Wyndham not doing much, so it makes sense to investigate options.

SirRumpole said:

Only a feasibility study at this stage, but plans are afoot to build a large solar/hydrogen project in the Kimberley.

First-of-its-kind multi-billion-dollar clean energy project backed by federal government

As the race towards developing green hydrogen plans continues, the Australian government says it's throwing $1.6 million behind a giant billion-dollar project in outback WA.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

I saw that and thought it sounded promising.

It will be very interesting to see how the indigenous community works with this project. I would love to see some serious upskilling and direct involvement of the local communities. And from a governance POV keeping on eye on the finances of such a project would be invaluable.

It would also be interesting to see if any of the major players in hydrogen - Twiggy for example - tale a role.

There are some quite creative and exciting ideas being floated for the upcoming budget to widely expand community solar and storage. The proposal of how it would be financed and ultimately paid for is very clever.

Forget nuclear: would Peter Dutton oppose a plan to cut bills and address the climate crisis?​

Adam Morton


We should focus on rooftop solar – Australians love it

.... After policy chopping and changing in the early years, Australia has landed on a successful solar rebate scheme that has had bipartisan support even as the climate wars have been fought. Rooftops provided more than 11% of the electricity in the national grid over the past year.

What is missing is a policy to make solar power more accessible to those who can’t access this rebate, either because they rent, or live in an apartment, or can’t afford the upfront cost. To be truly successful, that would need to include support for the uptake of household batteries to give consumers the power to run their entire home on clean electricity around the clock.

What might this look like? There are a couple of proposals worth considering.

The first is being put forward by Saul Griffith, a former US government energy adviser and vocal advocate for household electrification, through the organisation he founded, Rewiring Australia. He has argued for a Hecs-style loan scheme to better tap Australia’s world-leading solar capacity and help address the cost-of-living crisis.

Loans would be available to all and could be used for solar panels, batteries, efficient electric appliances and, potentially, electric vehicles. They would be indexed to inflation and repaid to the government when homes were sold. Rewiring Australia estimates it could save a household up to $5,000 a year on energy and petrol bills, create jobs and alleviate some of the need to rapidly build so much large-scale renewable energy.

According to Rewiring Australia’s budget submission, establishing the program would cost $2.8bn over three years, $10m of which would be spent rewriting the rules governing the national electricity market to allow electric households to compete against fossil fuel generators and retailers.

A separate but related proposal has been launched by the independent MP Allegra Spender, backed by fellow crossbenchers Zali Steggall, Helen Haines and David Pocock and advocates for renters, people on low incomes and clean energy businesses. Described as a “people power plan”, it calls on the government to help those locked out of solar power to get it.

Those behind it say there are a number of ways the policy could be designed, but it should aim to help at least half a million homes shift to clean energy over the next three years, with a focus on renters, apartment dwellers, people on lower incomes and households in regional and rural areas concerned about the rollout of large-scale clean energy infrastructure.

Spender says this would have multiple benefits – cutting bills, reducing emissions and, crucially, empowering people in regional communities who will be affected by the energy transition but feel they have no say in it.

Australian energy companies views on the Liberals proposed Nuclear program.

Australia’s big electricity generators say nuclear not viable for at least a decade​

AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy say they will remain focused on renewables despite Coalition support for nuclear reactors

..Damien Nicks, AGL’s chief, said nuclear energy was not a part of the company’s plans to develop coal and gas plants into low-emissions industrial hubs. “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive,” Nicks said on Friday. “Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition.”

...While companies stress they remain “energy agnostic”, the challenges of introducing a new energy source requiring complex regulations, particularly for the storage and disposal of nuclear energy waste, are steep, they say. They point to the absence of commercially proven SMRs and cost blowouts of large-scale plants such as the UK’s Hinkley Point C, which has been touted as the world’s “most expensive” power station.

One senior executive told Guardian Australia power bills would triple if the nuclear path was pursued.

NSW’s chief scientist, Hugh Durrant-Whyte, dismissed the comparisons by nuclear energy advocates of places such as Ontario, Canada. That country had spent decades building a nuclear industry employing 70,000 people.

“Nobody in this country has even the faintest idea how to build a nuclear power plant,” Durrant-Whyte, a former nuclear adviser to the UK government, told NSW upper house estimates earlier this month.

basilio said:

There are some quite creative and exciting ideas being floated for the upcoming budget to widely expand community solar and storage. The proposal of how it would be financed and ultimately paid for is very clever.

Forget nuclear: would Peter Dutton oppose a plan to cut bills and address the climate crisis?​

Adam Morton
View attachment 172986

We should focus on rooftop solar – Australians love it

.... After policy chopping and changing in the early years, Australia has landed on a successful solar rebate scheme that has had bipartisan support even as the climate wars have been fought. Rooftops provided more than 11% of the electricity in the national grid over the past year.

