News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rubberman]

To be fair there are valid questions here - if prices are going up (which they generally have been markedly in recent years) then what's the cause? Is it directly related to a rise in wholesale prices?

If so, what's cause of that? Global events, the transition to non-coal based fuels, something else, or a complicated mix of factors?

I don't think we can really blame global events. We have an abundance of gas and coal in this country. Now if the trade agreements our governments have setup for the supply of gas and coal abroad are impacting prices here, which I believe with gas may actually be the case (it is said we are basically subsidising cheap gas to China and Japan - they get our resource cheaper, we pay more), then pointing the finger at governments is valid.

If it's the transition to renewables causing higher bills in Australia then are the price spikes short-term in nature and related to investment in the networks required to support and optimise the grid for the newer power sources? Will wholesale prices eventually fall sharply once this transition period is over and we'll all look back and realise it was worth the short-term pain or have renewables simply not provided the cost savings promised/expected?

The huge cost for that transition, the establishing of these new supplies from solar and wind, and the battery storage, will have to be paid by someone. That someone is the consumer.
When our politicians are out there telling us that these renewable energy projects will bring down our prices, they aren't being honest.

On the other hand, if hikes in the retail price of power cannot be directly and proportionately correlated with the cost of wholesale electricity then are we being gouged in the same way as we are by Colesworths?

There's a section on my electricity bill that says that you could* save if you change to a different plan. It also says that they are required by the Australian Energy Regulator to tell you this and put it on your bill.
If they weren't required to do that, would they do it? Of course not.

I'm very supportive of the transition to renewables and am lucky enough to have 13kw of solar on my roof which has reduced my bills to essentially nothing during summer - despite very liberal use of our ducted AC. However, a lot of people do not have the resources to fund even a 6kw solar system, let alone a battery, so I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone has a viable path to the bill reductions I've seen.

I think some people read my posts and think I'm dead against renewables or whatever, which I'm not. Most people are not in a position to be able to afford a decent solar and battery setup, which should be obvious when we're 1) in a cost of living crisis and 2) its a well established fact that the majority in this country live week to week. Apparently though it's their own fault for choosing the more expensive option?

I'm all for renewables and new technologies in general. Maybe they don't care about their elected officials bullshitting them all the time, but I do. Our taxes pay their salaries and afford them the generous benefits and completely unfair pension system they have for them selves, the very least the mugs could do is give us some honesty and transparency once in a while.

Rev has a point - the move to renewables at a grid level has absolutely been touted as being a precursor to much cheaper power bills and yet the opposite has happened during the timeframe that much of this activity has happened. I don't remember being lower prices would be dependent on uptake of solar and battery technology at an individual level so either:

a) That was a lie/flawed analysis
b) Something's changed
c) Electricity providers are price gouging

Surely power prices would be a massive driver of inflation across the board. If there's price gouging going on then I'm much rather the government clamps down on that than homeowners like me doing all of the heavy lifting through higher interest rates.

I'm no expert on the national or global electricity markets so I think it's an interesting discussion to have.

It's not only that, it's that we then get told that gas is to blame, or coal. Or some war on the other side of the world is impacting the sun and wind in Australia or some such nonsense i dunno anymore.
But my retailer specifically states they are supplying 100% renewable energy, from wind, solar and battery storage.
Yet my bills still went up some 30% year on year.

This doesn't make sense, when we get told renewables will bring down our prices.

If I am being told by the government that that will happen, and my retailer is telling me that they are supplying me with power sourced from renewable generation, why are they increasing my power bills by 30%?

What does coal and gas have to do with it when my electricity is, as my retailer has told me, not coming from those sources?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. We're being rorted, some of us can see it, some cant.

Facts are facts.

It is cheaper for most people to move to solar plus batteries. Fact.

The existing coal plants are on their last legs. Fact.

So, we are always up for the cost of replacing them. Fact.

Multiple studies have been done showing that wind and solar are cheaper per MWH of installed capacity. Fact.

None of the serious energy players in the country are even contemplating building coal fired plants. The numbers don't stack up.

No matter what the reasons for higher retail prices are, it's not because renewables are more expensive to install. They are cheaper and faster to deploy. The only coal plants being built worldwide are either by governments or guaranteed by taxpayers. The private sector won't touch them unless there's a taxpayer guarantee. That ought to tell people something.

