News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Algernon]

The generation that wants nuclear will be dead before a nuclear plant can be operational.

Before even addressing the fundamental selfishness of not doing anything about climate change. Just let it sink in that a generation will vote to saddle everyone with the expense of something they won't be around to use.

And they have the nerve to look the electorate in the eyes and lie about it costing a fraction and being built in a fraction of the time of not one, two, three.... But ALL of the countries with an existing, decades long nuclear programme.

I've seen some utter shit cooked up by both sides of Australian politics in my time and this one is up there.

[Algernon]

The Liberals have tried to average out the costs of their "plan" to "build nuclear" over 60 years to make it look cheap.

Just so we're clear here. A baby born today may expect to see its grandchild born and that grandchild will be born still with the debt and interest burden of paying off the choice of people who will be dead for about 40 years.

But it needs to be this way, because scared little people like ABC need to feel like they were the only important people that ever existed.

The selfishness.

The stupidity.

Look, the world will do what it does. The developed world is steaming ahead towards a solution. will it be fast enough? Maybe yes, probably not. The question of whether Australia is part of the solution or not will not change the overall scheme.

But I'd like this to go to an election just to get an answer to the question: are we really surrounded by such a spoiled and selfish group of people. Did this really happen. Was this really what the country was and what it stood for? Let's find out.

[rev]

We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

[rubberman]

We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.

[claybro]

We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.

Ok. Now I am confused.. isn’t the whole system of renewables based on massive power sharing, so that in the evening for example, solar on SA’s West Coast, could send power to NSW.. then if SA for example, had a cloudy day, power from sunny QLD, be directed to NSW, then spare NSW power flow to SA? Doesn’t it have to be bi directional? Doesn’t every home rooftop export to the grid, then import at night? Didn’t all of this require upgrades to transformers, and flywheels annd stabalisation devices to deal with erratic generation and all sorts of other add ons?

[SBD]

We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.

The Davenport Substation near Port Augusta seems to be a fairly critical potential point of failure. I think that every powerline north, south and west passes through it. So some of the time, it may need to feed electricity towards Eyre Peninsula. We've heard the capability has been trialled to make Yorke Peninsula an electrical island powered by the Wattle Point Wind Farm and the Dalrymple Battery. I don't recall hearing that there is sufficient infrastructure to cut off Eyre Peninsula and keep its grid stable. Whether you regard the Electranet transmission network as "gold plated" or "providing an appropriate level of excess capacity and redundancy" depends on how often you accept there wasn't enough. There is a standard for putting 275kV lines underground. That would increase protection from storms and bushfires, but we/they have not "gold plated" very many kilometres to that level.

Smart meters already provide for time-of-day charging. Additionally having demand-surge pricing like Uber would require the ability for each household to be informed of their specific price right now, so I can decide not to boil the kettle at the same time everyone else does when the cricket goes to a break. We may be able to get that soon, but I suspect it's still a decade or two until it's normal.

[rubberman]

We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.

The Davenport Substation near Port Augusta seems to be a fairly critical potential point of failure. I think that every powerline north, south and west passes through it. So some of the time, it may need to feed electricity towards Eyre Peninsula. We've heard the capability has been trialled to make Yorke Peninsula an electrical island powered by the Wattle Point Wind Farm and the Dalrymple Battery. I don't recall hearing that there is sufficient infrastructure to cut off Eyre Peninsula and keep its grid stable. Whether you regard the Electranet transmission network as "gold plated" or "providing an appropriate level of excess capacity and redundancy" depends on how often you accept there wasn't enough. There is a standard for putting 275kV lines underground. That would increase protection from storms and bushfires, but we/they have not "gold plated" very many kilometres to that level.

Smart meters already provide for time-of-day charging. Additionally having demand-surge pricing like Uber would require the ability for each household to be informed of their specific price right now, so I can decide not to boil the kettle at the same time everyone else does when the cricket goes to a break. We may be able to get that soon, but I suspect it's still a decade or two until it's normal.

I'd agree with your first paragraph in principle. However, it did contribute to higher electricity bills...yet renewables get the blame. If people framed the discussion around the system reliability they wanted vs the amount they were willing to pay, it would be one matter. However, when the discourse ignores transmission costs, or overstates the effect that renewals might have, and simply attributes all and any costs to renewables, that has to be called out.

In the second case, I'd suggest that, given the numbers bandied about by some (I've heard wild noises saying "trillions" ) there's a case for big investment in hardware/software to manage demand both directly and indirectly. Even if it were only a few billion of transmission projects proposed, that level of demand management might make sense. If the more extreme numbers were remotely likely, then we'd be crazy not to try to see what other alternatives there are.

[rubberman]

We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.

