News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Aidan]

Germany got 37% of its electricity from solar and wind last year, 3.1% from hydro, and another 8.6% from biomass.

Different power generation methods have different cost structures, and LCOE figures are misleading because they're heavily dependent on assumptions. Often one of those assumptions is an interest rate higher than can be justified by reality. Higher interest rates favour fossil fuels (where fuel is the main expense), whereas lower interest rates favour nuclear and renewables (which are more capital intensive).

[claybro]

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.

Do the figures for grid scale wind, solar and batteries include the cost of backup infrastructure on standby? Also , nuclear plants are still chugging along after 50 years. Now I’m no expert, and I imagine the cost of the maintenance schedule for a nuclear plant is astronomical, but their lifespan far exceeds what is currently achievable for solar panels and wind turbines. Has the cost of replacements for renewables at shorter intervals been included?

[rubberman]

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.

Do the figures for grid scale wind, solar and batteries include the cost of backup infrastructure on standby? Also , nuclear plants are still chugging along after 50 years. Now I’m no expert, and I imagine the cost of the maintenance schedule for a nuclear plant is astronomical, but their lifespan far exceeds what is currently achievable for solar panels and wind turbines. Has the cost of replacements for renewables at shorter intervals been included?

That's what levelised cost comparisons are.

[SBD]

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.

Do the figures for grid scale wind, solar and batteries include the cost of backup infrastructure on standby? Also , nuclear plants are still chugging along after 50 years. Now I’m no expert, and I imagine the cost of the maintenance schedule for a nuclear plant is astronomical, but their lifespan far exceeds what is currently achievable for solar panels and wind turbines. Has the cost of replacements for renewables at shorter intervals been included?

That's what levelised cost comparisons are.

For a nuclear power station to be "still chugging along after 50 years" I suspect it has also had several major overhauls and refuelling. How the cost of that compares to the cost of refreshing a wind turbine, I have no idea. I don't think any Australian wind farms have reached end-of-life yet.

[rubberman]

Do the figures for grid scale wind, solar and batteries include the cost of backup infrastructure on standby? Also , nuclear plants are still chugging along after 50 years. Now I’m no expert, and I imagine the cost of the maintenance schedule for a nuclear plant is astronomical, but their lifespan far exceeds what is currently achievable for solar panels and wind turbines. Has the cost of replacements for renewables at shorter intervals been included?

That's what levelised cost comparisons are.

For a nuclear power station to be "still chugging along after 50 years" I suspect it has also had several major overhauls and refuelling. How the cost of that compares to the cost of refreshing a wind turbine, I have no idea. I don't think any Australian wind farms have reached end-of-life yet.

These questions come up time and again because they are pretty obvious common sense.

That's why people use levelised costs which take those obvious factors into account.

So, when it says that the levelised cost of grid scale solar and wind is cheaper than nuclear, you can then add "with all those factors taken into account". We then don't need to worry about the obvious issues, rather we can look at trends and debate those. Such as new technology and whether it is proven, effects of interest rates, trajectories of prices of various modes, real effects on emissions etc etc.

[rev]

That's what levelised cost comparisons are.

For a nuclear power station to be "still chugging along after 50 years" I suspect it has also had several major overhauls and refuelling. How the cost of that compares to the cost of refreshing a wind turbine, I have no idea. I don't think any Australian wind farms have reached end-of-life yet.

These questions come up time and again because they are pretty obvious common sense.

That's why people use levelised costs which take those obvious factors into account.

So, when it says that the levelised cost of grid scale solar and wind is cheaper than nuclear, you can then add "with all those factors taken into account". We then don't need to worry about the obvious issues, rather we can look at trends and debate those. Such as new technology and whether it is proven, effects of interest rates, trajectories of prices of various modes, real effects on emissions etc etc.

Show us the levelised costings then, break them down if there's a source that has that. Shouldn't be hard to do that if it's been done.

Science has been politicised sadly, so if the data can't be provided, then it's just political spin for/pushing a political agenda.

[rubberman]

For a nuclear power station to be "still chugging along after 50 years" I suspect it has also had several major overhauls and refuelling. How the cost of that compares to the cost of refreshing a wind turbine, I have no idea. I don't think any Australian wind farms have reached end-of-life yet.

These questions come up time and again because they are pretty obvious common sense.

That's why people use levelised costs which take those obvious factors into account.

So, when it says that the levelised cost of grid scale solar and wind is cheaper than nuclear, you can then add "with all those factors taken into account". We then don't need to worry about the obvious issues, rather we can look at trends and debate those. Such as new technology and whether it is proven, effects of interest rates, trajectories of prices of various modes, real effects on emissions etc etc.

Show us the levelised costings then, break them down if there's a source that has that. Shouldn't be hard to do that if it's been done.

Science has been politicised sadly, so if the data can't be provided, then it's just political spin for/pushing a political agenda.

I provided the link. Here it is again. It's quite detailed.

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

As far as the politics go. The Greens and Labor won't do it. The other party did the NBN, Murray Darling Basin Plan for $10bn which ended up with no water, Inland Rail over due and over budget, Snowy Mk2 also overdue, over budget and stalled, submarine fiasco. If they couldn't build any of the above, the idea they could build nuclear is laughable. They'd be a perfect choice for anyone wanting to completely discredit nuclear. Nuclear proponents are faced with two parties who won't, and one party that can't, build it.

[PeFe]

New battery applying for a licence, Bungama project, near Port Pirie. Hopefully the attached solar farm is built as well.

Blyth battery has started construction.

