- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,921
- Reactions
- 12,371
Yes I assumed that would be the case. But it still shuts down a cheap energy source for grid consumers in preference for an expensive one which is extremely anti competitive.
The future of energy generation and storage
- Thread starter Value Collector
- Start date
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,433
- Reactions
- 12,248
The problem is, is it really a cheap source for consumers?
I can only speak for my own supplier Origin Energy.
On the plan I have they pay me a fixed rate of 3.3 cents per KWhr.
there is no off peak etc.
The rate they offer for consumers is 26.8 cents per KWhr, plus a daily supply charge of 115 cents/day.
There is no stated limit on how much you can feed back in.
Another plan offers 10 cents/kwhr tariff feed in, but only up to a maximum of 14kwhrs and the daily supply charge goes up to 131 cents per day, and the supply charge is 30.5 cents kwhr.
A third plan gives 6 cents/kwhr feed in once again up to a maximum of 14kwhrs, daily syupply charge of 118cents day, and tariff charge of 27.4 cents/ kwhr.
So no matter which way you look at it, origin always come out on top.
They charge standard rates to the consumer, even when they are paying up to a mere 10% of the costs of electricty to them.
If a customer asks origin to "go green" and only get supplied with renewable energy, its about 31 cents kwhr.
Other retailer/suppliers may be different.
Mick
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,921
- Reactions
- 12,371
Yes, they will extract as much blood as they can, the question is, how much more expensive would nuclear be?
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,433
- Reactions
- 12,248
At this stage, its not so much an economic issue as a firming issue.
It may well be more expensive, but we have to pay more to provide continuity of upply.
Its one option.
Mick
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,921
- Reactions
- 12,371
Another option is hydro, can be switched on or off, requires no fuel and lasts as long as nuclear if not longer. But hydro seems to be the solution that dare not speak its name.
Nuclear isnt firming, its baseload, fairly incompatible with VRE.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,357
- Reactions
- 24,105
The basic issue IMO isn't what needs doing now, because that is already set in stone, renewables will be deployed and gas will be the firming, so that really isn't the issue.Indeed.
We need to develop the capability over time, but expecting such a large project to fall into place within a time constraint( when the coal plants fall over) is lunatic.
A couple of nukes to supply resource intensive industries like steel, aluminium and cement is viable, but to bet the grid on it is stupid and will mean shutting off rooftop solar systems to let nuclear into the grid and inflate prices.
Coalition’s nuclear plan to switch off solar for up to 3 million homes - Smart Energy Council
New analysis from the Smart Energy Council shows the introduction of seven nuclear reactors to Australia will shut down solar panels in millions of households.smartenergy.org.au
What the real issue is how much energy is probably going to be required in 2050, when everything including our cars, heavy industry, all domestic consumption will rely on it, because there will no longer be gas to supply it.
At that point it will have to be renewables, or renewables and nuclear.
So with that scenario in mind, as @Smurf1976 has shown on numerous ocassions, they now how much energy is consumed nationally through oil, petrol, coal, biofuel, gas etc usage.
Therefore by extrapolating out that usage and the epected increase required for the propossed "made in Australia and the hydrogen super power export industries" plus the expected population growth demand, they can have a ball park figure of the projected amount of capacity required and the expected surplus needed.
With that information, they then should fairly accurately be able to know whether we have the renwable capacity to fullfil the requirement, or if there needs to be a hybrid system, obviously a lot of countries around the World have done the sums and are thinking they will require nuclear to meet that target and be able to supply their industries with a secure constant power service.
We have a lot of arid unusable land, therefore we have a huge renewable capacity, whether the utilising of it is feasible or possible,or practicle needs to be analysed.
If it already has been analysed, it probably needs to be announced and tested, by experts.
There is no point getting to 2040 and finding that the gas is no longer available and the renewables can't meet the demand, then saying $hit we need to build three nuclear stations, that would be a real cluster pluck.
At the moment no one is looking past the sound bite, the sensational headline, missinformation and the next election, that just isn't a good strategy to build a robust energy system.