Ok. Now I am confused.. isn’t the whole system of renewables based on massive power sharing, so that in the evening for example, solar on SA’s West Coast, could send power to NSW.. then if SA for example, had a cloudy day, power from sunny QLD, be directed to NSW, then spare NSW power flow to SA? Doesn’t it have to be bi directional? Doesn’t every home rooftop export to the grid, then import at night? Didn’t all of this require upgrades to transformers, and flywheels annd stabalisation devices to deal with erratic generation and all sorts of other add ons?

Sure, as I said there's some work to be done. However, as an example, let's say renewables didn't exist. All coal plants need replacing over a relatively short period, so it was always on the cards that we'd be up for a lot of money to replace them. No matter what. Those plants were built by individual States based on the Australian economy and demand patterns of the 1980s, but also related to the various State economies after the 1950s.

So, for example, SA had a transmission system with routing to supply ship building in Whyalla, and car manufacturing in Elizabeth. Victoria had power stations ay Yallourn feeding industry in Geelong. Much of the regional industrial demand from Woods and Forests in the South-east of SA, paper mills at Lake Bonney, railway workshops in Bendigo are all gone.

So, regardless of renewables, the nation's power networks need recasting, along with new power plants. With the concept of a national grid, both the size, location, and numbers of power stations and the grid connections were going to change.

Now, if anyone wants to identify part of that attributable to renewables, that's fair. However, when there are vast changes in demand patterns and new power stations having to be built anyway, that needs to be acknowledged.

Homes can export to the grid like any other generator can. However, because prices vary during the day, it may not be economic for them to do so. Already, feed in tariffs are going down, as solar becomes cheaper. I don't see single feed in tariffs lasting too long to be honest. That's because prices vary too much during the day. I see smart meters and software being needed. When prices are high, people can decide to feed in, when low, they can opt out.

[claybro]

[quote=claybro post_id=222159 time=<a href="tel:1734165727">1734165727</a> user_id=5463]
[quote=rubberman post_id=222153 time=<a href="tel:1734150175">1734150175</a> user_id=1288]
[quote=rev post_id=222150 time=<a href="tel:1734146558">1734146558</a> user_id=357]
We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.
[/quote]

Ok. Now I am confused.. isn’t the whole system of renewables based on massive power sharing, so that in the evening for example, solar on SA’s West Coast, could send power to NSW.. then if SA for example, had a cloudy day, power from sunny QLD, be directed to NSW, then spare NSW power flow to SA? Doesn’t it have to be bi directional? Doesn’t every home rooftop export to the grid, then import at night? Didn’t all of this require upgrades to transformers, and flywheels annd stabalisation devices to deal with erratic generation and all sorts of other add ons?
[/quote]

Sure, as I said there's some work to be done. However, as an example, let's say renewables didn't exist. All coal plants need replacing over a relatively short period, so it was always on the cards that we'd be up for a lot of money to replace them. No matter what. Those plants were built by individual States based on the Australian economy and demand patterns of the 1980s, but also related to the various State economies after the 1950s.

So, for example, SA had a transmission system with routing to supply ship building in Whyalla, and car manufacturing in Elizabeth. Victoria had power stations ay Yallourn feeding industry in Geelong. Much of the regional industrial demand from Woods and Forests in the South-east of SA, paper mills at Lake Bonney, railway workshops in Bendigo are all gone.

So, regardless of renewables, the nation's power networks need recasting, along with new power plants. With the concept of a national grid, both the size, location, and numbers of power stations and the grid connections were going to change.

Now, if anyone wants to identify part of that attributable to renewables, that's fair. However, when there are vast changes in demand patterns and new power stations having to be built anyway, that needs to be acknowledged.

Homes can export to the grid like any other generator can. However, because prices vary during the day, it may not be economic for them to do so. Already, feed in tariffs are going down, as solar becomes cheaper. I don't see single feed in tariffs lasting too long to be honest. That's because prices vary too much during the day. I see smart meters and software being needed. When prices are high, people can decide to feed in, when low, they can opt out.
[/quote]

You seem to be skirting around the issues of moving from centralised generation, to widely dispearsed generation. On one hand saying you want companies investigated for gold plating transmission, while seemingly ignoring the fact that massive rollouts of new transmission is required because of generation occurring all over the place, much of it in isolated areas. Yes power distribution has changed, industry has changed (read offshored). The premise of nuclear and alleged cost savings is putting these plants adjacent to historic heavy industry zones, with existing distribution infrastructure, where can actually ramp up our industrial base, not pray that there is enough sun and wind to simultaneously charge the batteries, and supply power. I for one don’t for a minute believe the coalitions coatings, but nor do I believe the governments overly optimistic figures for renewables. And Chris Bowens condescending tone, annd gotcha soundbites do not help. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

[rubberman]

[quote=claybro post_id=222159 time=<a href="tel:1734165727">1734165727</a> user_id=5463]
[quote=rubberman post_id=222153 time=<a href="tel:1734150175">1734150175</a> user_id=1288]
[quote=rev post_id=222150 time=<a href="tel:1734146558">1734146558</a> user_id=357]
We are paying for it now and will still be paying for it decades from now.

