This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
I was really thinking around the country. How many coal stations are there in Eastern states that aren't so clapped out that could be kept going?
 
SirRumpole said:
I was really thinking around the country. How many coal stations are there in Eastern states that aren't so clapped out that could be kept going?
Click to expand...
Well it will depend on how serious the Government is about the renewable plan, there is one thing sprouting the rhetoric, but that has unintended consequences, where it becomes difficult to source money to maintain the plant and the coal supply.

Eventually it gets to a point where it isn't feasible to keep running, so the ball is well and truly in Chris's court, he hasn't announced many major projects, so it may be just a case of waiting for reality to catch up with ideology.

It would be interesting to see if Albo installs an off grid system at the new house.
 
Well it looks like that question has been answered.
The juggling has started and it obviously will get worse, with an extra 300,000 people coming here, let the fun begin. Lol

Power outages ‘part and parcel’ of energy transition: Cook

Power outages for thousands of West Australians during a punishing heat wave have been labelled a ‘s... show’ as Libby Mettam warned the State would face more ‘east coast-style’ blackouts.
thewest.com.au
 
Meanwhile in Queensland:


It's only relatively brief but an LOR2 means failure of a single large generating unit, or the transmission connecting it, will result in immediate load shedding.

Or in layman's terms there's nothing to spare. If anything breaks, a portion of consumers will lose supply.

Noting this is an actual event not a forecast. An LOR1, which is a less serious breach of the standard, has been applicable since about 17:30 Qld time.

Qld supply as per following chart.

Purple = from NSW
Black = coal
Red = diesel
Orange = gas
Dark blue = battery
Light blue = hydro
Green = wind
Yellow = solar

Below the zero line = hydro pumping, battery charging and supply from Qld to NSW earlier in the day.

 
Closing it in April 1 would sum up the closure of coal plants for renewables!
 
Very hot and steamy so top demand .still 30c, 60% humidity at 7:30 pm, sun has been set for nearly 1 hour ; ac been on all day and even on our battery system, we have let it on
 
mullokintyre said:
Lucky we are switching to renewables at a screamingly fast rate.
Imagine the cost of electricity if we had not embraced renewables!
Click to expand...
The cheapest country on that list, Vietnam, in 2022 had 50.4% renewable energy in their electricity generation mix.

In the same year Australia had 35.0% renewable in the NEM and 35.3% in the SWIS.

So renewables per se there's not a huge difference.

There is of course a difference in the detail, best explained by pointing out that 37.1% of Vietnam's total generation is hydro. Ah yes, hydro..... even funnier when it's considered who helped them develop it.

Actually we're still sending energy trade missions to Vietnam in recent times. Like this one: https://vietnam.embassy.gov.au/hnoi/MR230328.html

A big problem we have in Australia, not just with this issue but with all sorts of things, is that it's forbidden to even discuss certain subjects. Not limited to energy but there's quite a few subjects where any attempt at public discussion will be met with an abrupt shutdown if what's being said isn't in accordance with a certain viewpoint.

The real cause of the price problem is one such issue. Not the only one but it's among them, both sides of politics just aren't willing to go there and for that reason it won't be resolved.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect to both, and to be fair pointed out explicitly by Mr smurf above.
There is a RE cost issue but not a RE per say, just a wind solar issue, and if we had geothermal or tidal, it would be no issue as well.
The cost issue is due to the intermittency, need for storage and crazy idea that if energy can be free floating, the end user will get it for free because the rest: storage transmission is just peanuts.
That would still be an issue in any normal efficient country.
And then we enter Australia: the productivity and cost efficiency laggard which can only compare to the worst losers in the EU or Africa
Ussr state style economy and mentality without even the planning, industrialism and engineering skill of the former Eastern block, yet with the EQ and social needs of a Manhattan or Paris Prima Dona...
Solar and wind done properly but mandated to be the only source fails economically: Germany example for any real world implementation.
As a mix sure, but if we add the Australian factor, they become like any business project in Australia in the last 15 y : complete f***ed disaster.
Not specific to energy or grid.
Mr Smurf wants to stay away from politics and fundamentalists which i understand but i believe the grid is just the end result of complete political failure,from the ALP and Green but not only, the LNP side is as guilty..a little bit less i would say but that is my bias.
A nanny state, importing pretend skills more than training own, destroyed education, overexpanding public sector sucking the blood out of small business/innovation, total moral failure in values setting and work reward system (real estate crisis, law and order,role models), messed up and far too high taxation..pages to rant on
Grid is the image of this, as it is in collapsing african states.
Our SME are destroyed and we import everything, we even try to import our kwh via made in China or India solar panels and wind farms.but this unsurprisingly fails..batteries and hydro storage will change nothing..this is a now structural collapse
 
Smurf1976 said:
In the same year Australia had 35.0% renewable in the NEM and 35.3% in the SWIS.
Click to expand...
For the record, % renewables (hydro, bio, wind, solar) in the NEM. Years are calendar years not financial year.

