Getting a better Energy deal - WHAT A JOKE!

[FenceFurniture]

Batteries won't be just restricted to Lithium though. There are all sorts of things going on with battery developments. There are going to major changes in the next few years I believe. Here is one development based on Aluminium Ion (although aimed at mobile phone batteries, you get the idea:
New aluminium battery for smartphones can be charged in one minute: US scientists - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/aluminium-smartphone-battery-charged-in-one-minute-scientists/6376406)

Here is a short thread where we had a brief discussion about that:
http://www.woodworkforums.com/f13/alum-ion-battery-discovery-implications-power-tools-194036

[FenceFurniture]

Some other articles:

This one looks interesting (haven'y read it yet)
Future batteries, coming soon: Charge in seconds, last months and power over the air - Pocket-lint (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air)

[ian]

I don't know if you'd need to go that far.

I think a solution to reduce the reliance on the "dirty" generation methods until a viable solution is developed would go a long way. you and I may have different definitions of "dirty". If the intent of a renewable strategy is to de-carbonise elecvtricity production, I'm including any CO2 producing power source -- brown coal, black coal, gas, oil -- as "dirty"


As i said in a previous post, requiring all new builds to have a tesla-esque solar & battery set up would be a start (similar to the rain water tanks) would go a long way to reducing the reliance on traditional generators. It'll also boost the revenue of those companies to pump into further R&D. the short term answer (0-5 years) might be to require all existing and new solar and wind generators to purchase a back-up block of "base load" power. Yes this would throw a huge spanner into solar and wind's "money for nothing" business models, but it would also ease the cost pressure on the existing coal stations while the country developed pumped hydro as the nation's back-up "battery".
In the 2 to 10 year period the back-up power could be provided by scaling up existing fly wheel based UPS systems. As I mentioned in Post #184, Wikipedia reports that existing commercial flywheel systems are good for 5 MWh, which coincidentally is approximately 2 hours generation from the typical 2.3 MW wind turbine. You read it here first, require all new wind turbines to fit a 5 MWh fly wheel storage in the base of the tower.

Doing some rough maths, if the 20 MW Royalla Solar Farm installed 8 of the 5 MWh units, it would still be powering the grid 2 hours after sunset.

[ian]

Batteries won't be just restricted to Lithium though. There are all sorts of things going on with battery developments. There are going to major changes in the next few years I believe. Here is one development based on Aluminium Ion (although aimed at mobile phone batteries, you get the idea:
New aluminium battery for smartphones can be charged in one minute: US scientists - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/aluminium-smartphone-battery-charged-in-one-minute-scientists/6376406)

Here is a short thread where we had a brief discussion about that:
http://www.woodworkforums.com/f13/alum-ion-battery-discovery-implications-power-tools-194036you may well be right.

But once you move beyond mobile devices (power tools, mobile phones, lap tops) the size of the battery and the required environmental conditioning starts to get a bit out of hand. When you consider that the starting current for the 3 ph motor that drives just one of the lifts in a high rise office tower can be above 100 A per phase, your typical side of a house battery is very sadly lacking.

[FenceFurniture]

Yes of course, and the same will apply to the power required for Tomago, BHP etc. They will always need some kind of large generation going on, I would think. Solar & Batteries are only part of the solution - a big part, but still just a part. However, we do need to get cracking on them (or something). NOW!

It would be easier to get a feel for it if we knew a rough breakdown of consumption over big industry/small industry & business/residential.

fletty?

[tonzeyd]

Unfortunately large generation will be apart of Australia as long as industries exist in Australia.

Unfortunately small scale electricity production ie roof top solar isn't a solution its a contributor. There are too many variables, such as clouds, haze etc will cause chaos to most modern day electronics.

As mentioned earlier the gap between residential and commercial electricity consumption is huge, to give you a feel of the gap here are some stats of for WA. Synergy sells around 14,000 GWh of electricity annually of which approx 40% to the residential sector. So not even half despite the 1 million plus residential houses compared to the 300-400k businesses that exist in WA.

