News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[abc]

there's reason why China is an industrial economic powerhouse and Australia has been left in the dust, deindustrialised

why would you build anything in Australia when the cost of energy is the highest in the world

What's that got to do with renewables? Private companies are selling our own gas to us for more than companies in Japan are paying. It's the fossil fuel that's expensive. Then, coal plants are literally crumbling to bits...mostly owned by private enterprise. AGL had one of its biggest generators, Loy Yang A, out of commission 3 years in a row. One hundred million a pop breakdowns, one after the other. Not cheap, not reliable. The only renewable energy source not doing well is hydropwer. Snowy Mk2, which should have been operating by now, has crashed and burned. It's the same party that did all of the above that's now spruiking nuclear.

Yeah, nah. Lol. Hard to take seriously.

On top of what you've said, the move away from large scale manufacturing such as cars, textiles and white goods, with factories with thousands of workers, started long before our electricity cost woes. It's something that's happened across the whole developed western world.

Pretty sure as well that the highest electricity costs are between Germany and Denmark at the moment depending which set of data you look at, in some sets Australia is 16th in others we're not even in the top 20.

that's because somebody blew up the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany recently which previously allowed that country to dominate Europe economically

and since they'd shutdown the majority of their nuclear plants prior to going all in on gas they were left flat footed... now they're buying overpriced energy from the USA and also via Turkey

[PeFe]

Malinauskas government to introduce legislation to facilitate renewable and hydrogen developments in South Australia. Smart move to make the pathway for developments clear and concise.

From InDaily

Law change to open SA up to renewable and hydrogen 'gold rush'

The state government will introduce new legislation today in a bid to lure renewable energy and hydrogen investors and open up “vast tracts of land” for production “at a scale seen unlike anywhere else in the world”.



Premier Peter Malinauskas said the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill was a nation-first initiative that will put the state on the front foot in a renewable energy “gold rush”.

Developed following a 12-month consultation period with landholders, First Nations people and industry, the Bill aims to minimise red tape and will introduce five new licences relating to the different stages of renewable energy projects.

The legislation will also facilitate the process by which private companies can explore the potential of renewable projects, as well as the construction of the infrastructure and the generation of renewable energy like solar and wind.

Malinauskas said attracting investment into hydrogen projects was a core part of the Bill’s purpose and comes as the state government is in the procurement process for a partner to deliver a $593 million hydrogen power plant near Whyalla.

He said the legislation “has the power to have a very profound and positive impact on South Australia for generations to come”.

“The Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill is genuinely nation-leading legislation – we believe world-leading legislation – that has the objective of unlocking huge sums of investment into our state to grow the renewable sector with the explicit objective of producing hydrogen,” Malinauskas said.

“The Act takes five to six pieces of legislation consolidated into a single-purpose legislative vehicle that allows would-be investors to understand exactly what the rules of the game are to be able to access vast tracts of land in South Australia.

“Should the legislation be passed in Parliament, it will allow the government to make available to the market vast tracts of land where we know we have a high-quality solar and wind resource to be available to produce renewable energy and hydrogen at a scale seen unlike anywhere else in the world.”

The proposed legislation applies to both freehold and government-owned land, as well as state waters.

It preserves current arrangements for freehold land, whereby investors will need to secure access to land through direct agreement with landowners.

For state pastoral land and waters, a new competitive system will be introduced for conferring access and licences, which the Premier said enabled the government to responsibly assign the most prospective areas for renewable energy developments.

This will involve a competitive tender process whereby applicants will compete based on ‘transparent selection criteria’ to ‘ensure the state only hosts those projects willing to embrace coexistence with current land uses and deliver community and environmental benefits through their projects’.

Five new licence types will be created via the proposed legislation relating to key stages of renewable projects from early research right through to the construction and operation of the facilities. These include:

Renewable Energy Feasibility Licence/Permit: enables exploration for renewable energy, including construction of monitoring equipment
Renewable Energy Infrastructure Licence: permits construction operation, decommissioning and rehabilitation of renewable energy infrastructure
Renewable Energy Research Licence: permits construction, option, decommissioning and rehabilitation of renewable energy infrastructure for the purpose of researching the capabilities of a technology, system or process
Hydrogen Generation Licence: permits construction, operation, decommissioning and rehabilitation of hydrogen generation facilities.
Associated Infrastructure Licence: permits ancillary infrastructure (transmission lines, roads, water treatment) and associated facilities (hydrogen power plants, ports for hydrogen product export, desalination for hydrogen production)
Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said pastoralists were already being approached by international capital investors to lock up land and that the Bill would make that process “orderly”.