What is missing is a policy to make solar power more accessible to those who can’t access this rebate, either because they rent, or live in an apartment, or can’t afford the upfront cost. To be truly successful, that would need to include support for the uptake of household batteries to give consumers the power to run their entire home on clean electricity around the clock.

What might this look like? There are a couple of proposals worth considering.

The first is being put forward by Saul Griffith, a former US government energy adviser and vocal advocate for household electrification, through the organisation he founded, Rewiring Australia. He has argued for a Hecs-style loan scheme to better tap Australia’s world-leading solar capacity and help address the cost-of-living crisis.

Loans would be available to all and could be used for solar panels, batteries, efficient electric appliances and, potentially, electric vehicles. They would be indexed to inflation and repaid to the government when homes were sold. Rewiring Australia estimates it could save a household up to $5,000 a year on energy and petrol bills, create jobs and alleviate some of the need to rapidly build so much large-scale renewable energy.

According to Rewiring Australia’s budget submission, establishing the program would cost $2.8bn over three years, $10m of which would be spent rewriting the rules governing the national electricity market to allow electric households to compete against fossil fuel generators and retailers.

A separate but related proposal has been launched by the independent MP Allegra Spender, backed by fellow crossbenchers Zali Steggall, Helen Haines and David Pocock and advocates for renters, people on low incomes and clean energy businesses. Described as a “people power plan”, it calls on the government to help those locked out of solar power to get it.

Those behind it say there are a number of ways the policy could be designed, but it should aim to help at least half a million homes shift to clean energy over the next three years, with a focus on renters, apartment dwellers, people on lower incomes and households in regional and rural areas concerned about the rollout of large-scale clean energy infrastructure.

Spender says this would have multiple benefits – cutting bills, reducing emissions and, crucially, empowering people in regional communities who will be affected by the energy transition but feel they have no say in it.

Forget nuclear: would Peter Dutton oppose a plan to cut bills and address the climate crisis? | Adam Morton

We should focus on rooftop solar – Australians love it

www.theguardian.com

Click to expand...

With Labor and the Greens in office, why do they need Dutton on board?

basilio said:

Australian energy companies views on the Liberals proposed Nuclear program.

Australia’s big electricity generators say nuclear not viable for at least a decade​

AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy say they will remain focused on renewables despite Coalition support for nuclear reactors

..Damien Nicks, AGL’s chief, said nuclear energy was not a part of the company’s plans to develop coal and gas plants into low-emissions industrial hubs. “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive,” Nicks said on Friday. “Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition.”

...While companies stress they remain “energy agnostic”, the challenges of introducing a new energy source requiring complex regulations, particularly for the storage and disposal of nuclear energy waste, are steep, they say. They point to the absence of commercially proven SMRs and cost blowouts of large-scale plants such as the UK’s Hinkley Point C, which has been touted as the world’s “most expensive” power station.

One senior executive told Guardian Australia power bills would triple if the nuclear path was pursued.

NSW’s chief scientist, Hugh Durrant-Whyte, dismissed the comparisons by nuclear energy advocates of places such as Ontario, Canada. That country had spent decades building a nuclear industry employing 70,000 people.

“Nobody in this country has even the faintest idea how to build a nuclear power plant,” Durrant-Whyte, a former nuclear adviser to the UK government, told NSW upper house estimates earlier this month.

Australia’s big electricity generators say nuclear not viable for at least a decade

AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy say they will remain focused on renewables despite Coalition support for nuclear reactors

www.theguardian.com

Click to expand...

As we have said earlier in the thread, most of us believe the only way nuclear could be built here would be if it was Government owned, so asking the private sector what they think is a bit pointless IMO, they will be more concerned about how they can get the most amount of profit from the least amount of cost.
Nuclear would be their last choice.
As for the scientist saying we haven't got the faintest idea about nuclear, as a reason not to look into it, is a very strange stance to take from a scientific point of view, I wonder if he has been selectively quoted?
From a scientists point of view I would have thought he would say, we should build up an understanding of nuclear as we will be exposed to it with the purchase of the submarines and their care and maintenance.
Also from a scientific point of view, it would seem obvious that a deeper understanding shouldn't be dismissed, just in case Australia down the track had no other option than to develop it.
To dismiss it on a lack of knowledge basis, doesn't sound like a very scientific stance at all, it actually sounds very unscientific.

sptrawler said:

As for the scientist saying we haven't got the faintest idea about nuclear,

Click to expand...

Well, we have had a nuclear reactor for 70 years and it's still operational, although not a power reactor, so there is some knowledge here but lot of skills have probably died or moved elsewhere in the meantime.

If we are going to go down that path, we need professors in universities to teach the people who will design, build and operate the reactors, but with the ban on nuclear none of those will come here.

