News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1711 Post by rubberman » Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:17 pm

abc wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:02 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 4:54 pm
abc wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 3:56 pm
why is it cost prohibitive in Australia but not in France...
France hasn't got as much land to build solar arrays. France has a nuclear technological base that Australia doesn't have, and would have to develop. The average French approval build time is over 16 years. Our present coal plants are decrepit and won't last that long. Then, of course, much of it is government funded. When it's funded by the taxpayer, does cost prohibition come into it?

How about this? The French government is looking to take money from savings accounts to fund nuclear. I know a few people who'd think that was prohibitive.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/articl ... 425_7.html#

Edit. Construction of the Flamanville reactor started in 2007. The facility was originally planned to cost €3.3 billion ($3.6 billion), but it is now expected to eat up more than €12 billion.

Ok. Let's do that. Taxpayer funded through a tax on savings accounts with prices ballooning 4X. This is the NBN, submarines, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2 all over again. Oh. And then complain about high taxes.
what use are low taxes when the cost of living is among the highest in the world... thanks to... energy prices

wrt to 'solar' if it were just about cost we would be building solar thermal everywhere and not polluting solar cell arrays... the latter of which are a rort and the main investment vehicle for The Teals.
According to the EU, French customers pay €0.25/kWH. That's 41 cents Australian. That doesn't include the cost to taxpayers.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... per%20KWh)

The cost of living in Australia is high. As is our standard of living. It's almost as if you pay more...you get more. Travel to Switzerland if you want to experience a high cost of living...with a high standard of infrastructure too.

User avatar
Algernon
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1712 Post by Algernon » Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:29 pm

The year is 2024 and we are legit listening to someone who thinks we have 10 years to waste reducing our emissions.

This is a direct quote from Dutton re: time and the plight of pacific island nations.

“Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re, you know, about to have water lapping at your door.”

He's the guy who is going to "build nuclear power plants" in "10 years time". You really get the sense of urgency, don't you. He'll be going like the clappers to make sure we don't burn as much coal as absolutely necessary. :roll:

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1713 Post by abc » Mon Jun 24, 2024 8:33 pm

Algernon wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:29 pm
The year is 2024 and we are legit listening to someone who thinks we have 10 years to waste reducing our emissions.

This is a direct quote from Dutton re: time and the plight of pacific island nations.

“Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re, you know, about to have water lapping at your door.”

He's the guy who is going to "build nuclear power plants" in "10 years time". You really get the sense of urgency, don't you. He'll be going like the clappers to make sure we don't burn as much coal as absolutely necessary. :roll:
what will happen in 10 years?
tired of low IQ hacks

User avatar
Algernon
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1714 Post by Algernon » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:08 pm

The exact same thing that has been happening for around 40 years - since the time we knew this was a problem.

We will 1. continue to make the problem worse 2. deny that it even is a problem so that 3. we don't need to do anything to change, leading to 1. Then 4. we will have completely fucked over the generation after us who will have to find a solution themselves while saddled with the sovereign debt we racked up for them while we were at it.

Even if renewables were driving up power bills (they're not), even if, you're telling the generation that actually lives their entire life in the world you left for them that the most important problem to be solved for your generation was: oh boo hoo my power bill went up a few hundred bucks. The same generation that experienced a 10 fold increase in their average salaries.
Last edited by Algernon on Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1715 Post by rev » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:11 pm

LMFAO
EHA1DUhX4AANYwj.jpg
There's two consistent things from the radical left. Their failure to deliver on promised power price reductions and their never ending doomsday fails.

User avatar
Algernon
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1716 Post by Algernon » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:13 pm

Funnily enough in your desperate attempt to troll the issue you actually stepped up from where you were. Previously a person who doesn't actually care, but now through meming, at least prepared to admit to it. Congratulations.

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1717 Post by rev » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:15 pm

mattblack wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 3:49 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:44 am
Poll shows majority of Aussies support nuclear power plan
Six in 10 Australians back nuclear energy, exclusive new polling shows. See what the nation really thinks about the energy source, including the communities which could host a reactor in their backyards.

