The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

I think the fact homeowners will want to use their battery storage to feed their own demand, rather than export it to the grid, was brought up in this thread when posters were talking about EV batteries supporting the grid.
Reality catching up, yet again.

Consumer attitudes and earlier coal closures: AEMO mulls scenario tweaks ahead of new grid blueprint

AEMO flags potential forecast tweaks for consumer energy resources, the gas market, coal closures and EV uptake as it prepares input for its next grid blueprint.

reneweconomy.com.au

The three big movers appear to be the way that AEMO is looking at consumer energy resources (CER), the development of the gas market, and the uptake of EVs.

Some of the changes have been imposed on it by the new rule
changes that require it to better integrate consumer sentiment, gas and demand-side factors in the ISP.

CER – which mostly reflects household resources such as rooftop solar, battery storage and EVs – is considered important because, according to prior ISPs, they will likely account for more than half of total generation in years to come as Australian moves from a largely centralised to a distributed grid.

Harnessing that CER is considered crucial, but the latest publication raises questions about how easy and feasible that will be, given that many consumers may be reluctant to hand over control of their own assets to another party.


“Consumers are tentative to share control and coordinate the operation of their consumer energy devices through a third party such as their electricity retailer,” the document says.

Investment in CER, particularly in rooftop solar and batteries, reflects that households place high value on the benefits provided by these systems, and typically install relatively large household systems to improve their self-supply.

The issue is also being addressed by the NEM market review being led by energy economist Tim Nelson, who told the Energy Insiders podcast this week that household batteries – including his – are geared to optimise individual usage rather than providing grid-wide services that could help reduce costs for everyone.

I think that if homeowners wanted to have more control over their solar/battery systems but didn't want to go entirely off grid, then they may find their grid connection fees hiked in response.

 

[sptrawler]

I think that if homeowners wanted to have more control over their solar/battery systems but didn't want to go entirely off grid, then they may find their grid connection fees hiked in response.

Agree, also I would think that there may be an Australian Govt requirement that home EV chargers have to be V2G enabled, in order to be sold.

That would make it difficult for owners to avoid it, a bit like air conditioners have to be fitted with remote switching devices, so that power system can turn them off.

I think we are a long way from getting EV battery storage integrated into the grid, one obvious issue is can your local distribution system cope with a load of EV batteries and solar feeding back into the grid. When I looked at upgrading my solar, I was going to have to install a export limiting device, to limit how much I could feed in.

There are a lot of inherent technical problems changing a grid, that worked on the principle that power fed one way from the power station out, to one that can feed from the small end back in.

It is somewhat like saying, we are going to get everyone to push water back up their garden hose and fill up the dams.
Sounds good in theory, but difficult to do technically.

 

[qldfrog]

Agree, also I would think that there may be an Australian Govt requirement that home EV chargers have to be V2G enabled, in order to be sold.

That would make it difficult for owners to avoid it, a bit like air conditioners have to fitted with remote switching devices, so that power system can turn them off.

I think we are a long way from getting EV battery storage integrated into the grid, one obvious issue is can your local distribution system cope with a load of EV batteries and solar feeding back into the grid, when I looked at upgrading my solar I was going to have to install a export limiting device to limit how much I could feed in.

There are a lot of inherent technical problems changing a grid, that worked on the principle that power fed one way from the power station out, to one that can feed from the small end back in.

It is somewhat like saying, we are going to get everyone to push water back up their garden hose and fill up the dams.
Sounds good in theory, but difficult to do technically.

Yeap the socialist/Stalinist mindset is not dead...
So the retail customer is spending his money buying, installing and maintaining the battery or EV system, taking both risks, effort , low return yet is expected to be sacrificed for the "common(er) good"
"Why would theses filthy rich bastards still have power if i can not?"
And the usual socialist argument following is:
They got a tax deduction, or lower taxes, or CGT discount to buy these so they owe us..

 

[Smurf1976]

Ultimately the power grid is one single system serving everyone and by virtue of its operation redistributes the efficiencies gained by doing so. That doesn't mean it can't be a capitalist for-profit business, but it does have an inherent dash of socialism embedded into the very nature of it as a shared system for mutual benefit.

In practical terms if we consider a small consumer, eg a single person living by themselves in a small apartment, right up to the largest consumer on the grid (which for the record is Rio Tinto) then both benefit from each others' existence. The economies of scale and improved system load factor brought about by RT's operations benefit the residential user in their apartment. The existence of the small users taken collectively lowers the cost of supply to RT. In other words, everyone wins.

Hence the mining companies where they run generation have never objected to the idea of providing bulk supply for someone to distribute to others.