As I've said before, we get this wrong we are toast, simple really, do it once do it right, or suffer the consequences.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,433
- Reactions
- 12,248
Sorry you are right its baseload.
Mick
Mick
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,357
- Reactions
- 24,105
I know, I worked in the power industry my whole career.
We are leading the World in renewable grid penetration and we are still addressing new issues that crop up, yet everyone thinks this is easy.
It isn't, it is a highly technical and changing technology and the experts have to adapt the system to work with ever changing technology, there is a lot of winging it going on IMO.
Grid connected inverters installed on rooftop systems even as recent as 10 years ago, in all probability don't interface with the current ones, technology changes so quickly that a lot of equipment becomes redundant within a couple of years.
It isn't an easy task getting this done, that's what no one is appreciating IMO.
Everyone is focused on my team wants A, your team wants B, it wont work like that IMO.
My son is completely off grid, but still has a 13kW auto start generator.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,190
- Reactions
- 17,194
I'll post more about this later but the market notice sums it up:
And also:
And also:
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,821
- Reactions
- 18,766
What a mess
reneweconomy.com.au
Initiated for tomorrow 27th down south....
Wtf, if you do not charge batteries when you have too much power: when?
Note: this is what @Smurf1976 is referring above
Not enough demand: Big batteries may be told to stand by on empty to avoid rooftop solar switch-off
In move to address plunging grid demand in the middle of the day, market operator may force big batteries to discharge and stand by on empty as alternative to switching off rooftop solar.
reneweconomy.com.au
Wtf, if you do not charge batteries when you have too much power: when?
Note: this is what @Smurf1976 is referring above
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,357
- Reactions
- 24,105
IMO this article shows how limited the media is on technical issues, they write articles like this on the critical issue of Chinese tech in EV's, yet can't join the dots when it comes to the fact we are far more critically exposed to grid connected batteries that will be the backbone of our electrical system.
Someone is asleep at the wheel IMO and the opposition are no better, they are monitoring Chinese electric cars, but don't realise the problem with Chinese BIG Batteries, that are supplying our firming. FFS
It just shows how little grasp, the politicians have of the technical side of the grid transition, they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear subs, due to the perceived China threat, yet spend billions on batteries to supply us with critical firming capacity and they obviously can be accessed by China to carry out fault diagnosis.
I mean it really is dumb $hit, the politicians have really no credibility IMO.
America’s proposed ban on connected vehicle technology by Chinese car companies would have a much greater impact in Australia than the U.S.
While Chinese cars have a minor presence in North America, China is now Australia’s third-largest source of new vehicles, and the largest source of electric vehicles by a wide margin.
The Biden Administration has tabled a ban on connected car tech from China, citing cybersecurity and privacy concerns.
A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said “the Government is closely monitoring the developments in the US on this matter, and the Department of Home Affairs has been proactively engaging with the US Government to understand the implications of any proposed regulation.”
U.S. authorities are understood to have briefed Australian counterparts before going public with their concerns.
It supplies about 15 per cent of Australia’s new car market, and that share continue to grow as new electric vehicles enter the market, many equipped with connected services.
Chinese manufacturers such as BYD, MG and GWM represent some of the fastest-growing brands on Australian roads. They will be joined in coming months by new names such as Zeekr, XPeng and Leapmotor, in addition to established manufacturers such as Tesla, Volvo and BMW that source some models from China.
The Albanese Government said it is monitoring developments in the US.
But Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister James Patterson said it must do more, citing concerns about perceived “inaction” from the government.
Someone is asleep at the wheel IMO and the opposition are no better, they are monitoring Chinese electric cars, but don't realise the problem with Chinese BIG Batteries, that are supplying our firming. FFS
It just shows how little grasp, the politicians have of the technical side of the grid transition, they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear subs, due to the perceived China threat, yet spend billions on batteries to supply us with critical firming capacity and they obviously can be accessed by China to carry out fault diagnosis.