So the ban should be lifted to encourage some sort of critical mass to form(sorry about the pun), but without bipartisan support it won't happen in reality.

The problem with nuclear in Australia ATM is the political weaponization from Dutton who is likely to set the whole thing backwards.

Realistically there should set in place a department that oversees and builds regulation and the required structures to deal with the nuclear subs \ waste along with progressing the technology to making fuel as starters none of which exists.

I happen to look at Hasties Facebook page who was denergarting a proposed offshore wind farm (I don't hold an opinion about it) lots of comments that we need a nuclear power station instead, dumb and dumber stuff.

SirRumpole said:

Well, we have had a nuclear reactor for 70 years and it's still operational, although not a power reactor, so there is some knowledge here but lot of skills have probably died or moved elsewhere in the meantime.

If we are going to go down that path, we need professors in universities to teach the people who will design, build and operate the reactors, but with the ban on nuclear none of those will come here.

So the ban should be lifted to encourage some sort of critical mass to form(sorry about the pun), but without bipartisan support it won't happen in reality.

Click to expand...

That's what I think as well, it just seems all a bit weird, having one side of politics saying we are putting in nuclear and the other side saying no we're not and meanwhile we are buying nuclear powered subs that will be based here.
Why aren't both sides saying we need to put a committee of scientists together, to look at what is required to develop a basic capability in dealing with the subs and also if at a later date we have to turn to nuclear power what universities are best suited to be able to handle the educational requirements.
We just seem to be ignoring the basic fact, that nuclear is coming in a very short period of time, Virginia class nuclear subs will be rotating through Australia.
It just looks like another dumb sleep walking exercise, through the ideological mist, by both sides of politics as usual.

IFocus said:

Realistically there should set in place a department that oversees and builds regulation and the required structures to deal with the nuclear subs \ waste along with progressing the technology to making fuel as starters none of which exists.

Click to expand...

Exactly.
Unfortunately no one is talking about that aspect at all, both sides way too busy playing politics, rather than thinking.

SirRumpole said:

Well, we have had a nuclear reactor for 70 years and it's still operational, although not a power reactor, so there is some knowledge here but lot of skills have probably died or moved elsewhere in the meantime.

If we are going to go down that path, we need professors in universities to teach the people who will design, build and operate the reactors, but with the ban on nuclear none of those will come here.

So the ban should be lifted to encourage some sort of critical mass to form(sorry about the pun), but without bipartisan support it won't happen in reality.

Click to expand...

That was the point from the scientist. Trying to compare Australia to Ontario which has a long history of nuclear power and the critical skill infrastructure required to build a power station is a fatal error.

I can see all parties wanting to keep their eyes open on the ongoing development of nuclear power elsewhere. But it makes no economic or environmental sense to pour multi billions of dollars into such projects in Australia rather than the proven and appropriate renewable energy/storage projects in hand. Far better to pour our resources into solar/wind/battery/hydro education program

IFocus said:

Realistically there should set in place a department that oversees and builds regulation and the required structures to deal with the nuclear subs \ waste along with progressing the technology to making fuel as starters none of which exists.

Click to expand...

That makes sense

basilio said:

I can see all parties wanting to keep their eyes open on the ongoing development of nuclear power elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Historically that was done and went as far as identifying site location, costs, construction schedule, suitable contractors and so on.

From one of those reports, one key thing was the secondment of staff to overseas operations for training. That wasn't to be a brief visit - it was planned to be up to ten years for some (engineering) and five full years for various key operational staff. The idea being that we'd have our own well experienced people from the day the station commenced operations.

Such was the level of detail the utilities used to go to.

Smurf1976 said:

Historically that was done and went as far as identifying site location, costs, construction schedule, suitable contractors and so on.

From one of those reports, one key thing was the secondment of staff to overseas operations for training. That wasn't to be a brief visit - it was planned to be up to ten years for some (engineering) and five full years for various key operational staff. The idea being that we'd have our own well experienced people from the day the station commenced operations.

Such was the level of detail the utilities used to go to.

Click to expand...

Also it was a time when people, even the highly intelligent, were circumspect.

Unlike now, where ideology and an unwavering self belief of the ill informed drive the agenda, on a wave of hope and enthusiasm.
Then when the wave breaks, they quietly move to the rear of the room.

IFocus said:

The problem with nuclear in Australia ATM is the political weaponization from Dutton who is likely to set the whole thing backwards.

Click to expand...

Dutton appears to me, to be the Bill Shorten of the Liberal Party, guns blazing but no plan as to how anything affects the voter

IFocus said:

Realistically there should set in place a department that oversees and builds regulation and the required structures to deal with the nuclear subs \ waste along with progressing the technology to making fuel as starters none of which exists.

Click to expand...

That has to happen regardless of who is in office.

