rubberman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 11:13 am
[quote=Algernon post_id=221146 time=<a href="tel:1729522079">1729522079</a> user_id=5]
[quote=rubberman post_id=221130 time=<a href="tel:1729482020">1729482020</a> user_id=1288]
[quote=SBD post_id=221129 time=<a href="tel:1729478831">1729478831</a> user_id=6279]
I wonder what the impact of increasing rooftop solar generation is on transmission and distribution costs...
I believe the transformers (or possibly just their controllers) needed upgrades/changes to handle feeding electricity in the "wrong" direction. This should have been completed by now, but might have an ongoing depreciation/amortisation cost.
As more panels are installed, in the daytime, there may be little electricity needing to be moved long distances, so the fixed costs of the system need to be charged against decreasing amounts of electricity being moved. At night, there are no wind farms close to Adelaide where I assume most of the demand is. There is an increasing number of nearby batteries, as well as behind-the-meter. I wonder if the large 1950s transmission lines will become overbuild in some areas in the next few decades, as local generation and storage pick up more of the load.
I'd also add that as more people install home batteries, there's less need to feed power either way.
Batteries are a key here for all technologies:
Home battery kits are now economic in many cases for people with solar panels. They are also being looked at for installation in houses where no solar panels exist.
Given that house scale batteries are now widely economic, it's also an option for network operators to install batteries in local areas to avoid upgrading transformers - just soak up excess feed in current during the day. Even a small price reduction makes this easier than transformer upgrading.
Batteries also are likely the only hope for the nuclear small modular reactors. They are only economic if they run 24/7 at constant output. That's not going to happen because solar drives wholesale prices to zero daily, meaning SMRs have to drop their prices too. However, with batteries, those SMRs can run 24/7 and only discharge during profitable times. I can see a niche opening for small towns like Mt Gambier, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln here. Dot these round the smaller towns in the mid North, and many of the long distance high voltage feeds to these towns could become redundant. That brings network costs down too.
Larger grid-scale batteries are already being installed. I can only see that increasing if battery prices and technology improve.
[/quote]
You make some really good points here.
Once the battery build out is complete, it will be more economical to run your power plant (of any type) at a steady capacity and flatten out the supply curve using batteries. While it's true that wind and solar are intermittent, what is equally true is that all sources will become effectively intermittent because you'll never get a chance of running your generator of any type at 100%. The new market for energy is supplying the batteries, not supplying the grid and those batteries don't give much a damn when they get full.
The coal and gas lobby is apparently fixated upon attacking wind and solar, but the thing they're scared of behind closed doors is the batteries.
[/quote]
The AEMO CEO recently said in public that the baseload-peaking model was dead.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/baseload-co ... 0and%20gas.
So, it's not even behind closed doors anymore.
As you say, all sources, be those fossil, nuclear, or renewable will have to use batteries to compete. It's the only way that inherently constant load suppliers like nuclear or coal have a future. Even if they were on line now, while some base load capacity is needed, there's no guarantee that will be the case in ten years, let alone the fifty years economic life required by bankers or investors. However, if batteries can be made more efficient and economic, that fifty year nuclear plant becomes feasible. Investors and bankers can then likely see some profit.
[/quote]
rubberman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 11:13 am
Algernon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 1:17 am
rubberman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 2:10 pm
I'd also add that as more people install home batteries, there's less need to feed power either way.
Batteries are a key here for all technologies:
Home battery kits are now economic in many cases for people with solar panels. They are also being looked at for installation in houses where no solar panels exist.
Given that house scale batteries are now widely economic, it's also an option for network operators to install batteries in local areas to avoid upgrading transformers - just soak up excess feed in current during the day. Even a small price reduction makes this easier than transformer upgrading.
Batteries also are likely the only hope for the nuclear small modular reactors. They are only economic if they run 24/7 at constant output. That's not going to happen because solar drives wholesale prices to zero daily, meaning SMRs have to drop their prices too. However, with batteries, those SMRs can run 24/7 and only discharge during profitable times. I can see a niche opening for small towns like Mt Gambier, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln here. Dot these round the smaller towns in the mid North, and many of the long distance high voltage feeds to these towns could become redundant. That brings network costs down too.
Larger grid-scale batteries are already being installed. I can only see that increasing if battery prices and technology improve.
You make some really good points here.
Once the battery build out is complete, it will be more economical to run your power plant (of any type) at a steady capacity and flatten out the supply curve using batteries. While it's true that wind and solar are intermittent, what is equally true is that all sources will become effectively intermittent because you'll never get a chance of running your generator of any type at 100%. The new market for energy is supplying the batteries, not supplying the grid and those batteries don't give much a damn when they get full.
The coal and gas lobby is apparently fixated upon attacking wind and solar, but the thing they're scared of behind closed doors is the batteries.
The AEMO CEO recently said in public that the baseload-peaking model was dead.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/baseload-co ... 0and%20gas.
So, it's not even behind closed doors anymore.
As you say, all sources, be those fossil, nuclear, or renewable will have to use batteries to compete. It's the only way that inherently constant load suppliers like nuclear or coal have a future. Even if they were on line now, while some base load capacity is needed, there's no guarantee that will be the case in ten years, let alone the fifty years economic life required by bankers or investors. However, if batteries can be made more efficient and economic, that fifty year nuclear plant becomes feasible. Investors and bankers can then likely see some profit.
“ If batteries can be made more efficient and economic”.. that’s a big if. The lifespan of the batteries is a big issue. Also I’m not sure how we’ve gone full circle from nuclear won’t / can’t / will never be feasible, to.. maybe they will work with a battery backed energy system. Back in the day, in the 50’s and 60’s when the large coal stations were rolled out, it was recognised that excess generation may be an issue, so they just attracted more heavy duty industry such as aluminium smelting, to use all the new power being increasingly generated 24/7. It has been stated, that part of the nuclear plan will be the co siting of heavy industry and high electricity consumers. Who knows, maybe we can get some of the Google and Microsoft data centres into Aus, to use the steady stream of nuclear generated power, while the excess can prop up intermittent renewables. Clearly Microsoft and Google don’t see a future in relying on batteries, and just maybe Australia instead of dancing around load sharing, can become an industrial powerhouse again with unlimited low emission electricity.