“We’ll identify the areas that we’ll release, they’ll do their own bilateral agreements – the same way you do now with the Mining Act. We issue a tenement and we expect the proponent and the landowner to come to an agreement about any loss of use of land and payments will be put in place,” Koutsantonis said.

“We don’t want to see large European companies just locking up land permanently in South Australia with some agreement with a pastoral lease holder and the South Australian public not getting access to the benefits of what might be developed. That resource belongs to South Australians.”

Koutsantonis said that consultation done for the Bill was “comprehensive”.

“I’ve never seen a level of consultation like this ever before,” he said.

“We’ve held three seminars with every Indigenous group in South Australia. We’ve gone out and engaged with industry.

“This Bill is designed to make sure that we go into the 21st and 22nd century with a fit-for-purpose foundation.”

https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/09/13/ ... old%20rush

[Aidan]

Continuing the discussion from the O-Bahn thread:

How much fossil fuels are subsidised is an issue that is difficult to come to a firm conclusion on. Certainly if externalities are included it's enormous, but assuming they're excluded, the next contentious issue is in what circumstances tax breaks count as subsidies.

Meanwhile the cost of generating electricity from renewables has fallen substantially. I used to think there'd be a rapid switch to renewables once they became cheaper than fossil fuels, and subsidies would no longer be needed. I now know this view was naïve, because adding capacity and increasing market share is less lucrative for electricity companies than doing nothing and increasing profit margins. There does need to be a financial incentive provided to generate more.

And generating our electricity from 100% renewables is not as hard as it appeared to be. After the failure to make large scale geothermal power economically viable in SA, I thought that we'd go to about 90% renewables but still have to rely on gas to fill the gaps (though the gas supply would eventually transition to non fossil sources). But now it's clear that there'll be a large overbuild of solar and wind, with the excess power used for producing hydrogen. A small proportion of the hydrogen would be used to fill the gaps (which, due to the overbuild, will be fewer) with the rest used for industry and export. But even after we reach 100% renewables, we'll probably retain the ability to use fossil fuels for decades.

[SBD]

Continuing the discussion from the O-Bahn thread:

How much fossil fuels are subsidised is an issue that is difficult to come to a firm conclusion on. Certainly if externalities are included it's enormous, but assuming they're excluded, the next contentious issue is in what circumstances tax breaks count as subsidies.

Meanwhile the cost of generating electricity from renewables has fallen substantially. I used to think there'd be a rapid switch to renewables once they became cheaper than fossil fuels, and subsidies would no longer be needed. I now know this view was naïve, because adding capacity and increasing market share is less lucrative for electricity companies than doing nothing and increasing profit margins. There does need to be a financial incentive provided to generate more.

And generating our electricity from 100% renewables is not as hard as it appeared to be. After the failure to make large scale geothermal power economically viable in SA, I thought that we'd go to about 90% renewables but still have to rely on gas to fill the gaps (though the gas supply would eventually transition to non fossil sources). But now it's clear that there'll be a large overbuild of solar and wind, with the excess power used for producing hydrogen. A small proportion of the hydrogen would be used to fill the gaps (which, due to the overbuild, will be fewer) with the rest used for industry and export. But even after we reach 100% renewables, we'll probably retain the ability to use fossil fuels for decades.

I suspect some gas-powered firming/peaking plants will remain for as long as it is legal to keep them. AGL's new Barker Inlet reciprocating engines, and the gas turbines that Tom Koutsantonis complains were government-owned generation assets privatised by the Liberals and are now used by wind turbine companies when the wind doesn't blow hard enough to meet their contracts, for example. I interpret that they have technology that is designed to require very little maintenance effort to be kept ready and available at low cost.

It's not clear whether "carbon tax" type charges against fossil fuel power should be counted in "subsidy" for renewables. It probably depends on who is asking and what they intend to prove.

For the last few weeks, SA wholesale electricity has been negative price and utility solar turned off for most of the daytime, and higher priced with imports from interstate overnight. I haven't been able to tell if that was a consequence of an inability to generate enough wind power or if it has been that imported electricity was cheaper on the spot market than local wind power for other reasons.

I've not seen general indications of the overall cost/efficiency of turning electricity to hydrogen and back again compared to pumping water uphill and down again. Baroota Pumped Hydro seems to still be an active proposal to provide 200MW for 8 hours if built. As it will take 3.5 years to build and hasn't started yet, the government hydrogen plans could be on a similar timeframe. By then, another coal powerstation will be close, and EnergyConnect will exist, making it possible for more large solar and wind projects in western NSW.

[RetroGamer87]

I still find it strange that batteries are measured by megawatt hours instead of joules. 250 megawatt hours is basically saying 250 megajoule-per-second-hours.