Clare Armstrong
National political editor
Follow
@ByClare
3 min read
June 24, 2024 - 4:30AM

Six in 10 Australians say they support nuclear energy as a part of the nation’s energy mix in a boost for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s ambitious plan to build seven power plants by 2050.

Mr Dutton’s plan was also bolstered by most of the nominated regions supporting having a reactor in their back yard, led by the Latrobe Valley with almost 60 per cent of those surveyed there comfortable with the idea.

A snapshot survey of 923 randomly selected people conducted across the weekend after the Coalition announced its energy plan found about 60 per cent of voters said nuclear power “has a place” in Australia’s future energy mix.

Mr Dutton last week announced if elected he would pursue a plan to build seven nuclear plants at the sites of retiring coal-fired power stations, including the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, Hunter Valley in NSW, South Burnett and Gladstone region of Queensland, and Port Augusta in South Australia.

Image

The survey included just over 100 people on average in each of these five regional areas, plus 100 people in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane.

In every location, except Melbourne, there was majority support for an Australian nuclear energy industry, but this backing fell away somewhat when respondents were specifically asked if they would be “comfortable with a nuclear reactor being built in your region”.

Many Australians living where coal has long been the dominant source of employment and economic revenue said they were supportive.

In Victoria, Morwell man Clinton Saffron is in the metalwork industry, and said he ­believed nuclear power would bring welcome economic ­development to the region.

“It’s renewable power – it’s better than the old, dirty that we have been digging out of our valley for years,” Mr Saffron said.

“I think it’s better for the environment – I think it’s better for the environment in that sense, waste is the issue.

“Myself and my father are in the metal work industry – he has serviced all these power stations as a boiler maker.

“They are building the furnaces and boilers and old steam pipes that goes with it – they have taken it out of our valley.

“We have got no industry left – most of us sit at home with no jobs because there’s nothing. It will give us something to do again.”

Traralgon man Bruce Dell, 60, said the Latrobe Valley had the infrastructure necessary to build nuclear.

“We have got the heavy industry here, it makes sense to build it in the valley,” he said.

Lakes Entrance woman Theresa Jordan said she was “100 per cent” supportive of nuclear power coming to the valley.

“With what we have going on in our region – it would be a great source of power. The coal mine industry has had a huge impact on so many families and livelihood and to bring (nuclear power) into here and to bring more jobs into our town would be amazing,” she said.

In South Australia, Dean Sellars worked at the now shuttered Northern Power Station just outside Port ­Augusta for 33 years, and said he believed the Coalition’s ­nuclear plans would be unsuccessful, mostly due to the cost.

But Port Augusta real estate agent Darren Sherriff, 53, said Australia should embrace the Coalition’s proposed nuclear power plans.

“We’re one of the only countries that hasn’t gone ­nuclear yet, to our own great detriment,” he said.

A separate poll again found that support varied, especially between city dwellers and in the region a reactor could be built. Just 39 per cent of Melbourne residents supported nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix.

However, this jumped to 71 per cent among Latrobe Valley residents, where Mr Dutton has said a reactor could be located.

When asked if respondents were comfortable with a reactor in Victoria, 28 per cent of city respondents said yes.

This jumped to 59 per cent of Latrobe Valley residents.

In response to the mixed results on support, a state government spokesman said: “Our position is clear, we will not allow a toxic nuclear power plant in our state.”

He described it as “waiting decades and spending billions on a half-baked plan drawn up on the back of a napkin”.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/vic ... 8f64787115
Well, until the issues of cost, generation capacity (stated that this will be decided after the election), direct impact on household bills, continued action for transition in the meantime depending on build time, federal legislative constraints (passing senate), state legislative constraints (libs have stated that they will just throw money at the states that will host these plants so they will change state legislation bans on nuclear), community engagement (which libs have started will take place over 2.5 yrs), waste disposal location and transport (more than just a coke can size) and federal legislation that enshrines all these matters and governance, any poll is completely meaningless.

SA had a royal commission in 2016 I think into the nuclear life cycle and although Mali is a supporter because of the benefit to the state has outright discounted it on cost. Think that may be something in that.
So if we can't rely on polls about peoples opinions so far on nuclear because we don't have all the details yet, why is it acceptable for the left to go berserk and attack a policy bizarrely about those same details that are missing that you say dismiss the poll?

