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
This just keeps getting worse:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/rainfall/median/seasonal/0

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/temperature/maximum/median/seasonal/0

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/temperature/minimum/median/seasonal/0

Rainfall and temperature are the two key drivers of inflows to hydro catchments, the latter due to the link between temperature and evaporation (mostly on the ground before the water gets to the storage) and the former for obvious reasons. Both are heading in the wrong direction it seems.

This won't affect the ability of either Hydro Tas or Snowy Hydro to produce peak power but it does mean lower inflows. The result of that is that both will be less keen to generate outside the peaks, raising prices to bring that outcome about (there's no other way to do it, that's how the market works) and leaving someone else (coal, gas) to fill that gap. For the smaller hydro operators it's more complex due to water releases for irrigation (eg Dartmouth is primarily an irrigation storage, power being a secondary use) so they may well generate more in the short term since drier weather = more need for irrigation.

The issue here is about price not physical supply and I must point out that there is no physical threat to supply in Tas or anywhere else directly relating to the weather outlook. But to the extent that a cheap source (hydro) produces less and is replaced by a much higher cost source of production then that's going to push prices up even further (and they'll be going up quite a bit with the closure of Hazelwood anyway).

So it's all going wrong really. Coal plants closing, gas price has gone through the roof and physical supply is scarce, lower inflows into hydro catchments.
 
SirRumpole said:
Disturbing for farmers as well I would say.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert on farming that's for sure but I do know that a combination of high temperatures (and thus higher evaporation) combined with low rainfall isn't good. At best they incur higher costs for water pumping for irrigation. At worst they run out of water or don't have irrigation in the first place. Either way it's not good if it continues for long enough.

From a power generation perspective, it varies between individual hydro stations but broadly:

For those with limited storage capacity, for example the Mersy-Forth scheme in Tas, it's a case of generation over a relatively short period (months) needing to match inflows. If it's wet then that scheme can and does run at full capacity 24/7. If it's dry then it will run for the peaks and that's it. Somewhere in the middle if rainfall is moderate.

For those with large storage capacity they aren't affected by short term droughts, it's total inflows over many years which matters, but still any reduction in rainfall does ultimately mean less power generated. As with the smaller schemes they'll still generate for the peaks but will get out of the base load market.

Where that could get interesting is if there's a proper cold spell in Winter affecting SE Australia but it's still dry. Hazelwood gone, gas demand for space heating will be huge so not much left for anything else, hydro generators not keen on running for base load thus leaving gas-fired generation to pick up that. Then we find there's not enough gas to run the gas-fired stations and end up burning diesel....
 
SirRumpole said:
I hope that there is a public stink about gas prices. The situation is a farce.
Click to expand...

The thing about energy networks and their upstream supply sources is that they aren't really a commodity and nor are they a stand alone business. They are however the enabler of just about every business and commodity that exists.

You can build anything from a car factory to a nightclub. It's completely useless without electricity.

You can have as much gold or copper in the ground as you like but that's exactly where it will be staying if you don't have energy with which to extract it.

If you don't have energy then, to be blunt, you don't really have anything else either. Anyone who disagrees need only avoid the use of purchased energy in any form for the next 24 hours and that will change your mind for sure.

Energy networks and their supply sources as a business thus have a lot more in common with central banking or the military than they do with any other business. Now, I don't see any of the usual suspects suggesting that we privatise the Army and let market forces determine how best to defend Australia. They don't seem too keen on abandoning the concept of central banks either.

Here's a list of countries which have decided to take a fully free market approach to gas:

Australia

Yep. that's the entire list. One country. Not even the supposed home of capitalism and free markets, the USA, has gone as far down the deregulation track as we have.

It's sad really.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Yep. that's the entire list. One country. Not even the supposed home of capitalism and free markets, the USA, has gone as far down the deregulation track as we have.
Click to expand...

It just makes me wonder why.

We have the resources to supply a huge market and those wanting to sell it would still make a fortune even if we did sequester enough for our own use at reasonable prices.

There really should be an enquiry as to who signed the contracts and why they let foreign corporations get away with so much.

I smell a few rats running around on this.
 

We have enough natural gas for all our needs and export, it really is just a matter of price, people protest exports because they don't want to pay the world price.

They want to go back to the days where producers have limited customers and are forced to sell out the monopoly customer at the end of a single pipe.

Pay the right price and the drillers will drill and there will be all the gas we need, there is no shortage of gas, just a shortage of people wanting to pay market prices.
 

No it is really about reserving an amount for domestic consumption, and then selling the rest at a price that compensates the public, for the loss of an asset.
 
Value Collector said:
We have enough natural gas for all our needs and export, it really is just a matter of price, people protest exports because they don't want to pay the world price.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong again.

Our exports are causing a regional glut and local consumers are paying double the export price.

Adding insult to injury, it is Australian gas flooding into Asia that has caused a regional glut. Prices have collapsed and Asian manufacturers can now buy Australian gas at half the price local manufacturers are paying.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-...australia-than-in-export-destinations/7680106
 
Fusion may not be as far away as people think. Even the dear old Guardian thinks so. Although the word 'nuclear' may cause the renewables luvvies to shrink away, and insist instead on windmills and solar panels. I wouldn't put it past them.
 
Logique said:
Fusion may not be as far away as people think. Even the dear old Guardian thinks so.Although the word 'nuclear' may cause the renewables luvvies to shrink away, and insist instead on windmills and solar panels. I wouldn't put it past them.
Click to expand...

Not at all, for some tasks we are still going to need the big grunt. Most reasonable peers in the emerging Greens realise and accept this. Most recent plants have become very secure and clean. However it is going to take at least 10 years to be operational from when a decision is made. Alternative clean power from wind, solar and wave will be particularly advanced by then in my view.
 
Logique said:
Fusion may not be as far away as people think. Even the dear old Guardian thinks so.Although the word 'nuclear' may cause the renewables luvvies to shrink away, and insist instead on windmills and solar panels. I wouldn't put it past them.
Click to expand...

That article talked about "hundreds of megawatts" from fusion. When you think Hazlewood puts (did put) out 1600 MW, fusion seems a big price for not much.
 
SirRumpole said:
That article talked about "hundreds of megawatts" from fusion. When you think Hazlewood puts (did put) out 1600 MW, fusion seems a big price for not much.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a few nuclear plants being decommissioned around the world. I'm wondering if govt talk it futile in the face of the energy companies moving to presumably more financially attractive renewables... you take on that?
 
Tisme said:
There seems to be a few nuclear plants being decommissioned around the world. I'm wondering if govt talk it futile in the face of the energy companies moving to presumably more financially attractive renewables... you take on that?
Click to expand...

I came across this article his morning.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-...ables-transform-climate-change-leader/8316660

Looks like the worlds biggest polluter is cutting it's coal consumption. Why would you pay up to $9 billion to build one nuclear plant when you can have multiple redundant sources of renewables around the country all feeding into the grid or into pumped storage (which China is also taking on in a big way).

Nuclear is on the way out imo, but then I'm not an engineer. What do you think ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
814
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
579
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
654
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
12
Views
174
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...