Power plants that have there capacity measured in megajoule-per-second-hours-per-year are even worse.

900 gigajoules is easier to say than 250 megawatt hours.

I suspect if the watt had been defined today instead of in the late 1800s it would be called the joulesecond.

Your last sentence is the wrong way round - a watt is a joule per second, not a joulesecond.
Alternatively, a joule is a watt⋅second.

I buy my electrical energy in kWh but my gas energy in MJ and my liquid car fuel in litres (with no clearly defined conversion factor). They are all energy.

Same thing, just condensed into a single word. I'm not suggesting that watts are, should or will be called joule-seconds. It was a joke based on modern naming conventions. Fortunately the watt wasn't named in modern times.

[Aidan]

I've not seen general indications of the overall cost/efficiency of turning electricity to hydrogen and back again compared to pumping water uphill and down again. Baroota Pumped Hydro seems to still be an active proposal to provide 200MW for 8 hours if built. As it will take 3.5 years to build and hasn't started yet, the government hydrogen plans could be on a similar timeframe. By then, another coal powerstation will be close, and EnergyConnect will exist, making it possible for more large solar and wind projects in western NSW.

Efficiency would be much lower, and for everyday use we'd go with batteries and (to a lesser extent) pumped hydro. Use of hydrogen to generate electricity would only be for when there's a prolonged shortage of supply. I apologise for not making that clearer in my earlier post.

[rev]

Just thought I'd post this as the nuclear option keeps being mentioned, some might find this interesting...

Modelling shows estimated cost of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan
Australian taxpayers would be slugged with a $387bn bill if Peter Dutton’s current plan to transition to nuclear was actioned.

Ellen Ransley

@RansleyEllen
3 min read
September 18, 2023 - 12:06PM
NCA NewsWire

Replacing Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the Coalition’s suggested nuclear energy model would cost taxpayers up to $387bn, new modelling suggests.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, backed particularly by junior Coalition partners the Nationals, has previously suggested that Australia could “convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.

Mr Dutton has also said nuclear is the “lowest cost form” of low carbon electricity, but has not explicitly outlined how much such a transition would cost.

New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”.

But the Greens have called on the government to stop the distraction and explain to Australians why they are forging ahead with new coal and gas projects when the country is in the grips of a “climate crisis”.

“Australia is forecast to have its worst summer since the Black Summer, and yet Labor is approving more coal and gas. Peter Dutton’s nuclear push is a distraction from Labor’s continual approval of new coal and gas projects,” party leader Adam Bandt said.

“We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by Peter Dutton’s push for nuclear when Labor keeps opening new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.”

A minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of the country’s retiring coal fleet.

Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW.

When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition.

“The opposition want to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it,” Mr Bowen said.

“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-billion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.”

In total, the $387bn plan costs about 20 times what the Albanese government’s Rewiring the Nation fund is projected to cost.

The government says that fund will help achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, by unlocking over 26GW of new renewable generation capacity, and over 30GW of transmission capacity.

When Mr Dutton made his pitch for a nuclear transition in July, he suggested the Liddell Power Station could be a possible site for a small nuclear reactor.

At the time, he said he saw nuclear “not as a competitor to renewables, but as a competition”.

He said he wanted an Australia where “we can decarbonise, and, at the same time, deliver cheaper, more reliable, and lower emission electricity”.

On Monday morning, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce sought to undermine the department’s costings, saying the government had also released costing showing Australians would have a $275 reduction in their power bills which “didn’t happen”.

“Universities have said to get to a zero emissions target it is $7 to 9 trillion – that’s 20 times more than what Mr Bowen has put forward in the nuclear costing, spare me,” Mr Joyce told Channel 7.

“Mr Bowen is right and 32 countries are wrong? It’s ridiculous.”

His panelmate, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said nuclear was “the most expensive form of energy there is”.

“More than 70 reactors … we would have to find places for in Australia. Where are they going to go? Is Barnaby going to have them in his electorate? Where are they going to go,” she said.

“Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... 8d10175d02


A few points off the top of my head here...

-Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. True, but neither does anybody want a field of wind turbines in their backyard. Nor an array of solar panels that take up a shit tonne of land.

-70 reactors. As opposed to how many hundreds, and thousands of fields of solar panels and wind turbines?

-They bang on about the $387 billion price tag, but they wont pretend like renewables are cheap. The Snowy 2.0 project has blown out by a huge amount from it's original price tag for example.
And it's not like renewable energy projects are delivering a cheap power supply to Australian households.

-Is it really $387 billion? Maybe it's more maybe it's less, politicians have a knack for lying.

-Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. << If this really is the estimated capital cost, assuming they aren't fudging numbers like they always do (big IF), I'd hate to see the cost down the line for the consumer, you and I.