Cant say that there was a royal commission and it said nuclear=bad, but then ignore when one of those people in that royal commission, an actual expert that is (was either from the state one or federally) who came out and said that nuclear energy was viable in Australia.

Can't have it both ways.
Last edited by rev on Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1718 Post by abc » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:16 pm

Algernon wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:08 pm
The exact same thing that has been happening for around 40 years - since the time we knew this was a problem.

We will 1. continue to make the problem worse 2. deny that it even is a problem so that 3. we don't need to do anything to change, leading to 1. Then 4. we will have completely fucked over the generation after us who will have to find a solution themselves while saddled with the sovereign debt we racked up for them while we were at it.

Even if renewables were driving up power bills (they're not), even if, you're telling the generation that actually lives their entire life in the world you left for them that the most important problem to be solved for your generation was: oh boo hoo my power bill went up a few hundred bucks. The same generation that experienced a 10 fold increase in their average salaries.
but what's going to happen in 10 years?

can you be specific, you're not telling me anything here

you sound pretty entitled by the way, but we'll deal with that later
tired of low IQ hacks

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1719 Post by rev » Mon Jun 24, 2024 9:20 pm

Here's some more food for thought..

Electricity Prices Plunge By 75% As Finland Opens New Nuclear Power Plant
By ZeroHedge - May 16, 2023, 12:00 PM CDT

The commencement of regular output from a much-delayed Finnish nuclear reactor in April saw electricity prices in the country decrease by more than 75 percent.

The Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear plant completed the transition from testing to regular output last month to become Finland’s first new nuclear plant in more than four decades. It is expected to produce up to 15 percent of the country’s power demand.
And while the plant’s production is still in its early days, its launch has had a considerable effect on Finland’s energy prices, lowering the electricity spot price in the country from €245.98 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in December to €60.55 per MWh in April, a reduction of more than 75 percent, according to physical electricity exchange, Nord Pool.

Energy prices had risen sharply in the Scandinavian country after the Finnish government banned electricity imports from neighboring Russia last year due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The utilization of nuclear power will be welcomed by Finnish consumers, particularly given the fact that Finland has the highest per-capita electricity consumption in the European Union.

“We have had more stability in the system because of OL3. It’s a huge nuclear plant, one of the biggest in the world, connected to a small system,” said Jukka Ruusunen, chief executive of Finland’s national grid operator Fingrid. “It has its own risks, which we are happy to follow up on,” he added.

Speaking to The National, Ruusunen explained that wind power is expected to be the largest source of energy production in Finland by 2027, with nuclear currently being a useful and reliable substitute.

He said that wind power is capable of attracting greater investment, with nuclear energy seemingly being blacklisted by a number of environmental investors.

“Nuclear, it seems, is not very attractive for the investors. This is what they say. But, it’s an option and I’m sure that our politicians would be in favor of these decisions,” he told the news site.

There are also business concerns:
“Who dares to put billions of euros into nuclear?” he asked.

Nuclear, however, continues to be an increasingly popular source of energy production in many EU nations with France, Sweden, Poland and Hungary all seeking to expand their nuclear energy output.

Last month, Poland secured $4 billion in U.S. funding to help build 20 small modular reactors across the country by 2029, while Hungary is focused on expanding its Paks nuclear power plant.

The Finnish example is a testament to how nuclear can play a part in solving the current energy crisis, with consumers still paying sky-high fees for energy in many European countries.

Germany, however, went the opposite way and controversially closed down its three remaining nuclear power plants last month. High inflation, high energy costs, and a sharp decline in industrial output have led to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicting a recession is in the cards for Europe’s powerhouse.

While German government officials say that energy prices are stabilizing, many will argue this is primarily because the federal government has spent around €26 billion in taxpayers’ cash on bailing out energy firms Sefe and Uniper, both of which incurred record losses by purchasing natural gas at hugely inflated prices to replace the banned supply from Russia.

As other European countries turn to alternative sources of energy production such as nuclear, some have ignored the benefits and chosen to plunge themselves into debt because of a notion that nuclear isn’t an acceptable energy source in the modern day.
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy ... %20percent.

