Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 4:01 am

SBD wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 12:34 am

NTRabbit wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2024 11:35 pm

It's almost like something is leaning on the scales to keep the retail price of electricity to consumers high and climbing, independent of what technology is used to generate it, and that no matter how often someone in government claims something will make it cheaper, the only solution that will actually work involves structural change and an old form of French justice.

What I haven't worked out is why some electricity companies/plans "offer" to charge more to ensure they are using renewable energy. I can't even work out what that means, and I've just put solar panels on my roof and get paid a pittance for my excess daytime generation compared to what I pay to top it up at night.

The AEMO quoted price at midday is predicted as being less than 3c/kWH tomorrow. So, you aren't going to get more than that, realistically at that time of day. However, at night, there's no solar, and the price goes up. You are selling when the price is low and buying when it's high.

I see a business opportunity for some enterprising entrepreneur to develop a wind turbine generator connected to one of those whirlygigs that vent hot air from ceiling spaces.

SBD wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 12:34 am

NTRabbit wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2024 11:35 pm

It's almost like something is leaning on the scales to keep the retail price of electricity to consumers high and climbing, independent of what technology is used to generate it, and that no matter how often someone in government claims something will make it cheaper, the only solution that will actually work involves structural change and an old form of French justice.

What I haven't worked out is why some electricity companies/plans "offer" to charge more to ensure they are using renewable energy. I can't even work out what that means, and I've just put solar panels on my roof and get paid a pittance for my excess daytime generation compared to what I pay to top it up at night.

You get paid a pittance during the day, because there is excess power generated during the day by all the rooftop solar. There is so much excess power they literally cant give it away. From about 3pm at this time of year, there is very little rooftop solar contribution, and as is often the case at this time of year- massive high pressure systems settle over the south east- so very little wind either. That leaves gas, diesel, and the ever dimishing coal generators to pick up the pieces- the same ones that the policy settings have been trying to run out of business for the last decade. Their power generation is understandably very expensive- so no. Power companies are not going to pay you for power they don't need at midday.

SBD wrote: ↑

Sun May 19, 2024 6:41 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Thu May 16, 2024 2:39 pm

this bodes well

So California had more expensive electricity, and now it has even more expensive electricity. Do we know what the cost drivers are?

Wikipedia says "Texas, with 28,843 MW of capacity, about 16.8% of the state's electricity usage, had the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state at the end of 2019. Texas also had more under construction than any other state had installed. The state generating the highest percentage of energy from wind power is Iowa at over 57% of total energy production, while North Dakota has the most per capita wind generation."

Those three states all have retail prices below the USA average, so something else is going on in California too. The bit.ly link in the image resolved to https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/br ... rse=0&pin= which shows why they shortened it.

Not sure if your try to pin California's prices on renewables push by they have an very diverse energy generation including gas, nuclear and importing 30% of their energy.

California Energy Commission (CEC) data for 2021 showed in-state generation of 194 TWh from 82.9 GWe of installed capacity and net imports of 83.6 TWh to give a total consumption of 278 TWh. In-state generation comprised: 16.5 TWh (8%) nuclear; 97.4 TWh (50%) natural gas; 33.3 TWh (17%) solar; 15.2 TWh (8%) wind; 12.0 TWh (6%) large hydro; 11.1 TWh (6%) geothermal; 5.4 TWh (3%) biomass; 2.5 TWh (1%) small hydro; and 0.3 TWh coal. The imports were 32.6 TWh from Pacific Northwest and 51.1 TWh from Southwest, the latter including 15.7 TWh from coal and gas. About 12 GWe of gas-fired capacity was retired in the eight years to mid-2020.

Another battery has started construction next to the Clements Wind Farm near Port Pirie.

Not particularly large, 60wm/130mwh, but a useful addition none the less. And the good thing about batteries is that they are "scaleable"...you want to make it bigger you merely add more pre-constructed power packs, test, and power up.

Construction begins on new big battery next to one of Australia’s oldest wind farms



Construction has begun on a new 130 MWh big battery that is located next to one of Australia’s oldest wind farms.

Pacific Blue, formerly known as Pacific Hydro, says it is building a 60 MW, 130 MWh grid scale battery at Clements Gap, near Port Pirie in South Australia, next to the 57 MW Clements Gap wind farm that was built in 2010.

The new battery is one of a number of new battery storage projects being built in South Australia as the state makes the next leap from around 75 per cent renewables (wind and solar) to its newly fast tracked target of 100 per cent net renewables by 2030.

Full article : https://reneweconomy.com.au/constructio ... ind-farms/

And Elon Musk announced the other day that the next generation of Megapack batteries will be able to be plugged "directly into the grid".

In Europe, households can buy inverters that directly plug into power outlets. This is a battery inverter that literally plugs directly into the grid.
https://www.theverge.com/24150901/ecofl ... roinverter
They're smaller than a typical household battery inverter, but they are much cheaper per kW or kWh and don't require installation. Not approved here yet.

So live exposed pins?
Only countries with extremely poor electrical standards would allow that.

bits wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2024 8:26 am

So live exposed pins?
Only countries with extremely poor electrical standards would allow that.

Can a non-grid-forming inverter be idle without live pins until it receives an AC current from the grid to define the phase to be amplified? I'm not an electrician or electrical engineer, but I know that countering the AC phase is not helpful. Early inverters could not be active if the grid failed, so I interpret they need to receive a signal to lock on to.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politi ... f9935db47b

Dutton saying he can build 2 nuclear plants in 10 years. Including the time to legislate, plan and prep.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:42 pm

https://www.news.com.au/national/politi ... f9935db47b

Dutton saying he can build 2 nuclear plants in 10 years. Including the time to legislate, plan and prep.