2014 = 11.8%
2015 = 13.7%
2016 = 18.2%
2017 = 15.8%
2018 = 20.3%
2019 = 22.7%
2020 = 26.5%
2021 = 31.4%
2022 = 35.0%
2023 = 38.6%
2024 = 38.9%

And for the SWIS:

2014 = 10.0%
2015 = 11.3%
2016 = 12.8%
2017 = 13.8%
2018 = 15.9%
2019 = 21.7%
2020 = 25.9%
2021 = 32.7%
2022 = 35.3%
2023 = 35.4%
2024 = 38.8%

Gross renewables by state as a % of consumption. These figures need to be treated with caution unless you understand the technical details and that gross % is not the same thing as % of consumption supplied due to interstate trade which, in some cases most notably SA, is effectively forced in a "use it or lose it" situation. Data for WA is as per the SWIS above.

NSW:
2020 = 17.7%
2021 = 22.8%
2022 = 27.7%
2023 = 31.2%
2024 = 33.0%

Qld:
2020 = 16.6%
2021 = 19.2%
2022 = 22.5%
2023 = 28.2%
2024 = 29.1%

Vic:
2020 = 26.6%
2021 = 34.2%
2022 = 38.3%
2023 = 41.6%
2024 = 41.5%

SA:
2020 = 59.4%
2021 = 62.4%
2022 = 67.8%
2023 = 71.1%
2024 = 71.9%

Tas:
2020 = 98.4%
2021 = 102.2%
2022 = 93.2%
2023 = 93.2%
2024 = 81.3%

All data includes distributed generation. That is generation that is not large scale power stations etc, by far the most common example of which is rooftop solar.
 
Do we have a end user cost difference per state in Australia or is it mandated uniformity and or technically levelled via interconnection
Tasmania with hydro is ok, but SA RE rate which de facto means solar wind only can only be not prohibitive if subsidized by other states storage or non RE.
 
Fully agreed.

There's the odd exception in politics but certainly not most.

Absolutely.

The approach an engineer will take by default is really two-fold:

One is based around the idea that we need a functional fit for purpose system that meets some defined criteria for reliability. From there it's an exercise of identifying all the available resources and options, and calculating what combination of them results in the lowest cost.

The other is to question to what extent the load itself can be altered so as to improve the economics or technical practicality of supplying it. A well known example is off-peak hot water but other possibilities also exist. Irrigating crops is one in situations where pumps are electric. Other possible uses include running desalination plants intermittently in situations where operation at full capacity isn't required at a particular time, heating swimming pools, any sort of battery charging, etc.

Noting that changing the load profile as per step two isn't just about reducing the cost of supplying it. If it's done to any significant extent it'll also lead to some changes in what gets built, shifting the balance toward more plant with high capital but low operating costs on account of more consistent utilisation.

In the pre-computer days that sort of exercise took years to investigate everything and crunch the numbers. It wasn't uncommon to take a full decade for a project to go from initial investigations to starting construction, then another decade to actually build it so a 20 year lead time. Because when all the investigations are done with old tech, and every option has to be calculated manually, that's how long it took, Despite that it was actually done and they got it right - there's plenty of things that were investigated but never built due to that, despite seeming like reasonable ideas, when the numbers were crunched they just didn't stack up.

Most states it'd be true to say most of the things investigated weren't built. Because that's what happens when you investigate all the possibilities, it's a given you're going to reject most of them and just pick the best. Not a problem though - a team of people doing that isn't really all that expensive, it's a lot cheaper than building the wrong thing because nobody realised there was a better option.

As a bit of trivia, every state did investigate nuclear at some point historically. That includes the NT by the way, indeed they're the only one to have actually built a power station on the identified site, albeit using it for a gas-fired plant not nuclear in the end.

Today with computers we can do the calculations an awful lot faster as long as the data's available so there's no excuse at all for not doing it. Those who worked it all out many decades ago would be truly gobsmacked at the capabilities of even a basic desktop PC, They'd then be stunned to find that we weren't actually doing this and planning had fallen in a heap.

The great problem there is ideological and this one's going to take some getting your mind around the wording of. It's not that we failed to plan. Rather, not planning was the actual intention. It was a conscious decision to stop planning energy, the rationale being "the market will work it out".