-New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly. << I'm sure that analysis by the department has not had any political influence from the government...

- Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”. <<< This wanker should first try and explain to the Australian people why we're being slugged the highest electricity costs we've ever seen, when his own government has told Australian's they would bring costs down.

[rubberman]

Just thought I'd post this as the nuclear option keeps being mentioned, some might find this interesting...

Modelling shows estimated cost of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan
Australian taxpayers would be slugged with a $387bn bill if Peter Dutton’s current plan to transition to nuclear was actioned.

Ellen Ransley

@RansleyEllen
3 min read
September 18, 2023 - 12:06PM
NCA NewsWire

Replacing Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the Coalition’s suggested nuclear energy model would cost taxpayers up to $387bn, new modelling suggests.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, backed particularly by junior Coalition partners the Nationals, has previously suggested that Australia could “convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.

Mr Dutton has also said nuclear is the “lowest cost form” of low carbon electricity, but has not explicitly outlined how much such a transition would cost.

New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”.

But the Greens have called on the government to stop the distraction and explain to Australians why they are forging ahead with new coal and gas projects when the country is in the grips of a “climate crisis”.

“Australia is forecast to have its worst summer since the Black Summer, and yet Labor is approving more coal and gas. Peter Dutton’s nuclear push is a distraction from Labor’s continual approval of new coal and gas projects,” party leader Adam Bandt said.

“We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by Peter Dutton’s push for nuclear when Labor keeps opening new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.”

A minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of the country’s retiring coal fleet.

Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW.

When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition.

“The opposition want to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it,” Mr Bowen said.

“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-billion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.”

In total, the $387bn plan costs about 20 times what the Albanese government’s Rewiring the Nation fund is projected to cost.

The government says that fund will help achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, by unlocking over 26GW of new renewable generation capacity, and over 30GW of transmission capacity.

When Mr Dutton made his pitch for a nuclear transition in July, he suggested the Liddell Power Station could be a possible site for a small nuclear reactor.

At the time, he said he saw nuclear “not as a competitor to renewables, but as a competition”.

He said he wanted an Australia where “we can decarbonise, and, at the same time, deliver cheaper, more reliable, and lower emission electricity”.

On Monday morning, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce sought to undermine the department’s costings, saying the government had also released costing showing Australians would have a $275 reduction in their power bills which “didn’t happen”.

“Universities have said to get to a zero emissions target it is $7 to 9 trillion – that’s 20 times more than what Mr Bowen has put forward in the nuclear costing, spare me,” Mr Joyce told Channel 7.

“Mr Bowen is right and 32 countries are wrong? It’s ridiculous.”

His panelmate, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said nuclear was “the most expensive form of energy there is”.

“More than 70 reactors … we would have to find places for in Australia. Where are they going to go? Is Barnaby going to have them in his electorate? Where are they going to go,” she said.

“Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... 8d10175d02


A few points off the top of my head here...

-Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. True, but neither does anybody want a field of wind turbines in their backyard. Nor an array of solar panels that take up a shit tonne of land.

-70 reactors. As opposed to how many hundreds, and thousands of fields of solar panels and wind turbines?

-They bang on about the $387 billion price tag, but they wont pretend like renewables are cheap. The Snowy 2.0 project has blown out by a huge amount from it's original price tag for example.
And it's not like renewable energy projects are delivering a cheap power supply to Australian households.

-Is it really $387 billion? Maybe it's more maybe it's less, politicians have a knack for lying.

-Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. << If this really is the estimated capital cost, assuming they aren't fudging numbers like they always do (big IF), I'd hate to see the cost down the line for the consumer, you and I.

-New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly. << I'm sure that analysis by the department has not had any political influence from the government...

- Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”. <<< This wanker should first try and explain to the Australian people why we're being slugged the highest electricity costs we've ever seen, when his own government has told Australian's they would bring costs down.

Will they call it something like NBN...Nuclear, But Nuclear-ier?

It's a well known political tactic. If one party comes up with something, then the other party says "We've got something better". That's what gave us fibre to the node...which is now being unceremoniously junked at a cost of billions and years of delays. It gave us Snowy Mk2, which is years overdue and over budget. Should we go for "third time lucky" here?

The only thing I'd point out is that private enterprise has stated it has no interest. Certainly, if there was the slightest chance of a profit, energy companies would be out there campaigning. The fact that they aren't tells me that it's a dud.

[rev]

And here's this..

Huge cost of Australia’s renewable energy dream, according to industry leaders
Energy industry leaders have revealed the race to connect renewables to the grid is challenging and costly as projects blow out by billions.

