Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

So far as the Port Augusta stations are concerned:

Playford B was pretty much stuffed. Hadn't reached full output for a very long time, I can't actually remember the last time it did but it would be sometime last decade, and for the past few years wasn't running at all (literally not at all). Hardly surprising for a plant built in 1960 with a steam range design and run extremely hard until Northern came online (1985) and still used quite a bit after that. Nominal capacity was 240 MW but in the latter years it very rarely exceeded about 150 MW in practice.

Northern was in pretty good shape though so far as I'm aware. Commissioned 1985 and no major problems although at a guess it was coming up for some significant maintenance (that's just a guess as the owners didn't go into such details publicly). Capacity was 540 MW and could go a bit higher under the right conditions.

The first plant, Playford A, closed a long time ago (1989) after 35 years of mostly base load operation. The three small 30 MW units and boilers half that size just weren't economic at that point. Too much work to maintain 3 turbines / generators and 6 boilers to produce 90 MW when compared to modern plant that is much larger and more fuel efficient too.

Prior to Playford A (1954) most power in SA was generated at Osborne (Adelaide) apart from relatively small amounts at Port Lincoln. Supplies of imported (from NSW) coal were extremely unreliable as had also been the case in Victoria and this ultimately prompted the move to use locally mined coal in SA and construction of the Port Augusta power stations to use it.

Upon completion of Playford B the two stations at Port Augusta accounted for half SA's generating capacity and around three quarters of power actually generated since they were the priority source. Next came Torrens Island, built for oil but converted to gas two years after opening.

By the early 1980's SA was somewhat desperate to move away from gas as a fuel and plenty of options were examined. Numerous sites for new coal-fired plant were investigated as was the possibility of converting Torrens Island to coal as WA had done at Kwinana. They even had a pretty hard look around the state to see if they could do something, anything at all, with hydro since the need to move away from gas as a matter of urgency was clearly understood.

Ultimately building Northern won out since it could generate about 40% of SA's total annual electricity consumption at the time and with Playford B remaining in service this would halve the state's use of gas for power generation in one fell swoop. At that time the added generating capacity was a bonus which helped tip the balance in favour of building Northern rather than converting Torrens Island but the real objective was to do something, anything that worked, to cut reliance on gas and to do it ASAP.

ETSA's future planning at that time was to in due course build more coal-fired capacity plus a pumped hydro scheme thus moving further away from reliance on gas. Both aspects were investigated in some detail and suitable sites identified but it never went ahead since the industry changes happened in the meantime.
 
Well we would have met.

As for what the East Coast is doing I have no idea.
My career is limited to maintenance, installation and operation of W.A power infrastructure.
Large thermal, down to small remote diesel and solar thermal generation.
What amuses me is the current trend to just blow up viable plant, with no regard for the possibility of extending its life, also no regard for the capital cost to replace it.
I'm guessing the gas pipeline from the Cooper basin, down to Adelaide, goes fairly close to Port Augusta.
Therefore, from what I've read, the Power Stations at Port Augusta could probably been saved if converted.
But as is the way with politicians, no way we are not going coal, blow it up.
Just dumb politics.
If they had converted it to run gas/coal, maybe the transition to renewables wouldn't be so painfull, for S.A.
But on the other hand, it does give the ignorant empowerment, to just bag dirty coal and highlight their limited knowledge of thermal generation.

I can't remember if I'm against coal or not, but I do like the technological side of new frontiers and the knowledge boost plus mind challenging problems looking for solutions that comes with them.
 
Northern was in pretty good shape though so far as I'm aware. Commissioned 1985 and no major problems although at a guess it was coming up for some significant maintenance (that's just a guess as the owners didn't go into such details publicly). Capacity was 540 MW and could go a bit higher under the right conditions.
years after opening.

Well smurph, from wiki they are two 260MW generators, their boilers could have been quite easily converted to gas.

The problem is Government's spending tax payer's money, doesn't seem to come under investigation, as long as you have plenty of hysteria surrounding it.

As can be seen on this forum, all and sundry know everything about Power Generation, just keep feeding them the anti 'coal' garbage.

By the early 1980's SA was somewhat desperate to move away from gas as a fuel and plenty of options were examined. Numerous sites for new coal-fired plant were investigated as was the possibility of converting Torrens Island to coal as WA had done at Kwinana. They even had a pretty hard look around the state to see if they could do something, anything at all, with hydro since the need to move away from gas as a matter of urgency was clearly understood.