To portray a slightly more bleak outlook, Synergy has a market share of around 40%, which means there are significantly more commercial businesses buying their electricity elsewhere.

[Bushmiller]

Anyone have any other ideas?

Well.......

Firstly, I think it is just about inconceivable that any single source of power will be able to supply the needs of a country. Each source has it's flaws and it's strengths. I am not sure about some of the times quoted in the article

Base load power: The dinosaur in the energy debate - Science News - ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336).

Coal fired stations are slower to respond than other types of generator, but they are more reliable or cheaper. If asked I would have said that a "base load" station contributes to the normal minimum demand because they are the cheapest: No other reason. If a Gas Turbine station was the cheapest form of power it would become one of the "base load" stations. But they are not. A former colleague had worked at a gas powered station before he joined us. He told us that the station had only run twice in the year before he came to us.

Remember the ad campaign that "Oils ain't oils?" Well even among similar type power plants there are huge differences. i can think of two apparently similar coal fired stations where one can react to demand quickly and the other not nearly so. They are also both about the most efficient in Australia. Some Gas stations are efficient being those with an HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam generator) tacked on to their exhaust while the once through types are really expensive to run. We must be a little careful with our generalisations.

Hydro is undoubtedly the fast response generator currently available, but conceivably stored battery power could play a part in the future if and when it becomes economic, but it is not often that demand comes in a rush. For a start demand is forecast at great length. It is not always accurate, but it is normally close. If 40degs C is predicted tomorrow everybody is geared up. When we talk about the peaking plants (generally Gas Turbine, but not exclusively) they are the top up not the whole lot. The anomaly perhaps is that whatever price they come in at, everybody in that state enjoys. If you bid $70/MWH and a Gas plant enters at $150, you also now get $150. This may only last for five minutes. Hey, this is what the government wanted. Take the good with the bad.

The important price in the end is the average. Also remember the contracts. Not all power is bought on the spot market. I don't have inside information on that, but it would be, I think, in the 50% range.

On the alternatives, Ian slightly beat me to it with the development of Thorium reactors. Nuclear power is so problematical in terms of potential catastrophes as well as disposal of the waste, but thorium may warrant more attention. I am sure it has some hurdles too. See this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

However, you will still need a mix of power. Nuclear response time would be more on a par with thermal coal fired than hydro.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I really meant other ideas for the short term - say the next 5 years.

If things start going pear shaped from this summer (say in Vic with no Hazelwood), then surely there will have to be some pretty immediate action. As I pointed out earlier, if the 18/19 summer is a power disaster then the following election around September 2019 will undoubtedly be fought/won/lost on power.

[woodPixel]

Nuclear response time would be more on a par with thermal coal fired than hydro.

I think they are capable of almost instantaneous delivery of power....:rolleyes:

As an aside, we seem to have quite a bit of Thorium! Time to build some of those neato reactors! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#World_sources_of_thorium

[Bushmiller]

WP

You are spot on for picking up on the Aussie Thorium reserves. I had actually in my mind that Australia had the second largest reserves, but Wiki seems to be saying we are top of the list. Problem is that we have humungus reserves of cheap, cheap coal too. :(

I have no specific information on how a nuke is able to respond to demand, but they are still heating water to produce steam energy. This link may give some insight as to what they refer to as flexibility: In other words, their ability to respond to demand.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

I really meant other ideas for the short term - say the next 5 years.

If things start going pear shaped from this summer (say in Vic with no Hazelwood), then surely there will have to be some pretty immediate action. As I pointed out earlier, if the 18/19 summer is a power disaster then the following election around September 2019 will undoubtedly be fought/won/lost on power.

For the moment Victoria can import power from NSW, SA (that one's a bit ironic) and Tasmania (providing they have had rain) so unless they are extremely unlucky, they won't run out of power. In fact Victoia is the only state with three interconnectors. However, sod's law says that things will go pear shaped in one form or another!

