News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rev]

I wonder how many major ship yard facilities around the world that build submarines and surface vessels, are powered by renewables.

Well what do you think powers the Whyalla steelworks, the Port Pirie lead smelter and the Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine when SA is producing 100% renewable power during the day (and sometimes late at night)?

I didn't ask about OD. They're turning to renewables which I'm sure you already know, if they haven't already implemented that.
It was a general query, if anyone could answer, not disputing renewables capabilities.

Both political parties in SA support 100% renewables by 2030 so yes the submarine construction will be renewable powered (Another possible ironic paradox like the West Virginia Coal Museum....powered by solar panels)

And they've also told us they'll bring the cost of electricity down for consumers. We're still waiting for that to happen too. In the meantime, the cost is going up.

Way too much navel gazing about coal's share of world power in 2015...nuclear share in 2010...etc etc. Who cares? It makes no difference to South Australia what the rest of the world was building 30 years ago.....what matters is what we're doing now.

I get it, the fact the graph, that spans 1985-2021, shows coal use is at record levels and continuing to trend upwards doesn't sit well with your beliefs.

Here you go, here's something current..
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/11604419 ... 0to%202021.

[rev]

It would be interesting to see this graph as it stands today. The sharp drop in coal, coincides with covid lockdowns worldwide, while industry in China and India suffered major closures. Since then, as economies have re opened it has shot up again. As fast as renewables are added worldwide, so also coal and gas increases as the world electrifies more. If we are to all go to electric homes, transport and manufacturing, this will only increase. It would appear many decades off if ever we are to be “net zero” unless we shut down our economy, and even then, the world would barely notice so long as we don’t stop exporting coal, gas and iron ore.

Could be wrong but I don't think its covid related. The last drop off was 2018-2020 on that graph, the following uptick is 2020-2021 and puts it higher then it previously was which was in 2018.
Even when it dropped, it didn't drop below 2015 levels.

Solar is at about 1000 TWh, wind just under 2000. Let's say 3,000 TWh combined, for the two most invested in renewables. And they're still not close to what coal was in 1985.
Hydro dropped off for the first time since the year 2000.
Nuclear is as high as it's ever been since 1985.

The graph shows at least 18-19,000 TWh generated from fossil fuels, and increasing as opposed to probably around 8,000 TWh of renewables, with one renewable source (hydro) seeing a decrease at the start of this decade.

I wonder how many major ship yard facilities around the world that build submarines and surface vessels, are powered by renewables.

By the way, check out what using coal has done to electricity prices in Germany...think 25% increase.

Now note, that's just taking plants out of mothballs.

How much more would new plants cost over and above that 25%? Double? Triple?

Those whinging about supposed renewables costs are getting new generators for their increases in prices. If we had to pay the costs of new coal plants, the screams of pain would be huge.

Don't know what it would cost, I'm not in the business of making bold sensationalist predictions, I leave that to the climate cult.

[rubberman]

Could be wrong but I don't think its covid related. The last drop off was 2018-2020 on that graph, the following uptick is 2020-2021 and puts it higher then it previously was which was in 2018.
Even when it dropped, it didn't drop below 2015 levels.

Solar is at about 1000 TWh, wind just under 2000. Let's say 3,000 TWh combined, for the two most invested in renewables. And they're still not close to what coal was in 1985.
Hydro dropped off for the first time since the year 2000.
Nuclear is as high as it's ever been since 1985.

The graph shows at least 18-19,000 TWh generated from fossil fuels, and increasing as opposed to probably around 8,000 TWh of renewables, with one renewable source (hydro) seeing a decrease at the start of this decade.

I wonder how many major ship yard facilities around the world that build submarines and surface vessels, are powered by renewables.

By the way, check out what using coal has done to electricity prices in Germany...think 25% increase.

Now note, that's just taking plants out of mothballs.

How much more would new plants cost over and above that 25%? Double? Triple?

Those whinging about supposed renewables costs are getting new generators for their increases in prices. If we had to pay the costs of new coal plants, the screams of pain would be huge.