However, if people wish to spend more for their energy, and pretend it's the fault of renewables, or some grand conspiracy, despite the facts staring them in the face so be it. It's your money to waste, and if blaming renewables helps ease the pain, be my guest.

[mattblack]

The best place to head for answers would be the SA Energy Ombudsman or you're local MP to follow up. They would get this question on a regular basis and am sure would give u a timely response. I for one would b interested in their feedback.

[rev]

Facts are facts.

You're right. Not sure why you cherry pick what suits you and ignore the rest then.

It is cheaper for most people to move to solar plus batteries. Fact.

Ignoring the fact that the majority of Australians are living week to week, and most don't have bank deposits large enough to cover the cost of solar & battery. Remember grade 2/3 mathematical genius, we're talking about actual houses, not barbie doll houses yeh? Still following?

The existing coal plants are on their last legs. Fact.

Who said otherwise? More irrelevant deflection and distraction tactics.

So, we are always up for the cost of replacing them. Fact.

We'll come back to this below in a moment. **

Multiple studies have been done showing that wind and solar are cheaper per MWH of installed capacity. Fact.

Who said there weren't studies, or that it wasn't cheaper per MWH? More irrelevant deflection and distraction tactics.

None of the serious energy players in the country are even contemplating building coal fired plants. The numbers don't stack up.

** So, above you claim that we we always are up for the cost of replacing coal fired power plants.
So which is it, are we always up for the cost to replace them, or nobody is looking at building new ones? Not in this country anyway.

No matter what the reasons for higher retail prices are, it's not because renewables are more expensive to install. They are cheaper and faster to deploy. The only coal plants being built worldwide are either by governments or guaranteed by taxpayers. The private sector won't touch them unless there's a taxpayer guarantee. That ought to tell people something.

More irrelevant deflection and distraction tactics.

However, if people wish to spend more for their energy, and pretend it's the fault of renewables, or some grand conspiracy, despite the facts staring them in the face so be it. It's your money to waste, and if blaming renewables helps ease the pain, be my guest.

I haven't blamed renewables nor have I said there's any conspiracy grand or otherwise. More irrelevant deflection and distraction tactics.

You seem to do plenty of cherry picking of facts that suit you.

[Llessur2002]

No matter what the reasons for higher retail prices are, it's not because renewables are more expensive to install. They are cheaper and faster to deploy. The only coal plants being built worldwide are either by governments or guaranteed by taxpayers. The private sector won't touch them unless there's a taxpayer guarantee. That ought to tell people something.

However, if people wish to spend more for their energy, and pretend it's the fault of renewables, or some grand conspiracy, despite the facts staring them in the face so be it. It's your money to waste, and if blaming renewables helps ease the pain, be my guest.

To be fair to Rev again, I'm not sure he's arguing against the transition to renewables or the phasing out of coal power.

The rhetoric for years has been that the transition of grid-level energy production in Australia (if not globally) would lead to lower retail electricity prices which, from what I've seen, hasn't (yet) been the case.

If renewables aren't to blame then it must be price-gouging and/or policy failure yes? I'm pretty sure that's Rev's point.

I was lucky enough to be in a financial position a couple of years ago to install a solar system. Despite my wife and I both having relatively well-paid jobs, that wouldn't be the case today without borrowing money to do it. Given that our borrowing capacity has reduced markedly with the interest rate rises we've seen I'm not sure if that would even be possible at this point - plus any interest payments on a loan would offset a proportion of the savings.

Suggesting that anyone who hasn't got rooftop solar and batteries is willingly spending more on their energy than they could be seems a bit iffy - in addition to homeowners without the available funds to upgrade, what about the huge proportion of people who are renting and don't have that option?

Then there are the businesses, large and small, who either can't afford to or aren't in a position to install solar and battery systems. That has a knock-on effect on all of us through the price that they charge for their goods and services.

I'm very pro-renewables but still feel a bit cheated by the massive price hikes in recent years.

[PeFe]

Proposed battery near Mannum has finalised the formalities to be connected to the grid.

The battery itself is yet to begin construction.