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I wasn't aware that we were merely days away from a major energy policy announcement:
Malcolm Turnbull is close to finalising the energy package — but can he sell it? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-13/energy-package-imminent-but-can-malcolm-turnbull-sell-it-grattan/9046732)

I'll bet pounds to pence that it will be weak, and without leadership. It will probably pay a bit of lip service to the Finkel Report, at best. There will be some appeasement for the Abbott camp in there and that will weaken it severely. It's about time Fizza stood up to be counted, particularly on this most important of matters.

Why on Earth Fizza thinks the general population cares about Abbot is beyond me - it's only the Liberal Party itself that is concerned.

Interesting that Michelle Grattan (in that article) notes that:
"Business will need to be convinced the energy policy is credible and the Government is committed to it.

But if, as expected, the Government is set on a path that will accentuate the differences with Labor, this will deeply disappoint business, which has an eye to the opinion polls suggesting a Shorten government next term is more likely than not."

So she seems to think that whoever has the best energy policy will win the next election (or at least who is perceived to have the best policy).

So do I.

[Dibbers]

So she seems to think that whoever has the best energy policy will win the next election (or at least who is perceived to have the best policy).

So do I.

I think that will be one of many issues that will swing the vote in favour of Labor.

One thing Abbott did well to get the Libs back in was to attack every single one of labors policies and oppose them outright. Whether the Liberals agreed with the position labor took in principle or not, they opposed it outright. Problem was, when Abbott got into power, he didn't have any policies of his own other than a "Labor's policies have to go" and "Stop the boats" so people soon realised he was all defense with no offence, hence the spill (that and looking like a right twat in most gatherings of international leaders).

I think the way Labor is going about their time in opposition currently is actually a much smarter approach given the current disengagement of the average joe with modern Australian politics. They're taking the popular view on many key issues. The Energy Crisis, Banks and a certain Social/political survey currently running that i don't want to get into on this forum to name a few. And while they haven't necessarily come out with the detail of what they will do when (i think its almost inevitable) they win the next election, they at least have a position on these issues which seems to resonate with the general population.

Don't get me wrong, i think the Energy/Environmental issues will play a key part in the way people vote, i think Labor seem to be taking the general consensus of the people into their positioning on these issues.

With ol' onion eater spouting out his rubbish that seems to further divide the Libs, I think Labor will waltz into power quite easily. People are getting more an more frustrated with a Mal who used to be seen as a balance between right and left wing politics, and are coming to the realisation that his leadership play has resulted in him being at the mercy of a very conservative faction within his party.

I've never seen myself as a rusted on Liberal or Labor voter (lets face it, they both screw you over one way or another), but the Liberals are in a vote retention mode rather than a vote winning mode... and they aren't even doing that very well to be fair...

[FenceFurniture]

I suspect you may be largely correct Dibbers. But even more, I suspect that if we had some real leadership - policy that is good for us rather than what we just want (i.e. not populist) then that would be the keys to Canberra for quite some time. As justification for that I cite the reforms of the Hawke-Keating years where much of it was either not what we necessarily wanted, or even indeed knew anything about at the time (e.g. floating the dollar) but the country got what it needed.

There are times when tough decisions have to be taken, even if it means jeopardising your electoral victories for the greater good. That is the sort of leadership we need on energy, but I fear we won't be given it. Keating didn't dub him Fizza for nothing (the best nickname since The Goanna).

[Dibbers]

I suspect you may be largely correct Dibbers. But even more, I suspect that if we had some real leadership - policy that is good for us rather than what we just want (i.e. not populist) then that would be the keys to Canberra for quite some time. As justification for that I cite the reforms of the Hawke-Keating years where much of it was either not what we necessarily wanted, or even indeed knew anything about at the time (e.g. floating the dollar) but the country got what it needed.

