News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rubberman]

Some stats on the various costs:

https://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/ne ... generation.

[claybro]

And from the NEM this morning 9:50am EST, total wind and solar 14% (wind just 4%). Bearing in mind Australia is already a world leader in rooftop solar- Even tripling the amount of wind and solar would not get us to half of generation.. Battery? 1%. Something is always going to take up the slack...virtually a parallel generation system- Snowy 2.0 -dead in the water. Battery- nowhere near able to provide enough storage with current technology. Renewables may well reduce the wholesale price- while they are actually generating.The killer is the times renewable are not generating-which at this time of year-is evidently often. We are not being told the true cost of converting to enough renewables for net zero, or if it is even possible.

[Waewick]

And from the NEM this morning 9:50am EST, total wind and solar 14% (wind just 4%). Bearing in mind Australia is already a world leader in rooftop solar- Even tripling the amount of wind and solar would not get us to half of generation.. Battery? 1%. Something is always going to take up the slack...virtually a parallel generation system- Snowy 2.0 -dead in the water. Battery- nowhere near able to provide enough storage with current technology. Renewables may well reduce the wholesale price- while they are actually generating.The killer is the times renewable are not generating-which at this time of year-is evidently often. We are not being told the true cost of converting to enough renewables for net zero, or if it is even possible.

No one has suggested we have rolled out enough renewables or storage yet.

You'll be suprised how often the wind is blowing and the sun is shining over the course of a day

[claybro]

And from the NEM this morning 9:50am EST, total wind and solar 14% (wind just 4%). Bearing in mind Australia is already a world leader in rooftop solar- Even tripling the amount of wind and solar would not get us to half of generation.. Battery? 1%. Something is always going to take up the slack...virtually a parallel generation system- Snowy 2.0 -dead in the water. Battery- nowhere near able to provide enough storage with current technology. Renewables may well reduce the wholesale price- while they are actually generating.The killer is the times renewable are not generating-which at this time of year-is evidently often. We are not being told the true cost of converting to enough renewables for net zero, or if it is even possible.

No one has suggested we have rolled out enough renewables or storage yet.

You'll be suprised how often the wind is blowing and the sun is shining over the course of a day

Checking the NEM dashboard again, solar has indeed kicked up to 18%, so large industrial scale solar projects will indeed ramp up its contribution...until about 3pm EST, and it will fall off a cliff. Wind is the real concern. Despite widespread placement of turbines over Eastern and Southern Australia, that it can only manage 4% is a worry for any time. Covering the country with wind turbines will not help, when there is no wind over most of the continent as it is now. There is no evidence, that batteries will be able to scale up to carry us through the evening peak, regardless of the amount of big batteries installed.

[Waewick]

And from the NEM this morning 9:50am EST, total wind and solar 14% (wind just 4%). Bearing in mind Australia is already a world leader in rooftop solar- Even tripling the amount of wind and solar would not get us to half of generation.. Battery? 1%. Something is always going to take up the slack...virtually a parallel generation system- Snowy 2.0 -dead in the water. Battery- nowhere near able to provide enough storage with current technology. Renewables may well reduce the wholesale price- while they are actually generating.The killer is the times renewable are not generating-which at this time of year-is evidently often. We are not being told the true cost of converting to enough renewables for net zero, or if it is even possible.

No one has suggested we have rolled out enough renewables or storage yet.

You'll be suprised how often the wind is blowing and the sun is shining over the course of a day

Checking the NEM dashboard again, solar has indeed kicked up to 18%, so large industrial scale solar projects will indeed ramp up its contribution...until about 3pm EST, and it will fall off a cliff. Wind is the real concern. Despite widespread placement of turbines over Eastern and Southern Australia, that it can only manage 4% is a worry for any time. Covering the country with wind turbines will not help, when there is no wind over most of the continent as it is now. There is no evidence, that batteries will be able to scale up to carry us through the evening peak, regardless of the amount of big batteries installed.

What evidence would you believe ?
(Sorry, thats sounds worse than It was meant to, I mean what information needs to he provided to you to believe it)

[claybro]

No one has suggested we have rolled out enough renewables or storage yet.

You'll be suprised how often the wind is blowing and the sun is shining over the course of a day

Checking the NEM dashboard again, solar has indeed kicked up to 18%, so large industrial scale solar projects will indeed ramp up its contribution...until about 3pm EST, and it will fall off a cliff. Wind is the real concern. Despite widespread placement of turbines over Eastern and Southern Australia, that it can only manage 4% is a worry for any time. Covering the country with wind turbines will not help, when there is no wind over most of the continent as it is now. There is no evidence, that batteries will be able to scale up to carry us through the evening peak, regardless of the amount of big batteries installed.