If you go to Mt Isa well there's one system that serves everyone - mostly mining but households are also supplied from the same source.

Go to north-west WA and ultimately it's big business generating and using most of the electricity, the transmission is mostly owned by mining companies, but Horizon Power, a WA government entity which supplies small consumers, is ultimately just distributing bulk supply obtained from the same system that primarily exists to power the mines.

Once people start thinking individually, that's the surest way to increase costs. Because the key to keeping costs low is firstly scale and secondly it's the benefit of diversity of demand.

Regarding the latter point, in short not everyone will have their individual maximum demand at the same time and that being so, if we put everyone on the same system then the generating capacity required is very much lower than would be required if everyone ran their own separate system. That's a big part of the reason to want the system (grid) to be as large as possible.

For a somewhat extreme example of that, peak demand in Queensland is a full 6 months out of sync with peak demand in Tasmania. Hydro inflows in north Qld are also very much out of sync with those in the Snowy, Victoria and Tasmania. That being so, there's fundamental logic in having them interconnected, it enables the system to work with significantly less capacity than would otherwise be required.

Another is that SA and NSW peak doesn't occur at the same time. Can occur in the same week but it doesn't occur at the exact same time, so interconnection does enable some sharing of generation and reduction in cost.

Once it goes down the track of individualism, here comes a price rise for everyone that's a given. That's partly where it's going wrong, ideology hell bent on doing things that increase costs.

 

[qldfrog]

Ultimately the power grid is one single system serving everyone and by virtue of its operation redistributes the efficiencies gained by doing so. That doesn't mean it can't be a capitalist for-profit business, but it does have an inherent dash of socialism embedded into the very nature of it as a shared system for mutual benefit.

In practical terms if we consider a small consumer, eg a single person living by themselves in a small apartment, right up to the largest consumer on the grid (which for the record is Rio Tinto) then both benefit from each others' existence. The economies of scale and improved system load factor brought about by RT's operations benefit the residential user in their apartment. The existence of the small users taken collectively lowers the cost of supply to RT. In other words, everyone wins.

Hence the mining companies where they run generation have never objected to the idea of providing bulk supply for someone to distribute to others.

If you go to Mt Isa well there's one system that serves everyone - mostly mining but households are also supplied from the same source.

Go to north-west WA and ultimately it's big business generating and using most of the electricity, the transmission is mostly owned by mining companies, but Horizon Power, a WA government entity which supplies small consumers, is ultimately just distributing bulk supply obtained from the same system that primarily exists to power the mines.

Once people start thinking individually, that's the surest way to increase costs. Because the key to keeping costs low is firstly scale and secondly it's the benefit of diversity of demand.

Regarding the latter point, in short not everyone will have their individual maximum demand at the same time and that being so, if we put everyone on the same system then the generating capacity required is very much lower than would be required if everyone ran their own separate system. That's a big part of the reason to want the system (grid) to be as large as possible.

For a somewhat extreme example of that, peak demand in Queensland is a full 6 months out of sync with peak demand in Tasmania. Hydro inflows in north Qld are also very much out of sync with those in the Snowy, Victoria and Tasmania. That being so, there's fundamental logic in having them interconnected, it enables the system to work with significantly less capacity than would otherwise be required.

Another is that SA and NSW peak doesn't occur at the same time. Can occur in the same week but it doesn't occur at the exact same time, so interconnection does enable some sharing of generation and reduction in cost.

Once it goes down the track of individualism, here comes a price rise for everyone that's a given. That's partly where it's going wrong, ideology hell bent on doing things that increase costs.

but it is seem as normal that society overall rackets an individual user who go, buy install and maintain his own production and or battery system to later on steal his capacity for the common good and basically screw him, ' cause there is always a more urgent need for someone else..insert image of premature babies in a maternity ward during blackout and a kitten in an rspca shelter during the heat wave
Is it cynicism or reality?
. I though we were old enough to know where this leads: USSR model followed by economic collapse;
who are the simpletons who would spend their money on buying something they can not use when needed ...
Capitalism has the answer : reward the said private owner if there is a need for his power: he becomes a rewarded producer;
And decide if it is worth or not his effort to feed power back
But that is not what is proposed is it?
Just mandate , force and more laws and taxes plus a new PS branch to manage and enforce the lot?
Most of the power I produced and sent to the grid was just done for $0 reward last year at the now sold farm.
Never again; there was a limit on how much I could feed back per day at a daily fee and a ridiculous feedback price of a few cents..so people are now setting systems which are not connected anymore, and good on them to use their brain.