There are times when tough decisions have to be taken, even if it means jeopardising your electoral victories for the greater good. That is the sort of leadership we need on energy, but I fear we won't be given it. Keating didn't dub him Fizza for nothing (the best nickname since The Goanna).

I agree with all of that. I was only alive for half of the Hawke era and only a young bloke for Keating so i'm not really that across what was implemented/achieved or what the climate was like back then, i was too busy watching the ninja turtles...

I do agree that we need someone with actual vision and not just in it to be re-elected. Thats the biggest problem with most democratic political systems, anyone who wants to do anything that will genuinely benefit the country (i.e. short term pain, long term gain) gets voted out, or never gets the leadership in the first place.

While the Labor policies to date are populist, they are at least taking small steps to what needs to happen, so the lesser of two evils at the moment. Which is the reasoning i think most Australians will take. Its not because Shorten and his crew are doing wonderful things for the country, its more that they're doing less damage than the mob thats in power at the moment.... sad state of affairs really..

[woodPixel]

Two stories today to gladden the hearts of those who love batteries:

Toshiba : Press Release (3 Oct, 2017): Toshiba Develops Next-Generation Lithium-ion Battery with New Anode Material (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2017_10/pr0301.htm)
http://newatlas.com/toshiba-scib-battery-triple-range/51667/

It takes little imagination to think that these leaps in battery storage will continue. Imagine the opportunities for usage-averaging for lighting, TV and computer circuits in the home.

Quote:
A key focus of electric vehicle (EV) makers is maximizing the range users can get from each charge, and for that reason new battery technologies are poised to play a huge part in driving their adoption. Toshiba has developed a new fast-charging battery it claims could allow EVs to travel three times as far as they do now, and then be fully recharged again in a matter of minutes.

Toshiba's SCiB (Super Charge ion Battery) has been around in various forms since 2007, with its chief claim to fame an ability to charge to 90 percent of capacity in just five minutes. It also boasts a life-span of 10 years and high levels of safety, and has found its way into a number of notable EVs, including Mitsubishi's i MiEV and Honda's Fit EV. The current SCiB uses lithium titanium oxide as its anode, but Toshiba says it has now come up with a better way of doing things. The next-generation SCiB uses a new material for the anode called titanium niobium oxide, which Toshiba was able to arrange into a crystal structure that can store lithium ions more efficiently. So much so, that the energy density has been doubled.

[FenceFurniture]

I suppose that countries that have embraced nuclear power don't have (or don't think they have) much need for Solar and other renewables yet, therefore their thrust for battery development would be largely through electric vehicles. That probably doesn't matter much as both applications (vehicles & houses) are pretty high draw, so the batteries would be more or less transferable.

[fletty]

I suppose that countries that have embraced nuclear power don't have (or don't think they have) much need for Solar and other renewables yet, therefore their thrust for battery development would be largely through electric vehicles. That probably doesn't matter much as both applications (vehicles & houses) are pretty high draw, so the batteries would be more or less transferable.

An interesting story that I have been told revolves around this very issue. Until very recently, German vehicle manufacturers were notably absent from the electric vehicle market. This was because all German vehicle manufacturers have ISO14000 accreditation and, part of that accreditation demands a proven disposal path for ALL components of the vehicle. Until recently, there was no proven disposal path for L-ion batteries. However, batteries in vehicles require charging and discharging on a 24 hour cycle and, after a year or so, L-ion batteries are unable to withstand that charge/discharge regime. Batteries for use in power networks however may only require to charge and discharge a few times each year and so German vehicle manufacturers and European network equipment suppliers have set up,an arrangement whereby once the vehicle batteries get 'tired' they retire to network applications and hence there is now a disposal path.
Get ready for German EVs!
fletty

[fletty]