What evidence would you believe ?
(Sorry, thats sounds worse than It was meant to, I mean what information needs to he provided to you to believe it)

I believe what in real time is actually happening, not what is being presented by the federal government and their fellow travelers or “ modelling” as presented by the likes of CSIRO and various government think tanks. The rollout for renewables is nowhere near the pace for the 2030 targets, nor is it possible in the timeframe left. So why keep making the promises. It’s no point saying that it’s because of a decade of inaction by the coalition. They went to the last election knowing the task at hand… they and the Teals still promised it was achievable. It is not.. nor is the technology required even up to the task by the way of storage, or hydrogen on which the whole plan relies. Even the gold star countries of renewables are nowhere near achieving g their goals, which by the way keep increasing, as more electricity is consumed by the world due to data and electrification as a whole.

[abc]

also read the fine print

more countries are embracing nuclear

[rubberman]

also read the fine print

more countries are embracing nuclear

At the moment, we have a crisis with gas. If the government and generation companies don't focus on that 100%, there's a problem right now.

So, diverting attention from something that's a problem now, to talk about something that may be able to happen in 20 years is almost guaranteeing that the problem we have now, gets out of control, and turns into a disaster.

Of course, the cynic in me says that if a disaster happens, the Government gets blamed, and the Opposition has a huge win in the polls. Meaning that the nuclear debate isn't really about solving energy problems, it's about the Coalition trying to draw the country into an energy crisis before the election. Naturally, if that happens, and they get into power, they'll miraculously find that nuclear is too expensive, and build a few coal plants.

Looking at the graph, it's also clear that renewables have arrested the decline evident in the first half of the chart, and then steadily reversed that trend.

Now, it's also true that most of those new nuclear plants are either Government owned, government subsidised, and/or guaranteed. In other words, nobody would buy it if it were priced properly. I don't think that pointing to a compulsory government subsidy to make nuclear happen is a good idea. I also bet that that will be the reason the Coalition dumps them if it wins the election.

[Waewick]

It is worth noting that even in Australia we only just got rid of a Govt that thought gas should be considered a renewable.

The decline on cheap Russian gas will see that renewables level shoot up over the next 24 months from 2023.

[rubberman]

Checking the NEM dashboard again, solar has indeed kicked up to 18%, so large industrial scale solar projects will indeed ramp up its contribution...until about 3pm EST, and it will fall off a cliff. Wind is the real concern. Despite widespread placement of turbines over Eastern and Southern Australia, that it can only manage 4% is a worry for any time. Covering the country with wind turbines will not help, when there is no wind over most of the continent as it is now. There is no evidence, that batteries will be able to scale up to carry us through the evening peak, regardless of the amount of big batteries installed.

What evidence would you believe ?
(Sorry, thats sounds worse than It was meant to, I mean what information needs to he provided to you to believe it)

I believe what in real time is actually happening, not what is being presented by the federal government and their fellow travelers or “ modelling” as presented by the likes of CSIRO and various government think tanks. The rollout for renewables is nowhere near the pace for the 2030 targets, nor is it possible in the timeframe left. So why keep making the promises. It’s no point saying that it’s because of a decade of inaction by the coalition. They went to the last election knowing the task at hand… they and the Teals still promised it was achievable. It is not.. nor is the technology required even up to the task by the way of storage, or hydrogen on which the whole plan relies. Even the gold star countries of renewables are nowhere near achieving g their goals, which by the way keep increasing, as more electricity is consumed by the world due to data and electrification as a whole.

A few things. First, it is frustrating, but overwhelmingly, projects of all types go over time...and budget. That's a world wide phenomenon. Project managers with decades of experience are subject to it. It's actually been studied to death...and yet it still happens.

So, the problem is, and especially in debates like this, that people will get angry about delays in things they don't agree with, and use that as an example of why they were right. So far, so good. However, then, they fall into the same cognitive bias trap by implying that their alternative wouldn't have done the same.

The records of construction of major projects round the world say that every alternative of a similar complexity will have similar time and cost overruns.

So, the question is whether renewables are more likely to be able to be deployed faster or slower than the alternatives.

I don't believe nuclear is, on its record, capable of full deployment in under twenty years, if that. Ten years is laughable. Rolls Royce said that, but they are having trouble getting the latest B777X engines designed and built in that time. The idea that they can build a nuclear plant of a new type in less time than a new jet engine is absurd.

Coal plants might be able to be built in time, but you get zero extra capacity until the plant is complete. During which times the breakdowns contributing to present high prices get worse and worse. Even if the plants are 90% built, their output is zero. In another breakdown of Loy Yang, that could mean 0% from Loy Yang, plus 0% from the 90% complete plant.

With renewables, new builds are adding to supply all the time. So, if 90% of them are built, their output is 90%. If Loy Yang breaks down and produces 0%, renewables are producing 90%.