Don't know what it would cost, I'm not in the business of making bold sensationalist predictions, I leave that to the climate cult.

climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg

The 25% increase in Germany is actual fact. Building new plant is far more expensive that taking existing plant out of mothballs.

So much for your previous concern over electricity prices.

Not that I think you are serious. However, if those who do care about prices at least know that coal really isn't a cheap option, then my work is done.

[bits]

Electricity in SA is simple - buy solar and batteries.
The sa gov is throwing money at you all the time.

[rev]

By the way, check out what using coal has done to electricity prices in Germany...think 25% increase.

Now note, that's just taking plants out of mothballs.

How much more would new plants cost over and above that 25%? Double? Triple?

Those whinging about supposed renewables costs are getting new generators for their increases in prices. If we had to pay the costs of new coal plants, the screams of pain would be huge.

Don't know what it would cost, I'm not in the business of making bold sensationalist predictions, I leave that to the climate cult.

climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg

The 25% increase in Germany is actual fact. Building new plant is far more expensive that taking existing plant out of mothballs.

So much for your previous concern over electricity prices.

Not that I think you are serious. However, if those who do care about prices at least know that coal really isn't a cheap option, then my work is done.

Did I say the 25% increase you posted wasn't factual?

[rev]

Electricity in SA is simple - buy solar and batteries.
The sa gov is throwing money at you all the time.

You keep repeating that it's "easy". It might be easy for you, but for many Australian's it is not easy. Even less so for South Australian's given this is one of the poorest states.
https://www.wemoney.com.au/financial-wellness-survey
Here's a snapshot of how things are moneywise for nearly half the country.

You mentioned the SA government is throwing money at people all the time..here's the difference it makes for a solar + battery setup.

How many South Australian's do you think can afford an outlay of $10,000-16,000 right now?

[rubberman]

Don't know what it would cost, I'm not in the business of making bold sensationalist predictions, I leave that to the climate cult.

climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg

The 25% increase in Germany is actual fact. Building new plant is far more expensive that taking existing plant out of mothballs.

So much for your previous concern over electricity prices.

Not that I think you are serious. However, if those who do care about prices at least know that coal really isn't a cheap option, then my work is done.

Did I say the 25% increase you posted wasn't factual?

Sure, but you are completely wrong. So why would I take notice?

However, for people out there actually interested:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/126 ... ity-price/
This one lists prices by month. It's hard to get an average figure, but it's clear that prices are up savagely.

https://www.ffe.de/en/publications/germ ... 2%AC%2FMWh.
This one lists prices and gives reasons (among which is an observation about renewables contributing to downward price pressure).


https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/electricity-price

Oh noes! Another one showing renewables helping prices come down!


https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/th ... power-mix/

This one has a graph about half way down showing coal prices going up directly in line with the recommissioning of mothballed plants.

Note that these figures are waaaay higher than the 25% I quoted, because that 25% includes other costs such as retail margin and network costs.

[claybro]

The 25% increase in Germany is actual fact. Building new plant is far more expensive that taking existing plant out of mothballs.

So much for your previous concern over electricity prices.

Not that I think you are serious. However, if those who do care about prices at least know that coal really isn't a cheap option, then my work is done.

Did I say the 25% increase you posted wasn't factual?

Sure, but you are completely wrong. So why would I take notice?

However, for people out there actually interested:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/126 ... ity-price/
This one lists prices by month. It's hard to get an average figure, but it's clear that prices are up savagely.

https://www.ffe.de/en/publications/germ ... 2%AC%2FMWh.
This one lists prices and gives reasons (among which is an observation about renewables contributing to downward price pressure).


https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/electricity-price

Oh noes! Another one showing renewables helping prices come down!


https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/th ... power-mix/

This one has a graph about half way down showing coal prices going up directly in line with the recommissioning of mothballed plants.

Note that these figures are waaaay higher than the 25% I quoted, because that 25% includes other costs such as retail margin and network costs.

So what you are saying, is that once all coal is out of the system, prices will rapidly reduce, because high energy prices are all the fault of coal? Well.. we don’t have many years to wait in Australia, so we shall soon know. Interesting times.