Re some of the earlier questions about 'islanding' micro grids and do they connect on and off when the network is/isn't available, this short clip may be of interest. The key points are that this unit, which happens to include a diesel generator, connects to the grid or, if not available, switches in solar and/or wind and, if not available, turns on the diesel generator. It can also have gas generation as its back up. So, if you had a mine or community by a gas main with solar and/or wind and/or micro hydro, you drag one of these in, connect it all up and its operation to switch sources is absolutely seamless to the consumer/s. it can be programmed to prioritise sources so that it takes the renewables first, only turns on the gas or diesel if insufficient renewables are available and connect to the national grid if available or requested. One element that is fascinating to me is that if/when it connects to the grid, it automatically synchronises to the grid frequency. It was also developed in Australia.

https://www.facebook.com/164237416958386/videos/1472228002825981/

fletty

[Lappa]

The only policy i’ve heard from Turnbull in the last couple of days re power supplies, is to pay people to turn off their appliances in peak periods. If that’s the best he can do, we are in a lot of trouble!

[FenceFurniture]

Policy announcement will be at least a week away I should think. Cabinet then Party Room etc.

[Lappa]

Policy announcement will be at least a week away I should think. Cabinet then Party Room etc.

If that’s the case, maybe he should avoid talking to the press until it’s been decided :oo:

[FenceFurniture]

If that’s the case, maybe he should avoid talking to the press until it’s been decided :oo:Errr, you DO realise he's a pollie.....? I suspect you're suggesting engaging brain before talking?

[fletty]

The only policy i’ve heard from Turnbull in the last couple of days re power supplies, is to pay people to turn off their appliances in peak periods. If that’s the best he can do, we are in a lot of trouble!

To be honest, to those inside the industry who have been waiting for sensible policy, direction and discussion for nigh on 20 years, turning off the aircon during peak time is the only practical action we can take before we run out of generation in 3 to 5 years?

[Chris Parks]

If that’s the case, maybe he should avoid talking to the press until it’s been decided :oo:

As with all politicians it is moi first and bugger the rest as can be seen in the piece that the SMH ran this morning where he started out on the right path and then bent over so he could be the PM.

Malcolm Turnbull prophet of his own doom on energy policy (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/malcolm-turnbull-prophet-of-his-own-doom-on-energy-policy-20171014-gz1510.html)

[chambezio]

Only a couple of months back our "fearless leader" sent us pensioners a one off payment to "help" with our energy consumption....$67. What an insult!!! I am paying $100 a fortnight so I don't have a crippling $600 plus bill per quarter. I live on an acreage block so have to pump every drop of water either tank or bore. Yes its my choice and I wouldn't want to live in town. The price of fuel is another concern and so tripping around is another area of spending restraint.
Our leaders have no clue as to how we live!! Last night my wife found some statistics about the cost of meals in nursing homes. An allowance of $6.04 per day is what official figures allocate for all meals daily in these institutions. And what is the figure for our politicians daily meal allowance.....$180. Is there something wrong with the scales of decency? I really think that a shake up needs to be done to make these policy makers realise just what/how the large majority lives (Whinge over, I will get down off my soap box. I am not having a good day)

[Dibbers]

Only a couple of months back our "fearless leader" sent us pensioners a one off payment to "help" with our energy consumption....$67. What an insult!!! I am paying $50 a fortnight so I don't have a crippling $600 plus bill per quarter. I live on an acreage block so have to pump every drop of water either tank or bore. Yes its my choice and I wouldn't want to live in town. The price of fuel is another concern and so tripping around is another area of spending restraint.
Our leaders have no clue as to how we live!! Last night my wife found some statistics about the cost of meals in nursing homes. An allowance of $6.04 per day is what official figures allocate for all meals daily in these institutions. And what is the figure for our politicians daily meal allowance.....$180. Is there something wrong with the scales of decency? I really think that a shake up needs to be done to make these policy makers realise just what/how the large majority lives (Whinge over, I will get down off my soap box. I am not having a good day)

Its a valid point. The problem is that they're mostly all "Career Politicians" and haven't had a real job in their lives.