Sure.

Around about 2010, transmission companies gold plated existing networks. That's before large scale renewables. That increases prices.

In 2017, the privatised power stations in Port Augusta were scrapped without much notice. That coal station closure increased prices.

In 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, Loy Yang A, and Callide B coal stations went out of commission for months. That caused price increases.

In early 2024, again we had coal station failures, spiking prices in NSW.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that those companies operating transmission systems, with a history of gold plating, get looked at very closely by people with technical expertise. The argument that power has to flow backwards due to renewables and therefore will cost a trillion sounds very iffy. In what scenario would power ever flow to Torrens island or Port Augusta? Or from Melbourne to Yallourn? Maybe people in a suburb might be able to feed each other overnight, but that's hardly a big expense to allow for that. It would be far easier to use smart meters and pay/charge people a varying amount due to demand. How's that going to cost much? And it's economically efficient.

Ok. Now I am confused.. isn’t the whole system of renewables based on massive power sharing, so that in the evening for example, solar on SA’s West Coast, could send power to NSW.. then if SA for example, had a cloudy day, power from sunny QLD, be directed to NSW, then spare NSW power flow to SA? Doesn’t it have to be bi directional? Doesn’t every home rooftop export to the grid, then import at night? Didn’t all of this require upgrades to transformers, and flywheels annd stabalisation devices to deal with erratic generation and all sorts of other add ons?
[/quote]

Sure, as I said there's some work to be done. However, as an example, let's say renewables didn't exist. All coal plants need replacing over a relatively short period, so it was always on the cards that we'd be up for a lot of money to replace them. No matter what. Those plants were built by individual States based on the Australian economy and demand patterns of the 1980s, but also related to the various State economies after the 1950s.

So, for example, SA had a transmission system with routing to supply ship building in Whyalla, and car manufacturing in Elizabeth. Victoria had power stations ay Yallourn feeding industry in Geelong. Much of the regional industrial demand from Woods and Forests in the South-east of SA, paper mills at Lake Bonney, railway workshops in Bendigo are all gone.

So, regardless of renewables, the nation's power networks need recasting, along with new power plants. With the concept of a national grid, both the size, location, and numbers of power stations and the grid connections were going to change.

Now, if anyone wants to identify part of that attributable to renewables, that's fair. However, when there are vast changes in demand patterns and new power stations having to be built anyway, that needs to be acknowledged.

Homes can export to the grid like any other generator can. However, because prices vary during the day, it may not be economic for them to do so. Already, feed in tariffs are going down, as solar becomes cheaper. I don't see single feed in tariffs lasting too long to be honest. That's because prices vary too much during the day. I see smart meters and software being needed. When prices are high, people can decide to feed in, when low, they can opt out.
[/quote]

You seem to be skirting around the issues of moving from centralised generation, to widely dispearsed generation. On one hand saying you want companies investigated for gold plating transmission, while seemingly ignoring the fact that massive rollouts of new transmission is required because of generation occurring all over the place, much of it in isolated areas. Yes power distribution has changed, industry has changed (read offshored). The premise of nuclear and alleged cost savings is putting these plants adjacent to historic heavy industry zones, with existing distribution infrastructure, where can actually ramp up our industrial base, not pray that there is enough sun and wind to simultaneously charge the batteries, and supply power. I for one don’t for a minute believe the coalitions coatings, but nor do I believe the governments overly optimistic figures for renewables. And Chris Bowens condescending tone, annd gotcha soundbites do not help. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
[/quote]

Ok. Let me be more direct. If people are generating their own power in their own homes, then surely you need less transmission and distribution infrastructure. Especially when many homes have batteries, and more are now installing them. If a suburb has 20-30% of its power generated internally, that's 20-30% less power required to be fed to it. Further, if that suburb has some batteries, that's less power required at night.

The big players like AGL and Alinta are planning big renewable feeds from their existing sites. Where's the need for extra transmission infrastructure there? I'd say it's zero.

So, there's no case whatever for increasing transmission capacity to, and distribution capacity within suburbs, on the face of it at least. There's zero case for increasing transmission capacity from existing major sites. That covers the biggest part of the system with no obvious reason for needing a transmission/distribution upgrade.