I mean it really is dumb $hit, the politicians have really no credibility IMO.
America’s proposed ban on connected vehicle technology by Chinese car companies would have a much greater impact in Australia than the U.S.
While Chinese cars have a minor presence in North America, China is now Australia’s third-largest source of new vehicles, and the largest source of electric vehicles by a wide margin.
The Biden Administration has tabled a ban on connected car tech from China, citing cybersecurity and privacy concerns.
A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said “the Government is closely monitoring the developments in the US on this matter, and the Department of Home Affairs has been proactively engaging with the US Government to understand the implications of any proposed regulation.”
U.S. authorities are understood to have briefed Australian counterparts before going public with their concerns.
It supplies about 15 per cent of Australia’s new car market, and that share continue to grow as new electric vehicles enter the market, many equipped with connected services.
Chinese manufacturers such as BYD, MG and GWM represent some of the fastest-growing brands on Australian roads. They will be joined in coming months by new names such as Zeekr, XPeng and Leapmotor, in addition to established manufacturers such as Tesla, Volvo and BMW that source some models from China.
The Albanese Government said it is monitoring developments in the US.
But Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister James Patterson said it must do more, citing concerns about perceived “inaction” from the government.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,190
- Reactions
- 17,194
Explaining this a bit, what's going on is simply a lack of adequate system load, a consequence of the combined effects of:
Weather - the forecast is for sunny and 17 degrees in Melbourne on the 27th, and sunny and 23 degrees on the 28th. So there'll be only quite minor use of heating on the 27th, and most space heating in Victoria is gas anyway, and practically no heating or cooling during the middle of the day on the 28th.
Public holiday - the 27th is a public holiday and the 28th is AFL Grand Final day. This also drops consumption due businesses shut etc.
Clear sky and moderate temperature is perfect conditions for solar PV and this is the big one. Very high expected output from rooftop solar systems combined with low consumption due to the above leaves nowhere for it to go. Therein lies the problem.
As I've said previously, we can't just keep adding more and more wind and solar and expect it to work. There are other things also required and in this case the relevant ones are:
Electrification - replacing the use of gas with electricity especially for water heating which can easily make use of surplus electricity during the middle of the day via a sufficiently sized storage tank.
Load shifting where possible - not forcing but encouraging consumers to shift their consumption to times of abundance.
Storage - batteries and pumped hydro to store the surplus for later use, noting that both technologies are required in practice.
Trouble is, politicians tend to have their heads stuck in the sand with all this. It's all well and good to say we need storage water heating for example, then you realise it's only last year the state government removed its ban on doing so, and it still hasn't come up with an effective scheme to get the load on the system when it's needed. So another cases of politics versus engineering unfortunately and like the rest, the general public wears the cost.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,357
- Reactions
- 24,105
What frustrates me @Smurf1976 , is the fact they can implement fuel standards (which don't affect me as I don't have any fossil fueled device), but they can't get their $hit together, to have a cohesive plan to force those who deploy renewables to have an onsite storage facility.
That would enable their generation to be deployed when required, or used for charging when not required.
One would think that would be a basic requirement, of a balanced system design, or is there no design?
That would enable their generation to be deployed when required, or used for charging when not required.
One would think that would be a basic requirement, of a balanced system design, or is there no design?
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,433
- Reactions
- 12,248
In a similar vein, governments should never have allowed home rooftop storage to feed back into the grid unless the home also had a similar or greater level of battery storage.
mick
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,821
- Reactions
- 18,766
But then , providers would need to provide generation whereas nowadays, they buy at 3c a kwh from Paul for 8 h and sell to John down the street at 25-30c ..and no capex cost but 50m of line and one post.
Can not beat that especially as Paul and John daily fee pays for the infrastructure, while paul is paying a daily fee to provide these kwh .
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,357
- Reactions
- 24,105
A while ago, I mentioned it will be difficult to get the private sector to install the excess storage required, it looks as though that issue is starting to present itself.