Paul Starick
@paulstarick
3 min read
September 16, 2023 - 4:30AM
News Corp Australia Network

The race to connect renewable energy to the grid is challenging and costly, industry leaders say, as they urge a focus on affordable electricity.

Alinta Energy chief executive officer Jeff Dimery said his firm was investing $10bn into renewable power, including offshore wind, battery technology and pumped hydro, but cautioned that affordability must remain a key driver.

He cited the giant Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro project, the cost of which in August was announced as having blown out to $12bn from an original $2bn.

Mr Dimery said this would deliver $100m of monthly revenue once complete, which translated to a capital cost of more than $60 per megawatt hour.

The market paid less than $15 per megawatt hour for pumped hydro less than three years ago – a more than fourfold cost hike.

“We need to clean up our energy supply..... And I guess what I’m saying is that, ultimately, I agree with the Prime Minister, his vision and how we need to get there. Where we’re differing is at the pace at which we might do that,” Mr Dimery said.

Transgrid executive general manager Craig Stallan, whose firm operates and manages the high-voltage transmission network in NSW and the ACT, said infrastructure needed to be built to create a superhighway across the national power grid.




This would enable electricity to be shared much more easily and, therefore, boost energy security.

Mr Stallan cited figures showing every dollar invested in transmission infrastructure returned $2 to consumers pockets.

He likened the electricity network to a heartbeat, saying the grid ran at 50 beats per second and this had historically been maintained by coal-fired generators.

“As we change away from that infrastructure, the strength of that system is going to change and we need to replace that load with other technologies so that wherever you are on the grid, you can still hear that heartbeat, you can synchronise to that heartbeat, and you can get that nice, stable operating pattern,” Mr Stallan said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said extending the transmission network was vital to enable business and industry to “access reliable and affordable clean energy to reduce their input costs and reduce their emissions”.

“Some of the best places in the country for wind and sun, and the jobs that go with it, are off the grid today. That needs to change,” he said.

“ The investments we are making, upgrading the national energy grid, will create new jobs on major projects right around Australia.

“That will ensure that the next generation of Australian jobs in advanced manufacturing technology and critical minerals can be powered by renewable energy as part of our quest for a grid fit for the 21st century and beyond.”

Everyday life in households will be dramatically changed by the unprecedented energy transformation, which will affect everything from plugging in electric cars to cooking.

The Future Energy forum heard charging cars was like setting an alarm clock, while it would take time for households to make choices to electrify their kitchens.

Australian Energy Council chief executive Sarah McNamara, who represents electricity generators and retailers, said a smart meter rollout would help more households be open to buying electric vehicles and home batteries.

“But I think we also need to be realistic about electrification and that it is going to take time for households to make choices to electrify their kitchen, for example, and that’s not just a preference issue, that’s often an affordability issue,” she said.

“A lot of households simply don’t think about electricity that much. They worry about paying their bill, but it’s a bit of a grudge purchase.

“Trying to get those people excited about investing in new technologies, supposing they can afford it, is a real challenge and that will take us time.”

Ms McNamara urged measures to help low-cost housing become energy efficient and install solar panels on rental properties.

EV Direct chief operating officer Mark Harland, whose firm imports BYD electric vehicles, said people needed to be educated about the ease of charging electric cars, likening this to setting an alarm clock.

“Most of us drive 30 to 40km a day and, say, using maybe seven or eight kilowatts of a 60kW battery. So I go home at night I could plug into either a charger or I could just plug it into the normal 15 240 (outlet) and charge that in a few hours,” he said.

“The battery range anxiety and the costs of that is changing really quickly with the technology.”

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... our=append

[claybro]

Just thought I'd post this as the nuclear option keeps being mentioned, some might find this interesting...

Modelling shows estimated cost of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan
Australian taxpayers would be slugged with a $387bn bill if Peter Dutton’s current plan to transition to nuclear was actioned.

Ellen Ransley

@RansleyEllen
3 min read
September 18, 2023 - 12:06PM
NCA NewsWire

Replacing Australia’s retiring coal-fired power stations with the Coalition’s suggested nuclear energy model would cost taxpayers up to $387bn, new modelling suggests.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, backed particularly by junior Coalition partners the Nationals, has previously suggested that Australia could “convert or repurpose coal-fired plants and use the transmission connections which already exist on those sites”.

Mr Dutton has also said nuclear is the “lowest cost form” of low carbon electricity, but has not explicitly outlined how much such a transition would cost.

New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”.

But the Greens have called on the government to stop the distraction and explain to Australians why they are forging ahead with new coal and gas projects when the country is in the grips of a “climate crisis”.