From Renew Economy

Connection deal signed for new 200 MWh battery in South Australia



South Australia transmission company ElectraNet says it has signed a connection agreement with the developers of a new 200 MWh battery storage project as the state surges towards its fast-tracked target of 100 per cent renewables by 2030.

ElectraNet announced on Wednesday that the connection agreement has been signed for 100MW / 200MWh Mannum battery, to be located next to the local substation, and close to the company’s existing solar farms.

It will be built at a cost of around $130 million, and should begin construction this year and be complete by the end of 2025.

“This is another exciting development from our customer that is moving South Australia towards its net renewables target,” ElectraNet said in a statement.

South Australia is already a world leader on the uptake of wind and solar, with an average share of 71 per cent of the gigawatt-scale grids average demand over the past year.

On Tuesday, the state government – responding from predictions form the likes of ElectraNet and the Australian Energy Market Operator – confirmed that it had fast-tracked its official target of “net” 100 per cent renewables from 2030 to 2027, to reflect the scale of the wind, solar and battery projects in development.

The two companies said connecting battery projects of this scale is “extremely complex” and they will continue to work on navigating the technical challenges and connection processes.

The Mannum battery is proposing to use Canadian Solar and e-Storage’s proprietary SolBank battery solution, which is based on lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells.

“Epic Energy is excited about South Australia’s energy transition and is committed to leveraging our innovation and expertise in energy infrastructure to develop renewable energy projects that that support the clean energy transition,” the company’s head of project development Tom Forde said in a statement.

“Accordingly, we are investing in a portfolio of other renewable energy assets, with infrastructure ranging from wind and solar farms in regional parts of South Australia and across the country, to microgrids and standalone storage.”

https://reneweconomy.com.au/connection- ... australia/

[abc]

these solar panel contracts stink of corruption

if we must use solar, I'd rather see the mirror technology utilised more. Much more efficient and environmentally friendly.

[Algernon]

No matter what the reasons for higher retail prices are, it's not because renewables are more expensive to install. They are cheaper and faster to deploy. The only coal plants being built worldwide are either by governments or guaranteed by taxpayers. The private sector won't touch them unless there's a taxpayer guarantee. That ought to tell people something.

However, if people wish to spend more for their energy, and pretend it's the fault of renewables, or some grand conspiracy, despite the facts staring them in the face so be it. It's your money to waste, and if blaming renewables helps ease the pain, be my guest.

To be fair to Rev again, I'm not sure he's arguing against the transition to renewables or the phasing out of coal power.

The rhetoric for years has been that the transition of grid-level energy production in Australia (if not globally) would lead to lower retail electricity prices which, from what I've seen, hasn't (yet) been the case.

If renewables aren't to blame then it must be price-gouging and/or policy failure yes? I'm pretty sure that's Rev's point.

I was lucky enough to be in a financial position a couple of years ago to install a solar system. Despite my wife and I both having relatively well-paid jobs, that wouldn't be the case today without borrowing money to do it. Given that our borrowing capacity has reduced markedly with the interest rate rises we've seen I'm not sure if that would even be possible at this point - plus any interest payments on a loan would offset a proportion of the savings.

Suggesting that anyone who hasn't got rooftop solar and batteries is willingly spending more on their energy than they could be seems a bit iffy - in addition to homeowners without the available funds to upgrade, what about the huge proportion of people who are renting and don't have that option?

Then there are the businesses, large and small, who either can't afford to or aren't in a position to install solar and battery systems. That has a knock-on effect on all of us through the price that they charge for their goods and services.

I'm very pro-renewables but still feel a bit cheated by the massive price hikes in recent years.

A big issue is in the rebates and fixing tarif rates for rooftop solar systems. You're effectively guaranteeing a price to be paid to the owners of the solar system but the system is producing and sending power to the grid during peak production when market prices for producers on the NEM are below 0. Guaranteeing to pay someone for their electricity when you ought to be charging them for taking it. So of course, the cost of electricity to the consumer doesn't just simply go down because renewable energy is cheap (which to be clear here, it is), but rather there is rigid price setting and guaranteeting each part of the system generates its return for what it contributes to the grid that keeps the price stuck higher. The price to the consumer reflects the overall picture, not just what the price of a kwh is from a small piece of it.