[rev]

The 25% increase in Germany is actual fact. Building new plant is far more expensive that taking existing plant out of mothballs.

So much for your previous concern over electricity prices.

Not that I think you are serious. However, if those who do care about prices at least know that coal really isn't a cheap option, then my work is done.

Did I say the 25% increase you posted wasn't factual?

Sure, but you are completely wrong. So why would I take notice?

However, for people out there actually interested:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/126 ... ity-price/
This one lists prices by month. It's hard to get an average figure, but it's clear that prices are up savagely.

https://www.ffe.de/en/publications/germ ... 2%AC%2FMWh.
This one lists prices and gives reasons (among which is an observation about renewables contributing to downward price pressure).


https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/electricity-price

Oh noes! Another one showing renewables helping prices come down!


https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/th ... power-mix/

This one has a graph about half way down showing coal prices going up directly in line with the recommissioning of mothballed plants.

Note that these figures are waaaay higher than the 25% I quoted, because that 25% includes other costs such as retail margin and network costs.

Why are you still babbling on about Germany when I told you already I haven't disputed your claims...?
How am I wrong, if I haven't disagreed with you?

You've basically created an argument for no reason and out of nothing, and continued even after being told your claim wasn't disputed.


FYI, this discussion was sparked by the upcoming surge of at least 20% in electricity costs that consumers will be paying that was reported in the media.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/elect ... f4d3f87913

Households and small businesses in three states are set to be hit by a major hike in the cost of their power bills from July after the nation's energy regulator flagged higher benchmark prices for retailers.

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) today unveiled a draft electricity price increase of 20 per cent to 22 per cent for the default market offer (DMO) over the coming financial year.

The DMO is the maximum price providers give to consumers on standing deals who haven't searched for a more competitive deal.

It is estimated residential customers will rise by 19.5 per cent to 23.7 per cent, depending on their state.

And small business customers could face price increases from 14.7 per cent to 25.4 per cent.

The price hikes will affect about 500,000 customers in South Australia, New South Wales and South-East Queensland.

Customers in Victoria and Tasmania are part of a different process and Western Australia and the Top End are on a different market.

AER Chair Clare Savage said the DMO was equally about protecting the consumer as it was about ensuring that energy retailers could stay in business.

"We know many households and businesses are already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. This is certainly a challenging environment for people to hear that further electricity price rises are on the horizon," she said.

Are you disputing that the cost of electricity to the consumer has continued to go up, and is set to go up again in a few months?
It's not me making that claim, its the regulator telling us the price is going to go up.

[rhino]

Are you disputing that the cost of electricity to the consumer has continued to go up, and is set to go up again in a few months?
It's not me making that claim, its the regulator telling us the price is going to go up.

Please don't view this as a dig at you, I'm just reasoning here.

Although you haven't disputed the claim, and are passing on what the Regulator has predicted, you also seem to lay the blame at the feet of the "Climate Culture in Australia".
It looks to me lke Rubberman is trying to show how "climate culture in Australia" is not to blame. Business does not want to back coal because they see no future in it, and the only countries that are moving forward with coal are either government-backed or under duress due to other reasons.

[PeFe]

Its gas driving the price rise of electricity in South Australia pure and simple.

Gas is a price leader/setter in the South Australian electricity market. If gas bids higher prices into the market then prices of renewables go up (Yes this is the way it works....the highest bidder sets the price and if their product is used this high price is passed onto lower bidders)

And South Australia eases its way to using less gas as a "foundation" for electricity ntework.

From Renew Economy

South Australia about to take another big step towards fossil free grid


We need more of these: Lake Bonney battery and wind farm.

The South Australia grid, the world’s leader with a 70 per cent share of wind and solar power over the past 12 months, is about to take another big step towards running on a truly fossil fuel free grid – at least on occasions.

South Australia, which has averaged nearly 80 per cent wind and solar over the last two quarters, reaches periods of “net 100 per cent renewables” on a near daily basis.

But what that means is that wind and solar are producing more than local demand, but the excess is being exported and somewhere in the background there are at least two gas units running to provide “system security”, such as system strength.