“Australia is forecast to have its worst summer since the Black Summer, and yet Labor is approving more coal and gas. Peter Dutton’s nuclear push is a distraction from Labor’s continual approval of new coal and gas projects,” party leader Adam Bandt said.

“We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by Peter Dutton’s push for nuclear when Labor keeps opening new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.”

A minimum of 71 small modular reactors – providing 300MW each – would be needed if the policy were to fully replace the 21.3GW output of the country’s retiring coal fleet.

Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW.

When broken down, the modelling suggests each individual taxpayer would be burdened with a “whopping $25,000 cost impost” for such a transition.

“The opposition want to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it,” Mr Bowen said.

“After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi-billion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.”

In total, the $387bn plan costs about 20 times what the Albanese government’s Rewiring the Nation fund is projected to cost.

The government says that fund will help achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, by unlocking over 26GW of new renewable generation capacity, and over 30GW of transmission capacity.

When Mr Dutton made his pitch for a nuclear transition in July, he suggested the Liddell Power Station could be a possible site for a small nuclear reactor.

At the time, he said he saw nuclear “not as a competitor to renewables, but as a competition”.

He said he wanted an Australia where “we can decarbonise, and, at the same time, deliver cheaper, more reliable, and lower emission electricity”.

On Monday morning, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce sought to undermine the department’s costings, saying the government had also released costing showing Australians would have a $275 reduction in their power bills which “didn’t happen”.

“Universities have said to get to a zero emissions target it is $7 to 9 trillion – that’s 20 times more than what Mr Bowen has put forward in the nuclear costing, spare me,” Mr Joyce told Channel 7.

“Mr Bowen is right and 32 countries are wrong? It’s ridiculous.”

His panelmate, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said nuclear was “the most expensive form of energy there is”.

“More than 70 reactors … we would have to find places for in Australia. Where are they going to go? Is Barnaby going to have them in his electorate? Where are they going to go,” she said.

“Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard.”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... 8d10175d02


A few points off the top of my head here...

-Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. True, but neither does anybody want a field of wind turbines in their backyard. Nor an array of solar panels that take up a shit tonne of land.

-70 reactors. As opposed to how many hundreds, and thousands of fields of solar panels and wind turbines?

-They bang on about the $387 billion price tag, but they wont pretend like renewables are cheap. The Snowy 2.0 project has blown out by a huge amount from it's original price tag for example.
And it's not like renewable energy projects are delivering a cheap power supply to Australian households.

-Is it really $387 billion? Maybe it's more maybe it's less, politicians have a knack for lying.

-Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. << If this really is the estimated capital cost, assuming they aren't fudging numbers like they always do (big IF), I'd hate to see the cost down the line for the consumer, you and I.

-New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly. << I'm sure that analysis by the department has not had any political influence from the government...

- Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”. <<< This wanker should first try and explain to the Australian people why we're being slugged the highest electricity costs we've ever seen, when his own government has told Australian's they would bring costs down.

Will they call it something like NBN...Nuclear, But Nuclear-ier?

It's a well known political tactic. If one party comes up with something, then the other party says "We've got something better". That's what gave us fibre to the node...which is now being unceremoniously junked at a cost of billions and years of delays. It gave us Snowy Mk2, which is years overdue and over budget. Should we go for "third time lucky" here?

The only thing I'd point out is that private enterprise has stated it has no interest. Certainly, if there was the slightest chance of a profit, energy companies would be out there campaigning. The fact that they aren't tells me that it's a dud.

Companies will not invest in an environment where a government is hostile to their business. The current government is ideologically opposed, and the Libs have only jumped on to nuclear as a political manoeuvre recently. Somehow Canada, a similar country to Aus, but also blessed with hydro possibilities, is pinning its future to nuclear. And Frances 50 year old nuclear plants are powering most of Western Europe, even that green superstar Germany where the renewables are proving to be an economic disaster for industry.

[rubberman]

Just thought I'd post this as the nuclear option keeps being mentioned, some might find this interesting...


https://www.news.com.au/finance/busines ... 8d10175d02


A few points off the top of my head here...

-Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. True, but neither does anybody want a field of wind turbines in their backyard. Nor an array of solar panels that take up a shit tonne of land.

-70 reactors. As opposed to how many hundreds, and thousands of fields of solar panels and wind turbines?

-They bang on about the $387 billion price tag, but they wont pretend like renewables are cheap. The Snowy 2.0 project has blown out by a huge amount from it's original price tag for example.
And it's not like renewable energy projects are delivering a cheap power supply to Australian households.

-Is it really $387 billion? Maybe it's more maybe it's less, politicians have a knack for lying.