IFocus said:

I happen to look at Hasties Facebook page who was denergarting a proposed offshore wind farm (I don't hold an opinion about it) lots of comments that we need a nuclear power station instead, dumb and dumber stuff.

Click to expand...

Hastie IMO hasn't got a clue IMO, as many don't, those that do think beyond the rhetoric of either side.

We are a first world country, we need to ask ourselves WHY, what makes us special, what makes us different? At the moment that question isn't being asked.

Well that didn't work as intended, using the phone.

basilio said:

We should focus on rooftop solar – Australians love it

Click to expand...

As with anything, it's always wise to do the maths.

Rooftop solar generates electricity yes but there's no reason to prefer it over large scale solar unless it's actually cheaper per unit generated.

As a country, we don't become wealthier by doing things in unnecessarily expensive ways.

That's not an argument against it, it's an argument for taking a hardline approach of doing the maths and going with what's actually cheapest with proper accounting not cost shifting.

Knowing what the answers are..... Rooftop solar has some merit but house batteries are a backup power source for the rich or others looking to get rid of some money. There are much cheaper ways to store energy - large batteries or hydro.

To put that into perspective, AGL's Torrens Island battery has energy storage equivalent to 19230 Tesla Powerwall 2's and it has peak power equivalent to 50,000 of them. Its cost was equal to about 12,400 Powerwalls so it's clearly a cheaper option.

For the record I actually have a battery. I don't think government's ought to subsidise them though, just as I don't see a reason for taxpayers to buy me any other consumer product. There are cheaper ways to store energy.

Smurf1976 said:

There are cheaper ways to store energy.

Click to expand...

At a household level ? If there is, please specify.

The desire for some degree of independence from the grid is fairly strong, if misguided.

For those who actually want to know the current developments in nuclear, other than those from our local weird and wonderful news outlets, here is what Bill Gates is up to.
Contrary to popular beliefs nuclear SMR development in the U.S hasn't gone bottoms up.

SirRumpole said:

The desire for some degree of independence from the grid is fairly strong, if misguided.

Click to expand...

Ultimately electricity grids in the financial sense are extreme examples of economies of scale, indeed that's the primary reason the were built in the first place.

Technically nothing precluded having lots of small supply systems indeed that's exactly how the industry started out. Much like the early days of the internet with countless tiny ISP's, many literally operating from suburban houses as both the tech hub and administration, much the same occurred with electricity at the beginning with countless small suppliers running separate systems and so on.

To link them all together was primarily an economic decision along with facilitating the use of particular energy resources most notably hydro that required transmission from afar.

Going forward, this is the "productivity" issue of which economists speak. It's not about working harder indeed it's not even just about working. It's about allocating resources, that is capital, labour and physical things (land, materials etc) in a way that delivers greater output per unit of input, or efficiency as an engineer would prefer to call it.

Given electricity is an input to pretty much all business and a good portion of other activity, if that's not done as efficiently as possible then it's an overall drag on society economically. In particular and of relevance, it frustrates any attempt to move away from exports of raw ores and fossil fuels given any realistic alternative involves some sort of value adding and that requires energy.

So it's a macroeconomics issue ultimately with climate change and a few other things thrown in.

If individuals want to go off grid then sure, no problem we live in a society where individuals are free to make their own choices (though some seem intent to challenge that). It is however one thing to have an individual make a choice that isn't economically the most efficient way to do it but it's another thing entirely to throw taxpayer funds at them doing so.

Economics is the big constraint on all this, it's the reason why not too many seriously think "net zero" will actually be achieved by 2050. Technically it's possible, economically cost is a huge problem with that timeframe. That being so, well it's crazy to throw taxpayer funds at things which don't deliver maximum bang for buck.

Indeed personally I'll argue that's largely why Australia and others are failing on the CO2 issue thus far. The actions we've taken have involved some legitimately worthwhile things, but overall have been skewed toward things with high physical and visibility, the public can literally see them, and/or high profile politically but which weren't really rational "first choice" actions if the aim was to cut emissions over the long term.

Real solutions being dead boring. Home batteries are "sexy" in a marketing sense, solar much the same, whereas a building with a synchronous condenser in it or an electric hot water system doesn't excite anyone. Nor does a large battery have that sort of visibility - most people are aware of the first "big battery" built in SA but even in Adelaide most of the public wouldn't realise it's no longer the largest one even in SA and that there's a bigger one just 15km from the CBD.

I'm not in any way against small scale systems. I put solar on my old house in 2009 so was a relatively early adopter and I've added solar and a battery to this house too. But me doing something because I want to do it is one thing, throwing taxpayer funds at it quite another - that same money would get better bang for buck via large scale approaches is my point. Boring and unexciting but then most of this stuff is - trying to use it to win votes isn't really doing anyone any good in the long run.