Next, looking at high level, 50GWh of storage might be needed for 100% renewables. This year, it looks like 2-3GWh is being installed. With what we have already, that 2-3GWh/year needs to ramp up to 4-5GWh/year. Even 2 years ago, the doubters were scoffing that it couldn't be done. Well, it's being done.

Funnily enough, while you are right that some of the targets are not as good as renewables supporters promised. However, it is equally true to say, that many of the outcomes are way ahead of where the scoffers claimed they could be.

I sense your frustration at targets/promises not being met, but others are just as frustrated at scoffers continually saying things cannot be done at all....while they actually are being done.

Finally, when I have mentioned the 9 years of the Coalition's policy free zone, it has been to make the point that if they had had policies, built coal, nuclear, gas etc etc, we wouldn't have this debate. The plants would have been built. The fact that we are starting to plan so late really cuts nuclear from the menu. First, because that's how long it would take, and second, because I have no confidence they would build nuclear anyway. It's a political stunt with zero policy intent.

[Norman]

Not sure if this has been part of the discussion yet, but I was listening to an interview with someone from the CSIRO. He mentioned that, in their modelling, they would consider that the plant will be running at an average of 56% capacity.

I wondered, why is that? Why wouldn't it be running at 90-100% capacity at all times? But that's when you have to think about how we use power in South Australia!

On an average day, South Australia requires 1500-2000 MW of generation during most of the day.

However, what happens when there is a hot day? The electricity use spikes at 2500 - 3000 MW. This is where nuclear needs to then ramp up to its full capacity in a short timeframe, if that is possible. I don't think that is possible at short notice, but if it was an extended period of hot weather then the additional nuclear generation may be able to contribute to those power needs.

At the moment these spikes in demand are handled additional gas and diesel generators. This demand could also be satisfied by batteries. In other words, nuclear won't be able to provide power for those peaks, especially if they are unexpected. You will still need either gas, diesel or batteries to cover them.

Why haven't we had these peaks in the past when we had only coal? Well, we didn't have those big air conditioning units we now have, which suck up so much energy.

In other words, this is a complex space, both technologically and economically. Nuclear isn't going to fix this power crisis alone. A technology mix including batteries will be required in any case.

[abc]

It is worth noting that even in Australia we only just got rid of a Govt that thought gas should be considered a renewable.

The decline on cheap Russian gas will see that renewables level shoot up over the next 24 months from 2023.

do you really believe the Liberals lost the election because of their energy policy?

shame millions of slavs had to die in Europe so you could have more 'renewables' in Australia

[Waewick]

It is worth noting that even in Australia we only just got rid of a Govt that thought gas should be considered a renewable.

The decline on cheap Russian gas will see that renewables level shoot up over the next 24 months from 2023.

do you really believe the Liberals lost the election because of their energy policy?

shame millions of slavs had to die in Europe so you could have more 'renewables' in Australia

Their lack of one didn't help.

Don't get me wrong, i always took you as a pretty unintelligent poster, but to imply I some how found joy in the death of innocent Ukrainians because it brought about an increase in renewables is a pretty despicable post and one only a genuine grub would make.

[abc]

It is worth noting that even in Australia we only just got rid of a Govt that thought gas should be considered a renewable.

The decline on cheap Russian gas will see that renewables level shoot up over the next 24 months from 2023.

do you really believe the Liberals lost the election because of their energy policy?

shame millions of slavs had to die in Europe so you could have more 'renewables' in Australia

Their lack of one didn't help.

Don't get me wrong, i always took you as a pretty unintelligent poster, but to imply I some how found joy in the death of innocent Ukrainians because it brought about an increase in renewables is a pretty despicable post and one only a genuine grub would make.

You indicated you've found joy in the decline of 'cheap' Russian gas (which is as good as any other gas but please go with 'cheap' because it makes it sound inferior).
I never said you found joy in the death of anyone but that is the cost of you enjoying the decline of Russian gas. Once again your comprehension skills fail you.

[Waewick]

do you really believe the Liberals lost the election because of their energy policy?

shame millions of slavs had to die in Europe so you could have more 'renewables' in Australia

Their lack of one didn't help.

Don't get me wrong, i always took you as a pretty unintelligent poster, but to imply I some how found joy in the death of innocent Ukrainians because it brought about an increase in renewables is a pretty despicable post and one only a genuine grub would make.

You indicated you've found joy in the decline of 'cheap' Russian gas (which is as good as any other gas but please go with 'cheap' because it makes it sound inferior).
I never said you found joy in the death of anyone but that is the cost of you enjoying the decline of Russian gas. Once again your comprehension skills fail you.

No, you made that up and are now desperately trying to back pedal.

Don't worry, we can all see what you said.