-Each reactor’s estimated capital cost is $18,167/kW in 2030 compared with large-scale solar at $1058/kW and onshore wind at $1989/kW. << If this really is the estimated capital cost, assuming they aren't fudging numbers like they always do (big IF), I'd hate to see the cost down the line for the consumer, you and I.

-New analysis done by the energy department shows the projected cost, which assumes replacing all of the output from closing coal-fired plants with small modular reactors, would be costly. << I'm sure that analysis by the department has not had any political influence from the government...

- Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said Mr Dutton and the opposition “need to explain why” Australians would be slugged with a $387bn burden for their nuclear energy plan that “flies in the face of economics and reason”. <<< This wanker should first try and explain to the Australian people why we're being slugged the highest electricity costs we've ever seen, when his own government has told Australian's they would bring costs down.

Will they call it something like NBN...Nuclear, But Nuclear-ier?

It's a well known political tactic. If one party comes up with something, then the other party says "We've got something better". That's what gave us fibre to the node...which is now being unceremoniously junked at a cost of billions and years of delays. It gave us Snowy Mk2, which is years overdue and over budget. Should we go for "third time lucky" here?

The only thing I'd point out is that private enterprise has stated it has no interest. Certainly, if there was the slightest chance of a profit, energy companies would be out there campaigning. The fact that they aren't tells me that it's a dud.

Companies will not invest in an environment where a government is hostile to their business. The current government is ideologically opposed, and the Libs have only jumped on to nuclear as a political manoeuvre recently. Somehow Canada, a similar country to Aus, but also blessed with hydro possibilities, is pinning its future to nuclear. And Frances 50 year old nuclear plants are powering most of Western Europe, even that green superstar Germany where the renewables are proving to be an economic disaster for industry.

If companies think they can make a profit they have no hesitation in pushing their agendas. Especially in multi-billion dollar industries. Think of the reactions to the mining tax and the influence of the gaming industry. If the likes of AGL or Origin saw profits to be made in nuclear, they'd be moving to heavily fund a campaign, just like other industries do.

As for Canada. Well, if you give a power source a 30% tax cut and other incentives, you can make many things attractive to the market. Of course, it doesn't make energy any cheaper, the extra cost is hidden in other taxes.

[rev]

Companies will not invest in an environment where a government is hostile to their business. The current government is ideologically opposed, and the Libs have only jumped on to nuclear as a political manoeuvre recently. Somehow Canada, a similar country to Aus, but also blessed with hydro possibilities, is pinning its future to nuclear. And Frances 50 year old nuclear plants are powering most of Western Europe, even that green superstar Germany where the renewables are proving to be an economic disaster for industry.

Yep. The resurgence in nuclear in Europe is just ignored.
In US dollars, but they're a much larger consumer market & economy then Australia, and they obviously have nuclear power already.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampba ... 65b633ec97

Ah, you object, we could buy more storage to provide surge capacity. However, anyone familiar with the electric power industry knows that they have always struggled to find enough storage capacity to cope with daily and seasonal peak demand—and rarely turn to batteries or renewables. Why? A 40 kwh lithium-ion battery costs about $5000, despite the decline in costs, and provides about 2.5% times as much energy as a $100 barrel of oil. True, the battery could be used repeatedly but you would still need power to recharge them.[/quote[

And on your point re Germany.

There is also a real world experiment that demonstrates the role renewables play (or don’t play) in improving energy security. Germany has engaged in a massive rollout of renewable energy since 2010 as the figure shows, increasing by 150% since then at a cost of more than $30 billion per year.

Sadly, this has not translated into less dependence on Russian gas, or on gas more generally. The figure below compares German, French and English consumption of natural gas over the past three decades and there is no significant difference between them. German natural gas consumption is largely unchanged, in part because of its use to back up unreliable renewable power generation.

Finally, there is a major difference between the lobbies for petroleum and renewables. The renewable lobby wants more government aid, while the petroleum lobby wants less government interference. And yes it is true that renewables are cheaper than oil at the moment, they don’t replace oil in nearly any instance. European gas prices are certainly high enough to support more investment in renewables, but the current price spike is unlikely to persist beyond this year.

These from the Brookings Institute.

[rubberman]

Companies will not invest in an environment where a government is hostile to their business. The current government is ideologically opposed, and the Libs have only jumped on to nuclear as a political manoeuvre recently. Somehow Canada, a similar country to Aus, but also blessed with hydro possibilities, is pinning its future to nuclear. And Frances 50 year old nuclear plants are powering most of Western Europe, even that green superstar Germany where the renewables are proving to be an economic disaster for industry.