Ultimately building Northern won out since it could generate about 40% of SA's total annual electricity consumption at the time and with Playford B remaining in service this would halve the state's use of gas for power generation in one fell swoop. At that time the added generating capacity was a bonus which helped tip the balance in favour of building Northern rather than converting Torrens Island but the real objective was to do something, anything that worked, to cut reliance on gas and to do it ASAP.

ETSA's future planning at that time was to in due course build more coal-fired capacity plus a pumped hydro scheme thus moving further away from reliance on gas. Both aspects were investigated in some detail and suitable sites identified but it never went ahead since the industry changes happened in the meantime.

So why was the anti gas so prevalent in the 1980's?
I know the Cooper Basin is rather depleted now, but what was the problem back then?
 
Interesting you worked on Muja C. I was a trouble shooter for some of that project. I remember all too well staying at the Crown Hotel in Collie and freezing my a4se off. Also worked on Callide, etc.

So who did you work for Aitons, Ical or Parsons?
 
Well smurph, from wiki they are two 260MW generators, their boilers could have been quite easily converted to gas.

250 MW each when installed, later tweaked to get a bit more out of them which took them to 270 - 280 each depending on if everything was going perfectly or not.

So why was the anti gas so prevalent in the 1980's?
I know the Cooper Basin is rather depleted now, but what was the problem back then?

Concerns about wasting a premium resource and running out of it.

At the time Torrens Island PS was using 70% of all gas in SA and was by far the largest gas consumer in Australia. With much of the Cooper Basin gas locked up in contracts to supply NSW, the fear was that SA could be left completely without gas (literally zero) by the late 1980's.

Against that backdrop the SA government did legislate to prohibit the future sale of gas produced in SA outside of the state. That was contrary to the Australian constitution which prohibits restraint on trade between states but they did it anyway (governments actually governed back then). They also ramped up exploration both privately funded and government funded - heck they even drilled near Tasmania.

Ultimately they did find more gas in the Cooper Basin and that along with reduced consumption and later supply from Vic prevented a crisis but it was very real at the time.
 
So who did you work for Aitons, Ical or Parsons?


That portal closed when it became evident you have no desire for open conversation, preferring to maintain the personal attacks on Rumpole and myself. If you were a child you would have been chided by your mother by now. I'm not handing you a ticket to ride the troll train.

You have a perfect role model in this very forum of how hate transforms men into gnarly old goats, yet you miss the obvious signs.
 
250 MW each when installed, later tweaked to get a bit more out of them which took them to 270 - 280 each depending on if everything was going perfectly or not.



Concerns about wasting a premium resource and running out of it.

At the time Torrens Island PS was using 70% of all gas in SA and was by far the largest gas consumer in Australia. With much of the Cooper Basin gas locked up in contracts to supply NSW, the fear was that SA could be left completely without gas (literally zero) by the late 1980's.

Against that backdrop the SA government did legislate to prohibit the future sale of gas produced in SA outside of the state. That was contrary to the Australian constitution which prohibits restraint on trade between states but they did it anyway (governments actually governed back then). They also ramped up exploration both privately funded and government funded - heck they even drilled near Tasmania.

Ultimately they did find more gas in the Cooper Basin and that along with reduced consumption and later supply from Vic prevented a crisis but it was very real at the time.

Smurph do you know the current capacity of combined coal and/or oil and/or gas (dual or triple) mainstream generators are operating in Australia ATM?
 
I wonder if Smurf has read the Finkel report ? If so I'm sure we would be interested in his thoughts on it.
 
As was pointed out on this forum several years ago, the way customers were being charged for electricity, would have to change.
The current method of charging for usage, isn't as effective with appliances become more efficient, and solar panels reducing demand.
The probable outcome, would be an ever increasing service cost, for connection.
Well the W.A Government has taken to the idea, with both hands.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/power-surge-to-hit-solar-homes-ng-b88515496z

This charge will increase from 48.6¢ a day to 94.9¢ a day. WOW
 
As was pointed out on this forum several years ago, the way customers were being charged for electricity, would have to change.
The current method of charging for usage, isn't as effective with appliances become more efficient, and solar panels reducing demand.
The probable outcome, would be an ever increasing service cost, for connection.
Well the W.A Government has taken to the idea, with both hands.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/power-surge-to-hit-solar-homes-ng-b88515496z

This charge will increase from 48.6¢ a day to 94.9¢ a day. WOW

The inevitable victims will be those who can't afford solar panels and will now find their power bills massively increased.

A very courageous decision by the government politically.
 
The inevitable victims will be those who can't afford solar panels and will now find their power bills massively increased.

A very courageous decision by the government politically.
the increase in service charge is just a recognition that the costs involved in providing power to homes and businesses comes in two parts.