Now the Australian Energy Market Operator is considering another big change in its grid engineering assessment, flagging that it is likely to cut the number of gas units that must run to provide those essential grid services to a single unit.

It is likely to be announced in April, and follows detailed new modelling about how the grid can operate on wind and solar only, backed by spinning machines known as “synchronous condensers” that do not burn fuel.

That will be a truly historic moment. No other grid in the world of this size has the same amount of wind and solar as South Australia, and it would be the first grid in the world to run on wind and solar generation only.

That milestone will definitely be reached when the new transmission link between South Australia and New South Wales is built.

AEMO has already flagged the number of gas units required for system security by that time will be zero, although gas may be needed for bulk power on occasions if not enough wind and solar is being produced.

Other grids around the world have more than 50 per cent wind and solar, but usually also have strong connections to other states or countries, or hydro power which can deliver the “synchronous” services required by the grid.

South Australia has neither, with only two minor links to Victoria and no pumped hydro.

The state led the world with the construction of the world’s first Tesla big battery at Hornsdale in 2017, and is also leading the discovery of how battery inverters can provide those synchronous services. The new inverter technology is even called “virtual synchronous machines.”

The latest development was revealed in a brief market notice issued last week, where AEMO said it and local transmission company ElectraNet were assessing the technical requirements of the South Australia gird.

“Under some system conditions, it is likely that the requirement can be reduced to a minimum of one large synchronous generator,” it said.

ElectraNet, the notice said, has already ticked off the issues around voltage control, transit stability and protection adequacy (the latter requiring some changes). Studies were still continuing in system strength and oscillatory damping, but the results were expected soon.

The new connection to NSW is likely to lead to a significant increase in wind and solar capacity in the state, with several large projects already under construction, including the 412MW Goyder South wind farm, while the state’s big green hydrogen plans will also lead to a significant increase in wind and solar.

The state expects to reach “net 100 per cent renewables” on an annual basis by 2030, but it is likely to do that well before then, before setting off on its next target of “500 per cent” renewables which will reflect excess capacity being used for green hydrogen and other industries including green steel.

By that time it is expected to have little gas generation, served only by “fast start” generators that can fill in the gaps between wind and solar, although it also plans to have the world’s biggest green hydrogen power plant up and running by the end of 2025.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... free-grid/

[rev]

Are you disputing that the cost of electricity to the consumer has continued to go up, and is set to go up again in a few months?
It's not me making that claim, its the regulator telling us the price is going to go up.

Please don't view this as a dig at you, I'm just reasoning here.

Although you haven't disputed the claim, and are passing on what the Regulator has predicted, you also seem to lay the blame at the feet of the "Climate Culture in Australia".
It looks to me lke Rubberman is trying to show how "climate culture in Australia" is not to blame. Business does not want to back coal because they see no future in it, and the only countries that are moving forward with coal are either government-backed or under duress due to other reasons.

Fair enough.

However, my digs at the climate culture types in Australia isn't about the cost of living pressures like price rises in electricity.
May be that there's confusion on the different arguments.

[rubberman]

Did I say the 25% increase you posted wasn't factual?

Sure, but you are completely wrong. So why would I take notice?

However, for people out there actually interested:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/126 ... ity-price/
This one lists prices by month. It's hard to get an average figure, but it's clear that prices are up savagely.

https://www.ffe.de/en/publications/germ ... 2%AC%2FMWh.
This one lists prices and gives reasons (among which is an observation about renewables contributing to downward price pressure).


https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/electricity-price

Oh noes! Another one showing renewables helping prices come down!


https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/th ... power-mix/

This one has a graph about half way down showing coal prices going up directly in line with the recommissioning of mothballed plants.

Note that these figures are waaaay higher than the 25% I quoted, because that 25% includes other costs such as retail margin and network costs.

So what you are saying, is that once all coal is out of the system, prices will rapidly reduce, because high energy prices are all the fault of coal? Well.. we don’t have many years to wait in Australia, so we shall soon know. Interesting times.