They will have to be paid whether they are required or not, another reason for the Govt to own them IMO.
reneweconomy.com.au
AEMO first approached the market, industry sources tell Renew Economy, with a proposal to invoke “constraints” that would force big batteries to discharge in the morning and stay empty during the middle of the day, ready to charge up and create new demand if required by the operator.
The industry pushed back, arguing that invoking constraints would mean no compensation for lost revenue, and so AEMO has returned with a system similar to the “lack of reserve” (LOR) protocols it uses when it fears there is not enough supply in the grid to meet demand.
In effect, the Minimum System Load (MSL) protocol would operate in a similar vein, but in reverse. In theory, at least, it would mean that big batteries are compensated for the lost trading opportunity if forced to discharge and sit idle, although the regulatory and legal details are still being cleared up.
They will have to be paid whether they are required or not, another reason for the Govt to own them IMO.
Not enough demand: Big batteries may be told to stand by on empty to avoid rooftop solar switch-off | RenewEconomy
In move to address plunging grid demand in the middle of the day, market operator may force big batteries to discharge and stand by on empty as alternative to switching off rooftop solar.
reneweconomy.com.au
AEMO first approached the market, industry sources tell Renew Economy, with a proposal to invoke “constraints” that would force big batteries to discharge in the morning and stay empty during the middle of the day, ready to charge up and create new demand if required by the operator.
The industry pushed back, arguing that invoking constraints would mean no compensation for lost revenue, and so AEMO has returned with a system similar to the “lack of reserve” (LOR) protocols it uses when it fears there is not enough supply in the grid to meet demand.
In effect, the Minimum System Load (MSL) protocol would operate in a similar vein, but in reverse. In theory, at least, it would mean that big batteries are compensated for the lost trading opportunity if forced to discharge and sit idle, although the regulatory and legal details are still being cleared up.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,921
- Reactions
- 12,371
Sounds a bit Monty Pythonish to me.A while ago, I mentioned it will be difficult to get the private sector to install the excess storage required, it looks as though that issue is starting to present itself.
They will have to be paid whether they are required or not, another reason for the Govt to own them IMO.
Not enough demand: Big batteries may be told to stand by on empty to avoid rooftop solar switch-off | RenewEconomy
In move to address plunging grid demand in the middle of the day, market operator may force big batteries to discharge and stand by on empty as alternative to switching off rooftop solar.
AEMO first approached the market, industry sources tell Renew Economy, with a proposal to invoke “constraints” that would force big batteries to discharge in the morning and stay empty during the middle of the day, ready to charge up and create new demand if required by the operator.
The industry pushed back, arguing that invoking constraints would mean no compensation for lost revenue, and so AEMO has returned with a system similar to the “lack of reserve” (LOR) protocols it uses when it fears there is not enough supply in the grid to meet demand.
In effect, the Minimum System Load (MSL) protocol would operate in a similar vein, but in reverse. In theory, at least, it would mean that big batteries are compensated for the lost trading opportunity if forced to discharge and sit idle, although the regulatory and legal details are still being cleared up.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,921
- Reactions
- 12,371
Can you imagine hydro dams being required to let out all their water without generating anything so it can be pumped back up later when the power to do it is available?Sounds a bit Monty Pythonish to me.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,357
- Reactions
- 24,105
Yep it is all starting to get to the pointy bit where renewables can hit 100%, but then fall back and something has to pick up the load.Sounds a bit Monty Pythonish to me.
Solar industry irate as Victorians to bear cost of technology to switch off rooftop PV | RenewEconomy
Industry insiders are angry that Victorians will have to pay networks' costs of complying with the new solar switch off mechanism.
reneweconomy.com.au
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,529
- Reactions
- 4,568
Disagree the real problem is no one wants to pay for the bits that allow this to integrate into the system and maintain stability that doesn't make money.
The east coast being a market (your own costs structure are terrible no reflection upon your good self intended) proof.
Note in WA with solar haven't paid a bill for years with some help from all the government largesse.