Yep. The resurgence in nuclear in Europe is just ignored.
In US dollars, but they're a much larger consumer market & economy then Australia, and they obviously have nuclear power already.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampba ... 65b633ec97

Ah, you object, we could buy more storage to provide surge capacity. However, anyone familiar with the electric power industry knows that they have always struggled to find enough storage capacity to cope with daily and seasonal peak demand—and rarely turn to batteries or renewables. Why? A 40 kwh lithium-ion battery costs about $5000, despite the decline in costs, and provides about 2.5% times as much energy as a $100 barrel of oil. True, the battery could be used repeatedly but you would still need power to recharge them.[/quote[

And on your point re Germany.

There is also a real world experiment that demonstrates the role renewables play (or don’t play) in improving energy security. Germany has engaged in a massive rollout of renewable energy since 2010 as the figure shows, increasing by 150% since then at a cost of more than $30 billion per year.

Sadly, this has not translated into less dependence on Russian gas, or on gas more generally. The figure below compares German, French and English consumption of natural gas over the past three decades and there is no significant difference between them. German natural gas consumption is largely unchanged, in part because of its use to back up unreliable renewable power generation.

Finally, there is a major difference between the lobbies for petroleum and renewables. The renewable lobby wants more government aid, while the petroleum lobby wants less government interference. And yes it is true that renewables are cheaper than oil at the moment, they don’t replace oil in nearly any instance. European gas prices are certainly high enough to support more investment in renewables, but the current price spike is unlikely to persist beyond this year.

These from the Brookings Institute.

These figures change from year to year. The following study done this year by Lazard shows nuclear as more expensive than grid solar and wind. Importantly with subsidies stripped out.

https://www.lazard.com/research-insight ... nergyplus/

What subsidies have done is make rooftop appear cheaper. The removal of all subsidies would increase the relative attraction of grid scale renewables, but wouldn't favour coal or nuclear.

The situation in Europe is that they relied on the Russians. That's a geopolitical issue, rather than one of renewables vs nuclear. European countries aren't looking at nuclear because it's economic. They are looking at it because they can't rely on gas. For Germany, it's expensive but reliable nuclear vs cheaper but unreliable gas. Renewables don't enter the conversation.

[rev]

These figures change from year to year. The following study done this year by Lazard shows nuclear as more expensive than grid solar and wind. Importantly with subsidies stripped out.

https://www.lazard.com/research-insight ... nergyplus/

What subsidies have done is make rooftop appear cheaper. The removal of all subsidies would increase the relative attraction of grid scale renewables, but wouldn't favour coal or nuclear.

The situation in Europe is that they relied on the Russians. That's a geopolitical issue, rather than one of renewables vs nuclear. European countries aren't looking at nuclear because it's economic. They are looking at it because they can't rely on gas. For Germany, it's expensive but reliable nuclear vs cheaper but unreliable gas. Renewables don't enter the conversation.

You're looking at around $15,000 for a proper home solar & battery setup. That's with subsidies. That does not see cheap, or cheaper.
Take away the subsidies, it would likely be more expensive then the alleged cost of Duttons nuclear plans per Australian.

[rubberman]

These figures change from year to year. The following study done this year by Lazard shows nuclear as more expensive than grid solar and wind. Importantly with subsidies stripped out.

https://www.lazard.com/research-insight ... nergyplus/

What subsidies have done is make rooftop appear cheaper. The removal of all subsidies would increase the relative attraction of grid scale renewables, but wouldn't favour coal or nuclear.

The situation in Europe is that they relied on the Russians. That's a geopolitical issue, rather than one of renewables vs nuclear. European countries aren't looking at nuclear because it's economic. They are looking at it because they can't rely on gas. For Germany, it's expensive but reliable nuclear vs cheaper but unreliable gas. Renewables don't enter the conversation.

You're looking at around $15,000 for a proper home solar & battery setup. That's with subsidies. That does not see cheap, or cheaper.
Take away the subsidies, it would likely be more expensive then the alleged cost of Duttons nuclear plans per Australian.

That's what the Lazard report agrees with roughly. It's agreeing that rooftop is expensive relatively. However, it also says that for grid scale, solar and wind beat coal and nuclear.

So, when you come to commercial decisions, you have to look at grid scale. Those figures don't support nuclear at all.

Another point buried in the Lazard figures is that different technologies are affected very differently by interest rates. Wind and solar are hardly affected by them. Nuclear is affected a lot by interest rate changes. That means that the latest interest rate hikes would have decreased the feasibility of nuclear relative to renewables. Any economic analysis needs to be up to date to be valid.

That $15,000 represents a payback period of seven years, assuming no feed into the grid. If, of course, some sales to the grid are feasible, it's a shorter payback. That's not particularly good, but it's not bad either.

Without subsidies, rooftop might come near nuclear. However, grid scale solar and wind are cheaper according to the Lazard report. By a big margin.