That's not what I'm saying.

It's sort of hard to have a serious debate about something I never said.

I am saying that none of the existing coal generators are proposing to build new coal plants in Australia, even though they could easily do so by piecemeal replacements of major plant. What do you know that they don't?

I am saying that merchant banks won't provide finance for coal plants because the economics are risky. Can you disprove that?

I'm saying that if new coal plants are built, to compare like for like economically, they too would cause a spike in prices. Why does that sound unreasonable to you? Building coal plants isn't cheap. Is it so hard to accept that price increases would be required were they to be built?

Now where in that did I ever say that prices will come down as coal is removed from the system? Now, it might, especially if costs for renewables drop in the next ten years as much as they did in the past ten. However, I don't know that, and didn't claim it.

[claybro]

I am saying that none of the existing coal generators are proposing to build new coal plants in Australia, even though they could easily do so by piecemeal replacements of major plant. What do you know that they don't?

Why would they spend money on equipment that is being deliberately run out of business and told there is no futire market for them in a hostile environment such as Austrlalia?

I am saying that merchant banks won't provide finance for coal plants because the economics are risky. Can you disprove that?

India, China, Indonesia, Africa are building hundreds of the things. Just because a merchant bank wont lend money (banks which by the way are raking in billions in government renewable subsidies), doesn't mean a government cant weigh up risk, and fund the coal plants themselves. Obviously other countries are seeing the benefit/ necessity, so someone is funding them.-Are you denying there are hundreds of new coal plants under construction worldwide, when we were told the world is moving away from coal?

I'm saying that if new coal plants are built, to compare like for like economically, they too would cause a spike in prices. Why does that sound unreasonable to you? Building coal plants isn't cheap. Is it so hard to accept that price increases would be required were they to be built?

Coal and gas for that matter certainly do add to prices, as the market is set up to promote renewables, and penalise fossil fuel generation. The puzzle is, people are voting for this...but then seem surprised when prices are so high, and the East Coast market sometimes struggles to supply enough power.

[rubberman]

I am saying that none of the existing coal generators are proposing to build new coal plants in Australia, even though they could easily do so by piecemeal replacements of major plant. What do you know that they don't?

Why would they spend money on equipment that is being deliberately run out of business and told there is no futire market for them in a hostile environment such as Austrlalia?

I am saying that merchant banks won't provide finance for coal plants because the economics are risky. Can you disprove that?

India, China, Indonesia, Africa are building hundreds of the things. Just because a merchant bank wont lend money (banks which by the way are raking in billions in government renewable subsidies), doesn't mean a government cant weigh up risk, and fund the coal plants themselves. Obviously other countries are seeing the benefit/ necessity, so someone is funding them.-Are you denying there are hundreds of new coal plants under construction worldwide, when we were told the world is moving away from coal?

I'm saying that if new coal plants are built, to compare like for like economically, they too would cause a spike in prices. Why does that sound unreasonable to you? Building coal plants isn't cheap. Is it so hard to accept that price increases would be required were they to be built?

Coal and gas for that matter certainly do add to prices, as the market is set up to promote renewables, and penalise fossil fuel generation. The puzzle is, people are voting for this...but then seem surprised when prices are so high, and the East Coast market sometimes struggles to supply enough power.

People are voting for this because many of us can see that coal plants don't make economic sense. There was a coal favouring government in power for 9 years, and still the power generators weren't prepared to invest. There were even credible reports of Frydenberg putting pressure on AGL to extend the life of the existing plants. Plants which have failed each year since due to old age and decrepitude...costing AGL shareholders over a $100m in lost revenue each time. Alinta shut down Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations, and made no attempt whatsoever to renew them. Something they could easily have done.

Finally, those governments guaranteeing coal plants being built are just accepting that taxes will have to go up to pay for them. When you add those costs to the power charges to get the total cost, you get the same answer: coal makes no economic sense. Now, by all means, if an honest case is made, and the total costs of coal are presented and people are ok with it, then you have a case at least. If neither the power generators nor the previous government were able to do that, didn't even try, then it's clear that the economic case sucked.