I find it rather perplexing when you have a minister for education with no education background, or a treasurer who was never an accountant, or a Minister for Social Services who's never worked at DOCs or as a counselor.

Hell i'd even settle for the minister for transport having to catch a bus or train to work at peak hour everyday as part of their job requirement...

They're all so far removed from your average battler it isn't funny..

[ian]

Policy announcement will be at least a week away I should think. Cabinet then Party Room etc.


If that’s the case, maybe he should avoid talking to the press until it’s been decided :oo:


Errr, you DO realise he's a pollie.....? I suspect you're suggesting engaging brain before talking?

You're all being a little too hard.
It's been quite a while since Government policy was conceived behind closed doors and unveiled to the masses on Budget night or by way of the relevant Minister rising to their feet to address parliament.

These days bits of the policy are "leaked" to the media to either wet the voters' appetite, to test the winds, to forestall opposition within the party, to sure up support, or to distract attention from some other matter.

The charitable would say that it's part of a strategy to reduce Abbott's opposition to anything that remotely looks like "Labor policy". And the less charitable would have a different view.


An anecdote
a former work colleague worked on the first Rudd Budget. The story he told went like this.
After being advised the date of the Budget, he and his colleagues sorted out a schedule to deliver the budget detail to their minister in time for the Cabinet meeting a week before Budget Day. The following week, the Minister's aids were knocking on their door looking for stuff that could be "leaked" (i.e. given) to the media as "potential" budget highlights. When politely told to bugger off and let the bureaucrats get on with their work, the aids pulled rank and insisted on being supplied with "announceables" which at the time were both uncosted, probably not affordable, and had yet to be associated with a coherent policy.
Those who think Utopia is comedy are sadly disillusioned.

[FenceFurniture]

Today's news:
Clean Energy Target: There's nothing in the ACCC report that suggests it should be axed - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/accc-report-does-not-back-killing-the-clean-energy-target/9054432)

An interesting quote from it:
"The ACCC report suggests there is room for tougher regulation to stop price gouging, encourage competition, and provide clearer information to consumers so they can navigate the market and get the best deal."

No kidding.

Just to reiterate that my AGL discounts went from 6% to 25% to 32% for Elec within a matter of 2 weeks, and Gas went from a super generous 2% to 15% (just for a day), to 16% for 8 days, to 25%.

Buggered if I can see what's not clear about that.

[Lappa]

To be honest, to those inside the industry who have been waiting for sensible policy, direction and discussion for nigh on 20 years, turning off the aircon during peak time is the only practical action we can take before we run out of generation in 3 to 5 years?

So for nigh on 20 years, those in the industry have known there was going to be a problem and the best they can come up with is to support the turning off of the air conditioning?

[FenceFurniture]

So for nigh on 20 years, those in the industry have known there was going to be a problem and the best they can come up with is to support the turning off of the air conditioning?No, no , no - in the absence of sensible policy from the policy makers, and subsequent planning and execution of new generator builds.....the best they can come up with is to support the turning off of the air conditioning.

I'd be quite sure the industry insiders would like to be cracking on with new projects, and then business would have the surety and confidence it needs to invest, rather than this stagnation we have had for far too long.

[Lappa]

Did anyone in the industry over the last 20 years submit a proposal/plan/submission to build power stations to the relevant authorities, that the relevant authorities refused/ knocked back etc.? I honestly have no idea but I’d like to know.

[fletty]

Did anyone in the industry over the last 20 years submit a proposal/plan/submission to build power stations to the relevant authorities, that the relevant authorities refused/ knocked back etc.? I honestly have no idea but I’d like to know.