The only other area might be where new sources are connected to the grid. In that case, those connecting need to pay for that particular exercise. If it's not economic for them to do it, then they won't, just like major companies don't see nuclear power as economically viable for them. So, where's the problem there.

So, on the face of it, there's almost zero case for major expenditure. So, where is this extra transmission infrastructure required that's going to cost a trillion as some people say?

[SBD]

Project EnergyConnect will provide a new large capacity connection for big solar farms in western NSW, and a market for the Goyder wind farms. At some stage the lightweight 133kV line to Wudinna will need an upgrade. There’s a proposed iron ore mine that if it goes ahead, will need more electricity. That line upgrade will enable large solar farms on marginal land to its north.

[rubberman]

Project EnergyConnect will provide a new large capacity connection for big solar farms in western NSW, and a market for the Goyder wind farms. At some stage the lightweight 133kV line to Wudinna will need an upgrade. There’s a proposed iron ore mine that if it goes ahead, will need more electricity. That line upgrade will enable large solar farms on marginal land to its north.

Exactly. Each of those require transmission line upgrading. They should be paid for by the promoters in the case of the solar farms and mine. In which case, why would that increase power bills for domestic consumers?

As for the line to Wudinna, if it needs upgrading, what's that got to do with renewables? If there's more demand, or it's falling apart, then it's going to have to be replaced anyway: renewables, or coal, or gas, or nuclear, make no difference.

It's remarkably frustrating when people start saying renewables are going to cost huge amounts of money, and then every example brought up is either very small, or something totally unrelated to renewables, or something with a much cheaper fix than proposed.

[claybro]

Project EnergyConnect will provide a new large capacity connection for big solar farms in western NSW, and a market for the Goyder wind farms. At some stage the lightweight 133kV line to Wudinna will need an upgrade. There’s a proposed iron ore mine that if it goes ahead, will need more electricity. That line upgrade will enable large solar farms on marginal land to its north.

Exactly. Each of those require transmission line upgrading. They should be paid for by the promoters in the case of the solar farms and mine. In which case, why would that increase power bills for domestic consumers?

As for the line to Wudinna, if it needs upgrading, what's that got to do with renewables? If there's more demand, or it's falling apart, then it's going to have to be replaced anyway: renewables, or coal, or gas, or nuclear, make no difference.

It's remarkably frustrating when people start saying renewables are going to cost huge amounts of money, and then every example brought up is either very small, or something totally unrelated to renewables, or something with a much cheaper fix than proposed.

When you say "promoters" I assume you mean that large industrial users should pay for or contribute to the transmission lines themselves? Fair enough- but historically, when the state wanted to attract heavy industry, the state paid for the energy infrastructure. It seems to be your position that renewables do not require large upgrades and new transmission infrastructure and this appears to be at odds with what is actually being planned.

[abc]

this has got to be the most tiresome and pointless thread on this entire forum

it basically amounts to Labor Party propaganda vs Liberal Party propaganda

with a Venn intersection of globalist grifter (climate cult) propaganda on both sides

[rubberman]

Project EnergyConnect will provide a new large capacity connection for big solar farms in western NSW, and a market for the Goyder wind farms. At some stage the lightweight 133kV line to Wudinna will need an upgrade. There’s a proposed iron ore mine that if it goes ahead, will need more electricity. That line upgrade will enable large solar farms on marginal land to its north.

Exactly. Each of those require transmission line upgrading. They should be paid for by the promoters in the case of the solar farms and mine. In which case, why would that increase power bills for domestic consumers?

As for the line to Wudinna, if it needs upgrading, what's that got to do with renewables? If there's more demand, or it's falling apart, then it's going to have to be replaced anyway: renewables, or coal, or gas, or nuclear, make no difference.

It's remarkably frustrating when people start saying renewables are going to cost huge amounts of money, and then every example brought up is either very small, or something totally unrelated to renewables, or something with a much cheaper fix than proposed.

When you say "promoters" I assume you mean that large industrial users should pay for or contribute to the transmission lines themselves? Fair enough- but historically, when the state wanted to attract heavy industry, the state paid for the energy infrastructure. It seems to be your position that renewables do not require large upgrades and new transmission infrastructure and this appears to be at odds with what is actually being planned.

If someone wants to build a bunch of solar panels at Woop Woop, who else should pay for them to connect to the network? Further, anyone building subdivision development must pay for infrastructure connection. This is pretty standard.

Well, yes. Transmission companies are proposing to spend a lot of money, and then charge us. So, should we just accept it? If we do, then let's not then start whinging about electricity prices.

As an aside, a few mainstream media outlets have published analyses of power prices. Funnily enough, profits are about 2.5 times the cost of actual generation. So much for people blaming renewables.