Finnish nuclear plant throttles production as electricity price plunges
Electricity production must also be profitable for nuclear power plants, according to the facility's operator Teollisuuden Voima (TVO).

YLE NEWS
17.5.2023 16:59
The output of Finland's newest nuclear power facility, Olkiluoto 3, has been significantly cut back because electricity has become too cheap, according to the plant's owner, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO).

"Electricity production must also be profitable for nuclear power plants, and when the price is particularly low, there may be situations where output is limited," TVO communications manager, Johanna Aho, said.

Early on Wednesday the market price for electricity dropped below zero cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and for hours after that the price was only 0.3 cents per kWh at its highest, according to the country's grid operator, Fingrid.

The Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in Eurajoki, southwest Finland, started regular electricity production in mid-April, about 14 years behind schedule.

Generally, the amount of electricity generated in Finland is regulated by increasing or decreasing the amount of hydroelectric power that is used. However, due to flood conditions in northern Finland, reducing hydroelectric-generated electricity is challenging at the moment.

According to Aho, cutting back on nuclear power production due to excessively low electricity prices is very rare, but not unheard of.

Janne Kauppi, an energy markets advisor at Finnish Energy, agreed with that sentiment.

"There haven't been many situations where nuclear power output has been regulated specifically because of low prices," Kauppi explained.

For example, production levels are more regulated in places like France, where nuclear power is responsible for providing the majority of the country's electricity.

"When prices go negative on the electricity market, basically anyone who can adjust their production will do it, so that they don't have to pay for their own production," Kauppi noted.

Nuclear power production in Finland may increasingly need to be regulated due to such situations.

Around 500 megawatt-hours of new wind-generated electricity went online in the country this year alone. Those kinds of developments mean that in future, electricity market prices could dip into negative numbers more often than they currently do.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20032375

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1720 Post by rubberman » Mon Jun 24, 2024 10:01 pm

abc wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 8:33 pm
Algernon wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:29 pm
The year is 2024 and we are legit listening to someone who thinks we have 10 years to waste reducing our emissions.

This is a direct quote from Dutton re: time and the plight of pacific island nations.

“Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re, you know, about to have water lapping at your door.”

He's the guy who is going to "build nuclear power plants" in "10 years time". You really get the sense of urgency, don't you. He'll be going like the clappers to make sure we don't burn as much coal as absolutely necessary. :roll:
what will happen in 10 years?
Well, certainly not the nuclear plant Dutton reckons the Coalition can deliver in ten years. :lol:

rubberman
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1721 Post by rubberman » Mon Jun 24, 2024 10:08 pm

It's amazing really.

The people who were saying "If you don't know, vote NO!" on the Voice, are now saying that we ought to agree to nuclear without any details, and with rather unbelievable assumptions.

Now, Finland. The latest reactor to be commissioned recently was ordered in 2003 and promised for 2009. It was finally delivered in 2023. Only 20 years. Oh, and the financial losses are huge. Oh, and though the prices of power have dropped, someone has to pay the capital costs from somewhere. Taxes maybe? Plus nuclear plants only make financial sense if operating at maximum economic capacity. If you have to throttle them, they become very costly indeed.

Finland is a poster child of why we should be very sceptical. Promises of short build times and economic prices to get the public behind it...then a twenty year delivery and grossly over budget. With the cherry on top being that because the plant is throttled, it can't operate at maximum efficiency.

So. What have we got? Promises of short build times? Check. Unverifiable low cost estimates. Check. Likely need to throttle the plants? You bet, because in 20 years there's going to be so much solar, wind and batteries, that any estimates of required capacity are just stabs in the dark. What. A. Con.

PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1722 Post by PD2/20 » Mon Jun 24, 2024 10:57 pm

SBD wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:46 pm
If it is so important for the grid to have reserve dispatchable backup sources, why is the state government not lining up to buy the two gas turbine power stations that are being closed as they have no contracts? Snuggery may be 46 years old, but Port Lincoln is only 25 years old and seems not to have been heavily used so is likely to still have a long working life if maintained.