Sorry, probably my poor choice of words. You need to remember that until recently ALL base load power stations were Government owned. If the relevant Government didn't plan and go to market for a new power station then none would be built. To my personal knowledge, people in the industry have been advising Governments for at least 20 years that, unless significant generation was installed, Australia WOULD run out of power. As I also said earlier, all of the forecasts I have seen, have us running out of power as early as 2020 and as 'late' as 2023. Unpopular science was ignored and popular idealism paralysed the normal strategic planning processes. I can list at least 6 base load power station projects recommended to be built in NSW alone, none of which have been built! Likewise, about 20 years ago, private proposals started to go ahead for peaking power plants resulting in (usually) gas powered peaking plants going ahead and these have kept us going.
My (poorly worded?) post in support of "turning off aircon" doesn't mean that is a preferred action BUT, as it takes a minimum of 8 years (EXCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)) to design and build a base load power station, 4 years (without EIS) to design a peaking 'green' plant AND, forecasters believe we will run out of power in as little as 3 years, then one of the few actions left to ALL OF US, not just "those in the industry" is to support the release the portion of our networks reserved for peaks by 'lopping' the peaks?
I also noted earlier the trial in Western Sydney of remotely turning off the compressor in air conditioners but leaving the fans running, was VERY successful ..... so there is hope!
I used to joke that discussing building a power station in a social situation was similar to announcing that you were a Union organiser. Everyone else in that social interaction 'knew' that a power station wasn't needed, was dirty and that if one was required then they likewise 'knew' that solar or wind generation technology was already available. Well, it wasn't!
What is needed is a national plan. That plan needs to consider ALL available generation, storage and control technologies. It must specifically address the perversity of the Australian energy market and those perversities are, as noted earlier, that our major load centres are North-South aligned and that we have a summer peaking load profile. There will be no single silver bullet solution.

[FenceFurniture]

To be honest, to those inside the industry who have been waiting for sensible policy, direction and discussion for nigh on 20 years, turning off the aircon during peak time is the only practical action we can take before we run out of generation in 3 to 5 years?This is neither poorly worded, nor unclear.

[Lappa]

I agree with Brett that is was neither poorly worded or unclear. It was the picture it conjured up that I found disturbing.

Thank you for a concise and thought provoking reply Fletty. I suppose that I, working for the Govt, should have not have been surprised by the detail in your reply of pleas falling on deaf ears.

Cheers

[crowie]

Thank you Brett for starting this thread, I've been reading it with interest, especially on the discounts offered and the tiresome process to finally get a good/fair deal.
I've been hassling Origin for the promised "digital meter" since January this year to allow me to use the solar power our panels generate in the house; this changeover/upgrade was first mentioned in a letter to us 18 months ago.
Now our power bill has double with the loss of the government rebate plus the price increases and we are receiving a whooping $0.10 per kwh while paying something like $0.25 kwh.
The current excuse for the non installation of the digital in "poor/week 3G telephone signal" with Telstra; rescheduling to check if Vodafone signal is better is still coming; meanwhile we are footing a heaps higher electricity bill.
Cheers, Peter

[FenceFurniture]

I've been hassling Origin for the promised "digital meter" since January this year to allow me to use the solar power our panels generate in the house; this changeover/upgrade was first mentioned in a letter to us 18 months ago. It sounds like you should contact the Energy Ombudsman, especially if you are being forced to pay more because you can't use your panels (or use them properly). If that doesn't get any action in a month then you might find that another energy co sending them a "cease and desist" notification will stir them up a bit.

Time for hard ball Peter.

[Dibbers]

OK so i might have misheard (probably not though knowing the current govt) but apparently the new "Energy Plan" from the Libs involves cutting all subsidies for renewables by 2020... are these guys smoking some of Jamaica's finest or what?

Seriously, they can't be so politically retarded that they want to keep investing in Coal, Gas & Hydro but completely remove subsidies for renewables? Now I'm not saying they should stop Coal, Gas and Hydro, but completely removing any incentive to adopt clean energy sounds like political suicide to me... The Greens and Labor are going to ride this pony all the way to the next election...