1, Generation costs (vary depending on usage)

2, cost of distribution infrastructure (largely fixed costs)

People with solar still require a link to the grid, and benefit from using the grid as their "battery" so to speak, So its unfair to have the people without solar paying for the solar peoples "Battery".

So the daily service costs have to increase, so that the solar uses end up paying for their fair share of the grid costs.

This then should mean usage charges should come down a little, or atleast not go up as high as they otherwise would have if the service charge wasn't increased.
 
the increase in service charge is just a recognition that the costs involved in providing power to homes and businesses comes in two parts.

1, Generation costs (vary depending on usage)

2, cost of distribution infrastructure (largely fixed costs)

People with solar still require a link to the grid, and benefit from using the grid as their "battery" so to speak, So its unfair to have the people without solar paying for the solar peoples "Battery".

So the daily service costs have to increase, so that the solar uses end up paying for their fair share of the grid costs.

This then should mean usage charges should come down a little, or atleast not go up as high as they otherwise would have if the service charge wasn't increased.

All this treats electricity as just another commodity where the suppliers have to make a profit. (Think health)

Electricity is actually an essential service and should be delivered by governments for the benefit of the whole economy. This means that the State budget sometimes have to take a hit in order to achieve the lowest cost to the public, and doesn't have to feed the pockets of foreign shareholders who don't actually have to depend on the service.
 
All this treats electricity as just another commodity where the suppliers have to make a profit. (Think health)
Profit margins are regulated in most cases, and are limited to what is considered a reasonable return based on the capital they have invested and the risks etc. most regulated assets are earnings some where between 8% and 12% ( generally at the lower end)
Electricity is actually an essential service and should be delivered by governments for the benefit of the whole economy. This means that the State budget sometimes have to take a hit in order to achieve the lowest cost to the public, and doesn't have to feed the pockets of foreign shareholders who don't actually have to depend on the service.

Lots of things are essential, Farms, airlines, trucking, supermarkets, steel mills, mobile communication towers etc etc , that doesn't mean that government is the best managers or these things or that those that invest their capital into the required infrastructure don't deserve to generate a return on their investment.
 
Solar penalised, 'death spiral' for power grid, critics warn after power supply charge increase

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...uld-send-power-grid-into-death-spiral/8644258
If you have Solar, and you want to use power at night, you need a way to store your excess power during the day and then draw it back at night.

At the moment the cheapest place for you to store and retrieve this power is the grid, and it is silly to expect to use this service for free.

Using WA's 94.9 cent per day charge, the grid costs about $3,464 for 10 years.

If you chose to go "Off grid" for 10 years, you would need to spend about $10,000 on batteries (up front), then maintenance and insurance costs are on you, and there are also other cons such as once your batteries are full, your excess power production is wasted, and on those dark winter days, you might have to chose between heating the house and having a hot shower or cooking dinner and charging your car.
 
At the moment the cheapest place for you to store and retrieve this power is the grid, and it is silly to expect to use this service for free.

Who said people expect it for 'free' ?

Whether you have solar or not you still pay an access charge and a usage rate, but the argument seems to be that solar users have reduced demand so the company will jack up everyone's rates and serves them right.

This is where national interest and company profits clash. It's in the national interest to reduce power consumption by installing solar cells (and Finkel recommends subsidising people to do this), but when this results in a fall off of company profits the prices get hiked so people are effectively punished for reducing consumption. And what about the solar cell users return on investment ? Obviously that doesn't matter.

This is one case where national interest and company profits are mutually exclusive and national interest needs to win in this case.
 
Who said people expect it for 'free' ?

Whether you have solar or not you still pay an access charge and a usage rate, but the argument seems to be that solar users have reduced demand so the company will jack up everyone's rates and serves them right.

This is where national interest and company profits clash. It's in the national interest to reduce power consumption by installing solar cells (and Finkel recommends subsidising people to do this), but when this results in a fall off of company profits the prices get hiked so people are effectively punished for reducing consumption. And what about the solar cell users return on investment ? Obviously that doesn't matter.

This is one case where national interest and company profits are mutually exclusive and national interest needs to win in this case.

it is simply that the charges are being changed to actually reflect the real cost, Service charges are being raised to cover the full amount of the infrastructure, rather than the service charge being artificially low and being subsidised by usage charges.

Solar cell users "return on investment" comes in the form of lower usage charges, but they still have to pay the service charge because they are still using the grid, unless they go "off grid" by making a further investment into batteries, which is more expensive than just using the grid.
 
Top