[rubberman]

No matter what the reasons for higher retail prices are, it's not because renewables are more expensive to install. They are cheaper and faster to deploy. The only coal plants being built worldwide are either by governments or guaranteed by taxpayers. The private sector won't touch them unless there's a taxpayer guarantee. That ought to tell people something.

However, if people wish to spend more for their energy, and pretend it's the fault of renewables, or some grand conspiracy, despite the facts staring them in the face so be it. It's your money to waste, and if blaming renewables helps ease the pain, be my guest.

To be fair to Rev again, I'm not sure he's arguing against the transition to renewables or the phasing out of coal power.

The rhetoric for years has been that the transition of grid-level energy production in Australia (if not globally) would lead to lower retail electricity prices which, from what I've seen, hasn't (yet) been the case.

If renewables aren't to blame then it must be price-gouging and/or policy failure yes? I'm pretty sure that's Rev's point.

I was lucky enough to be in a financial position a couple of years ago to install a solar system. Despite my wife and I both having relatively well-paid jobs, that wouldn't be the case today without borrowing money to do it. Given that our borrowing capacity has reduced markedly with the interest rate rises we've seen I'm not sure if that would even be possible at this point - plus any interest payments on a loan would offset a proportion of the savings.

Suggesting that anyone who hasn't got rooftop solar and batteries is willingly spending more on their energy than they could be seems a bit iffy - in addition to homeowners without the available funds to upgrade, what about the huge proportion of people who are renting and don't have that option?

Then there are the businesses, large and small, who either can't afford to or aren't in a position to install solar and battery systems. That has a knock-on effect on all of us through the price that they charge for their goods and services.

I'm very pro-renewables but still feel a bit cheated by the massive price hikes in recent years.

A big issue is in the rebates and fixing tarif rates for rooftop solar systems. You're effectively guaranteeing a price to be paid to the owners of the solar system but the system is producing and sending power to the grid during peak production when market prices for producers on the NEM are below 0. Guaranteeing to pay someone for their electricity when you ought to be charging them for taking it. So of course, the cost of electricity to the consumer doesn't just simply go down because renewable energy is cheap (which to be clear here, it is), but rather there is rigid price setting and guaranteeting each part of the system generates its return for what it contributes to the grid that keeps the price stuck higher. The price to the consumer reflects the overall picture, not just what the price of a kwh is from a small piece of it.

True. The feed in tariff should reflect the price during the day and night. However, part of the problem is with coal fired plants which cannot reduce capacity economically and quickly. That is, if demand drops suddenly, a coal plant has to keep chugging along, and excess energy has to be dumped. So, coal plants still have to keep running, while dumping energy. Hence, they are at the mercy of the market.

As you point out, the market could be better served by feed-in tariffs reflecting the market price. Of course, that's just part of the death spiral for coal. That's because if you had a market reflective feed-in tariff, then those lovely high prices during the night that are keeping coal on life support would now be available for people with batteries...and squeezing the profits of coal producers even more.

[SBD]

Do the high feed-in tariffs for home solar have end dates, or are they fixed forever until the wholesale price catches up? They were necessary two or three decades ago to establish the market, but are no longer available to new customers or installations.

One of the benefits of the government's proposed hydrogen factory will be that it provides a dispatchable load. This should mean more of the older renewable generators can run more often as the load can be ramped up and down.

Project EnergyConnect provides new connection points for renewable energy in marginal/pastoral land in both SA and NSW. The interconnectors currently provide supplies that are said to be sourced from NSW and Vic coal. All of those power stations will close by 2035 I think, so replacements will be needed, presumably wind and solar (batteries don't count as a source - they only shift it on time).

[Algernon]

Do the high feed-in tariffs for home solar have end dates, or are they fixed forever until the wholesale price catches up? They were necessary two or three decades ago to establish the market, but are no longer available to new customers or installations.

One of the benefits of the government's proposed hydrogen factory will be that it provides a dispatchable load. This should mean more of the older renewable generators can run more often as the load can be ramped up and down.