From Renew Economy

New 300MWh battery in South Australia applies for generation licence



The proposed 150MW / 300MWh battery at Bungama in South Australia has moved another step forward, with its electricity generation licence application now in front of the state’s Essential Service Commission.

The application to ESCOSA will be up for public consultation until October 16, and the battery is expected to be energised in early 2025.

Developer Amp Energy signed a connection agreement earlier in September with transmission company ElectraNet for the two hour duration battery, to connect to its 275kV Bungama substation.

It says the Bungama project will be the first of Amp’s national roll-out of more than 1 GW of grid-scale batteries.

The $200 million battery will make money from arbitraging energy prices and work in the frequency control and ancillary services (FCAS) markets.

“The grid-scale battery will support South Australia’s energy transition, providing essential capacity when renewable generation is impacted and during periods of high demand,” Amp Energy says in its application.

“With South Australia generating more power from renewable sources than any other state, this battery will further reinforce a reliable energy supply for households and businesses.

“The provision of battery services in the South Australian and the National Electricity Market will enhance the quality and reliability of the energy supply system.

Battery energy storage systems are increasingly playing a critical role in counter-balancing the higher penetration of intermittent energy resources.

“The intermittent nature of the wind and solar energy sources puts pressure on the energy system’s ability to manage any deficit or excess in the supply and demand of wholesale energy.

“Battery is additionally effective in enhancing the decreasing system inertia due to the higher level of renewable resources and the expected de-commissioning of traditional thermal and coal generation plants.”

Going big in big batteries

The battery is Amp’s first instalment of a $2 billion investment in its Renewable Energy Hub of South Australia, an area covering Bungama, near Port Pirie, Robertstown and Whyalla which will soon host a series of storage and solar projects.

Amp, which is backed by private investment firm Carlyle, is developing three projects in the hub, all of which come with an adjacent solar farm.

The Bungama battery comes with a proposed 336 MW solar farm.

Amp’s Robertstown development includes a 636 MW solar proposal and 250 MWh battery, and the Yorndoo Ilga development has a 388 MW solar proposal and a 150 MWh battery.

The company currently owns an operational portfolio of 158 MW, the NSW Hillston and Molong solar farms, and a development portfolio of more than 5 GW.

South Australia is a magnet for big batteries, with the original now-150 MW / 194 MWh Hornsdale Power Reserve just the first of a raft of installations.

The state now boasts the Torrens Island, Dalrymple South and Lake Bonney batteries, while the Tailem Bend battery is awaiting commissioning and the 200 MW / 400 MWh Blyth battery is now under-construction.

Many others are in the pipeline.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-300mwh- ... n-licence/

[abc]

these batteries are a great idea

the one in Rockhampton is on fire

https://x.com/MorningGunk/status/170717 ... 42032?s=20

[PD2/20]

these batteries are a great idea

the one in Rockhampton is on fire

https://x.com/MorningGunk/status/170717 ... 42032?s=20

Genex Power, the owner and operator of the Bouldercombe Battery today issued an ASX announcement regarding the fire https://app.sharelinktechnologies.com/a ... baa65f64c6 .

The fire was described as minor, of low intensity and affecting only 1 of the 40 Megapack modules.

[rubberman]

these batteries are a great idea

the one in Rockhampton is on fire

https://x.com/MorningGunk/status/170717 ... 42032?s=20

Is this like the fire at Eraring coal plant a couple of weeks ago? Or the one at Callidie C coal plant in 2021? Or the fire that burnt for months in the Victorian coalfields at Hazelwood a few years ago? Or the power station fire at Wollongong in 2022? Or the 2020 fire at the Kwinana gas plant in 2020. Or Yallourn coal plant in 2021? Shocking really, isn't it?

[rev]

It's a 'new' technology, being deployed on a mass scale. The issues will be ironed out. Like others pointed out, not like there hasn't been fires and issues with fossil fuel powered options over the years.
The real problem is the cost to consumers down the line.

It's all great to have this whiz bang new technology, but who gives a shit where electricity is coming from when consumers are being bent over and ripped a new one just to keep their lights on.

[claybro]

Time will tell. Coal plant have been providing massive amounts of generated power at a stable rate, 24/7 for over 100 years. Batteries are minuscule in their contribution so far, and yet are getting a reputation for being unstable not to mention the toxicity of these fires. It does need to be acknowledged and addressed.

[PeFe]

Batteries are minuscule in their contribution so far, and yet are getting a reputation for being unstable not to mention the toxicity of these fires.

How are batteries like Hornesdale, Torrens Island, North Dalymple or Lake Bonney unstable?

Yes batteries contribution have been miniscule....so far.... but that wont be the reality in the near future.

Torrens Island was doing tests the other week pumping 250mw of power into the system at a time. I would love to see that battery scaled up to 1000mwh.

And speaking of batteries......another new project has applied to Electranet to connect a battery to the network. Templers Creek (which is about 25 kms north of Gawler)

https://reneweconomy.com.au/two-new-big ... en-energy/

And the Bouldercombe battery in Qld is back online.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/bouldercomb ... -megapack/

[abc]

these batteries are a great idea

the one in Rockhampton is on fire

https://x.com/MorningGunk/status/170717 ... 42032?s=20

Genex Power, the owner and operator of the Bouldercombe Battery today issued an ASX announcement regarding the fire https://app.sharelinktechnologies.com/a ... baa65f64c6 .

The fire was described as minor, of low intensity and affecting only 1 of the 40 Megapack modules.

can't be put out with water

firefighters had no choice but to allow to burn out

do you still think this is good for the environment?