Snuggery and Port Lincoln power stations are 63MW and 75MW, diesel-fueled. The contract to provide backup power was not renewed by Electranet last year, so Engie is cutting its losses.

Engie to shut two South Australian generators as losses mount Australian Financial Review 6 February 2024
I would add to the replies that have already been given to your question. The Port Lincoln generators were in a unique situation within the NEM. Port Lincoln was supplied via single 132 kV circuit from Cultana (Whyalla). When the reliability standard was tightened a number of years ago, Electranet instead of augmenting the transmission line, awarded a backup supply contract to the operators (now Engie) of the Port Lincoln generators to the the N-1 requirement. In 2018 Electranet reviewed the supply arrangements to Port Lincoln as the line condition had deteriorated. Several options were considered including renewal of the backup contract with Engie, but the option selected was the replacement of the single circuit line with a new double 132 kV circuit line, which was completed in 2023. The northern half of the line can be converted to 275 kV operation. The augmentation would also further development of renewable generation on the Eyre Peninsula. With removal of the backup contract Port Lincoln generators reverted to being normal scheduled participants in the NEM. Snuggery I believe has always been a normal participant in the NEM without any backup contract, Snuggery was built in 1978 before the extension of the 275 kV lines to South East substation and the establishment of the Heywood Interconnector. Mt Gambier and Millicent with their industrial loads were supplied by a single circuit 132kV loop from Keith and suspect that Snuggery was built to provide local generation to the region. In recent years the Port Lincoln and Snuggery units have been the least frequently dispatched of all the SA generators. Their remote locations and poor economics due to use of diesel probably make their retention as reserve capacity unattractive.

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1723 Post by abc » Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:01 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 10:08 pm
It's amazing really.

The people who were saying "If you don't know, vote NO!" on the Voice, are now saying that we ought to agree to nuclear without any details, and with rather unbelievable assumptions.

Now, Finland. The latest reactor to be commissioned recently was ordered in 2003 and promised for 2009. It was finally delivered in 2023. Only 20 years. Oh, and the financial losses are huge. Oh, and though the prices of power have dropped, someone has to pay the capital costs from somewhere. Taxes maybe? Plus nuclear plants only make financial sense if operating at maximum economic capacity. If you have to throttle them, they become very costly indeed.

Finland is a poster child of why we should be very sceptical. Promises of short build times and economic prices to get the public behind it...then a twenty year delivery and grossly over budget. With the cherry on top being that because the plant is throttled, it can't operate at maximum efficiency.

So. What have we got? Promises of short build times? Check. Unverifiable low cost estimates. Check. Likely need to throttle the plants? You bet, because in 20 years there's going to be so much solar, wind and batteries, that any estimates of required capacity are just stabs in the dark. What. A. Con.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the cheap gas being supplied from Russia...
tired of low IQ hacks

PD2/20
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1724 Post by PD2/20 » Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:06 pm

rubberman wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 2:53 pm
Apparently the AFR and Newscorp publications are real news, but the Guardian is clickbait?

Wouldn't it be better to just post the articles and let people decide?

There's no real context to those articles, and they could provoke some healthy debate, but why bother if it leads to people throwing round falsehoods like the banks have no money, and then doubling down on it? Then it devolves into personal nonsense.
Also the Smart Energy Council news release carried by the Guardian was widely covered by a range of papers and news media including the AFR!!!

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

#1725 Post by abc » Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:00 am

PD2/20 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:06 pm
rubberman wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2024 2:53 pm
Apparently the AFR and Newscorp publications are real news, but the Guardian is clickbait?

Wouldn't it be better to just post the articles and let people decide?

There's no real context to those articles, and they could provoke some healthy debate, but why bother if it leads to people throwing round falsehoods like the banks have no money, and then doubling down on it? Then it devolves into personal nonsense.
Also the Smart Energy Council news release carried by the Guardian was widely covered by a range of papers and news media including the AFR!!!
"Smart Energy Council" with Simon Holmes a Court on the board are a bunch of climate grifters

'independent' yeah right... they're a Teals party vehicle

some here seem incapable of doing basic due diligence
tired of low IQ hacks

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 3 guests