Now I'm not against free markets as a concept but there's a flaw in that and it relates to the two step process I've mentioned. When you've got a couple of dozen companies, and they're not allowed to even work together, it's simply impossible to come up with a least cost system. Even if someone wants to do it, they can't because they've no control over what anyone else does. Related to that is the second bit, load control, has largely been abandoned as a result of that. It's another thing that's rather hard to implement when you've got lots of companies all competing against each other in the one big system.

A far more rational approach to competition in my view would be to have a competitive market to provide infrastructure but not to decide on what's provided or how it's operated. So that is a central planning approach that determines what's required, then a competitive approach to build, own and maintain it with costs at set contract rates as tendered not via a speculative market.

So for example if it's determined (hypothetically) that we need 300MW of gas turbines built in SA, then it's put up for tender for someone to provide 300MW of gas turbines which they'll build, own and maintain. Operating costs being a direct pass through based on actual fuel price at the time etc. So that results in the owner having a very stable, low risk investment that ought attract cheap financing and it results in the operating decisions being based on real, actual costs which will vary (eg the diesel price varies, the gas price varies, etc). What it removes is the speculative nature and perverse outcomes due to everyone trying to profit through the dispatch process at present.

Long term I suspect something like that will evolve, but only when the politicians and various ideologies are forced to concede defeat. That'll take a crisis......
 
It's intsresting to see the increase in renewables since 2021, obviously a missmatch between rhetoric and deployment, hopefully it accelerates.
 
IMO that is the only benefit in considering nuclear at this point in time, if nuclear did go head it would be Government owned and operated, it would cause a lot of financial disruption to the current generating companies.
But as they are mainly coal fired operations does that matter? If we are going to become competitive we will have to be competitive on energy prices and that wont happen with the current private generators.
If the base load is publicly owned, then the decision of attracting industries becomes a Government decision and it doesn't have to be made solely on the basis of it making money from day one, the fact the industry could be looked at as a positive for other social and economic benefits can be considered.
In the current situation it can only be looked at from a shareholder perspective.
 
OMG @Smurf1976 How the hell that chunk of black at the bottom of the chart, is going to filled, is anyone's guess, maybe @IFocus knows.

So using the accepted back of the napkin formula, you need twice as much yellow stuff during the day to replace the black stuff and on top of that you need three times as much during the day, to charge the storage to replace the black stuff overnight.

Then you have to hope you have a good day the next day to repeat the cycle.

Jeez I hope we get another term of this, it will really bring it home, one way or the other IMO.

I've talked all my mates into voting Labor, this really does need to play out, the last thing we need at the moment is a commitment to nuclear.
Then everyone would be saying we didn't give renewables a fair go, that would be catastrophic IMO.

Then add to that the amount of renewables, that has been installed in this term of Government and it starts to look scary, just my opinion.

From @Smurf1976 post

And for the SWIS:

2014 = 10.0%
2015 = 11.3%
2016 = 12.8%
2017 = 13.8%
2018 = 15.9%
2019 = 21.7%
2020 = 25.9%
2021 = 32.7%
2022 = 35.3%
2023 = 35.4%
2024 = 38.8%
 
Last edited:
And for the Australian NEM renewable installation record, from the @Smurf1976 post.
NEM
2014 = 11.8%
2015 = 13.7%
2016 = 18.2%
2017 = 15.8%
2018 = 20.3%
2019 = 22.7%
2020 = 26.5%
2021 = 31.4%
2022 = 35.0%
2023 = 38.6%
2024 = 38.9%

So there is definitely a situation that Chris needs to address, I'm thoroughly enjoying the trip @IFocus I know SFA, so you obviously have inside info.

2019-2021 had an increase of nearly 10% renewables.

2022-2024 had a 4% increase, maybe there is another metric on working this out, like true believers.

@IFocus can you bring me up to speed? I know SFA and am looking for guidance, so I can help you on your crusade.
 
Last edited:
Just guessing but there were high feed in tariffs for rooftop solar in the early years, but they are pathetic these days, so maybe that's a reason fewer people are taking up solar.
 
SirRumpole said:
Just guessing but there were high feed in tariffs for rooftop solar in the early years, but they are pathetic these days, so maybe that's a reason fewer people are taking up solar.
Click to expand...
HaHaHa if our whole near term grid production future is dependant on roof solar installations, well we are toast.

Because if that is your answer, the Government certainly hasn't explained it to you and I actually think you are one of the better informed general population and actually take an interest.

I mean seriously we are hoping on roof top solar take up, to encourage industrial size investment? Has it really come to that?

A better investment would be BinTang tee shirt production, rusted on starting to face up to reality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
709
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
461
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
615
Dona Ferentes
ASK - Abacus Storage King
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
finicky
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...