Project EnergyConnect provides new connection points for renewable energy in marginal/pastoral land in both SA and NSW. The interconnectors currently provide supplies that are said to be sourced from NSW and Vic coal. All of those power stations will close by 2035 I think, so replacements will be needed, presumably wind and solar (batteries don't count as a source - they only shift it on time).

I'm not sure of the answer re: end dates for feed in tariffs.

Regarding the new interconnector to NSW - absolute game changer. When the renewable output peaks in SA, there's not enough tranmission capacity to send it over to VIC and up to 300% of local demand is produced, but curtailed, because there's nothing locally to power beyond the 100%. Just the simple act of completing the interconnector will, with current generation capacity, probably propel SA to 100 net renewables without adding anything else. Hence why SA is so confident to bring that target forward to 2027 (with the NSW interconnector I believe operating from 2026?).

Despite what NSW and the likes of AGL and Origin think about when they will/won't decide to retire coal plants in NSW, with the new interconnect and ramping up of generation capacity in SA, I think we'll more than do our bit of blasting those things off the NEM before 2030. Every month there is less and less of a business case for keeping a shitty coal plant running all day just in case you get to sell a bit for $160 for 5 minutes. It's kind of cute when you think about it how AGL/Origin sooth their investors about how they will decide when to close them. Quite frankly no, SA will make the decision for them.

[Llessur2002]

Some of the older and therefore smaller systems are on fixed feed-in rates for the life of the system (or at least for a very long time i.e. 10+ years - I'm not 100% sure of the specifics). My boss has a 10 or so year old 5kw system on his roof that he's currently still getting 40c/kwh for. My understanding is that he can't expand or upgrade that system and keep the tariff, but he seems to think that if individual components fail he can replace them like for like (although I'm not sure he'd be able to get any low output panels these days).

Nowadays the feed-in rate is just dictated by the plan signed up for, so it's only locked in for six months or, in my case, 12 months. With everyone with solar being on a smart meter I can't see a particular barrier to time-based feed-in rates as per the usage costs.

[Listy]

Do the high feed-in tariffs for home solar have end dates, or are they fixed forever until the wholesale price catches up? They were necessary two or three decades ago to establish the market, but are no longer available to new customers or installations.

I'm not sure of the answer re: end dates for feed in tariffs.

In SA the premium feed in tariff was only available to systems installed prior to September 2011. Technically they don't expire until 2028, but if you move house, or upgrade your solar system or add batteries etc, the tariff ends. Even repairs will likely end your eligibility, so any remaining pFIT's are very much on their last legs. About 5 years ago I remember reading that there were less than 40,000 such households remaining in Australia, so the number of houses still receiving a pFIT in SA must be in the low thousands by now. There were some retailer specific pFITs available until about 2016, but they are also long gone, so the only FIT anyone receives now is the market rate (usually about 5-7c/kWh, and even that is often only for the first 10 or 15kW per day). If you're installing solar, you don't do it for the FIT, you do it to save money by shifting your electricity consumption to the daytime as much as possible. Home batteries still seem to be largely uneconomical

[Llessur2002]

if you move house, or upgrade your solar system or add batteries etc, the tariff ends.

Realistically though, how would they know if you replaced panels like for like and kept the capacity of the system the same?

The inverter's a different story as that, I think, needs to be registered and the new ones all have to have to be remotely controllable for grid protection reasons (at least I think they do).

[Listy]

if you move house, or upgrade your solar system or add batteries etc, the tariff ends.

Realistically though, how would they know if you replaced panels like for like and kept the capacity of the system the same?

The inverter's a different story as that, I think, needs to be registered and the new ones all have to have to be remotely controllable for grid protection reasons (at least I think they do).

You're right, you could replace the panels if needed (I'm not certain how like for like they'd have to be - an old inverter may not work if paired with modern 500 watt panels for instance). The inverter failing is probably what does most old systems in rather than the panels.

[rev]

The inverter's a different story as that, I think, needs to be registered and the new ones all have to have to be remotely controllable for grid protection reasons (at least I think they do).

Yep, and the amount available I believe also was reduced as a result.
Might be different now or in a few years when all the manufacturers catch up I guess.

Not sure if those changes they made that you mention, have prevented non-remotely controllable inverters from being sold or installed, and how that would affect having your house off grid for electricity.