I think the idea is that the SA and WA ones will be "small modular reactor" powerstations that can supposedly be bought off-the-shelf. The only problem with that theory is that nobody has yet commercialised building them to be available to buy off the shelf.

“It is a vision for the men and women who are in our coal-fired power stations ..." Those men and women will have had over 20 years to move out, retire or find another job in Port Augusta from then the Northern Power Station closed. I thought I'd heard that those transmission lines had already reached capacity as they are fed from Port Augusta Renewable Energy Park (PAREP), Lincoln Gap wind farm, Bungala Solar Farm and so on.

Torrens Island might soon have excess transmission capacity, but even that may be proposed to be used if a large wind farm is built on Yorke Peninsula with HVDC across the floor of the gulf. That proposal has been on-again-off-again but seems to currently be back to a new plan with new ownership.

Algernon wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:42 pm

https://www.news.com.au/national/politi ... f9935db47b

Dutton saying he can build 2 nuclear plants in 10 years. Including the time to legislate, plan and prep.

Of course. Why do you doubt?

Let's call it: Nation Building Nuclear. NBN, for short.

Finished by 2016, er no 2026, er no, 2036, er no...

Or, Snowy Mk2, but with nukes? No cost overruns, but.

Or, just order a couple of spare AUKUS submarines power plants, and use them.

Or, perhaps the Murray Darling Basin (nuclear) Plan where the taxpayer pays $10bn and gets absolutely nothing?

As far as locations go, those rorted car parks were never built, so there's space there.

All of you doubters who say it can't be done, should be ashamed. Look at the impeccable record we have of delivery of complex projects in Australia.

Now, for the record, and seriously, I don't think the ALP could deliver a nuclear plant in ten years either. However, it's not the ALP sticking its neck out here.

Again, seriously, Australia desperately needs an Opposition Party which has realistic and practical plans. Putting things up that cannot possibly work in the time frame we need is a huge distraction from a very real and serious challenge. Less marketing, Peter, and more engineering, if you please.

So the Peter Dutton and David Littleproud nuclear roadshow has finally left the gate....

When you buy a house or a new car you find out the price BEFORE you sign the contract, not AFTER you sign the contract.

But NO with the Coalitions nuclear plan you find out the price AFTER you have signed up!

What sort of scam is this? No costings, a timeline that is not believable because every nuclear project in the western world over the last 25 years has gone over time and overbudget.....Hinkley Pt C, Flammanville C, Vogtle, the Finnish reactors.....all disasterously costly and late.

These small 470mw reactors have got to be NuScale.....the only ones building that size reactors at the moment.

The cost : 13 billion AUD ($USD 9.2 billion) per reactor. Unfortunately NuScale tried this in the US and the free market said "No too costly"

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-10/

If you want to spend that sort I have other suggestions.....1500mw of of onshore wind.....4.5 billion and 8 (yes eight) 500mw/2000mwh batteries....South Australia at 100% renewables accomplished!

Will the nuclear power plant get SA to 100% renewables no instead it would push up power prices.

In 2016 at the South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, the cost of small nuclear was estimated at $238 per mwh. My guestimate for 2024 would be around $350 making it the most expensive source of power in the NEM, ahead of gas (Peter Dutton's favourite 2 ways to generate power)

Laughable how morons like the fed. treasurer and others are screaming as loud as they can that nuclear power will make electricity more expensive, when their solution has done the exact same thing.

So it's ok that Labor/Greens backwards ass policies have fucked us with electricity prices, what they mean to tell us though is that the Liberals plan for nuclear power will further increase the cost of electricity.
See, Labor really cares about the people still. They think you're ok to keep getting shafted financially by their dumb policies, but they really don't want you to potentially get shafted by the Liberals dumb policies.
That's why the treasurer called the Liberals nuclear power plan the dumbest plan. Because he knows most voters are fucking stupid, after all they do keep voting morons in to government who keep shafting them.

On the one hand we had them look into the cost of nuclear, one report said it would not be feasible, but then there's a guy who was paid to do the same thing essentially (I posted about him but that was a little inconvenient for some) who said it would be a viable option in Australia.
So, because Labor really cares about you and your well being, instead of having a proper independent look at all this stuff, they just tell you it's a dumb policy.


Queue the arm chair experts and selective quotes now (or am I too late)

PeFe wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2024 8:37 pm

So the Peter Dutton and David Littleproud nuclear roadshow has finally left the gate....

When you buy a house or a new car you find out the price BEFORE you sign the contract, not AFTER you sign the contract.

But NO with the Coalitions nuclear plan you find out the price AFTER you have signed up!

What sort of scam is this?

I guess the same kind of scam the Labor party runs on people.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:53 pm

Again, seriously, Australia desperately needs an Opposition Party which has realistic and practical plans. Putting things up that cannot possibly work in the time frame we need is a huge distraction from a very real and serious challenge. Less marketing, Peter, and more engineering, if you please.

It's a policy designed for one purpose: burn coal so the boomers can squeeze the planet for the last bit of profit they can in their last 15 years. After that, it's my generation's problem of how to find an efficient way of undoing the fucking mess they left us.

On that note. It'll be interesting in 15 years time what things like federal Liberal and News LTD actually look like with that audience moved on.

lmfao