[Bohdan]

I've been hassling Origin for the promised "digital meter" since January this year to allow me to use the solar power our panels generate in the house; this changeover/upgrade was first mentioned in a letter to us 18 months ago.
Now our power bill has double with the loss of the government rebate plus the price increases and we are receiving a whooping $0.10 per kwh while paying something like $0.25 kwh.


If you are getting a FIT of $0.10 then nothing will change when you get a "digital meter" as you are already using your solar power and being paid for the excess. It only makes it easier for the utility to read it.

[Dibbers]

If you are getting a FIT of $0.10 then nothing will change when you get a "digital meter" as you are already using your solar power and being paid for the excess. It only makes it easier for the utility to read it.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't having a smart meter also make it easier for the customer to read as well? So theoretically, Crowie would be able to optimise his power usage during daylight hours when Solar will take up some/most of the power demand of the house?

I know its possible to do without a smart meter, but it should make it easier i'd think... and if a smart meter is installed, would you get more rate variation other than the standard "Peak" & "Off Peak"? That would give you more flexibility to maximise the panels i'd suspect...

Well that's my assumption anyway...

[Bushmiller]

I believe one of the mistakes made by governments is to rest on their laurels. My knowledge of the power industry is mainly in NSW and QLD with a little information on the other states. It seems that at some time they all formed a government owned corporation to supply the energy demands of their state. They actually did this reasonably well, as long as you ignore the inefficiencies of government owned bodies. They united the power stations and provided reliable energy, which was the primary concern. In NSW, for example, the government then embarked on a range of new power generators and built twelve modern power stations (or added to existing stations). All were 660MW units: Two at Vales Point, four at Erraring, four at Bayswater and two at Mount Piper. These were superb units, built almost with no regard to cost and easily the largest in Australia. The last one was built in the mid eighties. So all of them are now around thirty years old and wearing out. They have not continued updating the equipment.

In the mid nineties, the NSW electricity commission began the process to make these stations available for sale, but it did not happen. Now it has. The governments did not want to spend money on new stations and they wanted private enterprise to buy the old stations and undertake new projects. What they missed was that a power station is expensive to build and it takes a long time as Fletty said. They also missed that private enterprise, if it was going to invest, needed to have a degree of security. We saw this particularly in Victoria where stations sold there were given guarantees of income. It wasn't truly private or into the true spirit of a competitive market. I think the stations were sold for a song in the end and this was partly because they paired up stations and sold a good one with a dog. Eg. Bayswater and Liddell.

At the moment only a very brave or even foolhardy investor would commit to the Australian market.

The last thermal stations were built in Queensland between 2001 and 2005. Two units at Callide (C station), one unit at Tarong North, two units at Millmerran and one unit at Kogan Creek, which is the largest individual unit in Australian at 750MW.

These QLD stations are all very modern, being supercritical stations, and the only stations of this type in Australia. Supercritical means that the steam is heated beyond the point where the density of the steam equals that of the water. The pressure is 24bar compared to 15.8bar in conventional units with a drum boiler. However they are still thermal coal-fired stations and emit greenhouse gases.

I can't see any company building a new coal-fired station. The existing stations will surely be run into the ground until they become redundant and superseded by something else: Arguably this is quite a distance into the future. I see that I have gone off Brett's original topic, but is does provide some background information as to how we have arrived in a competitive market with the generators we have and possibly why the retailers behave the way they do.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I see that I have gone off Brett's original topic, but is does provide some background information as to how we have arrived in a competitive market with the generators we have and possibly why the retailers behave the way they do.All good Paul, and thanks for your various insights.

I read in a News article yesterday that the ACC forced some of the retailers to reveal their margins which were "going along at a pretty good clip of 5-10%, mostly 8%". That doesn't particularly sound like good margin to me, but more importantly I have to wonder why we need SO many retailers. I have previously made the point that they must surely have a fairly precise set of figures to work with and make a profit, so if there are as many as we do indeed have, there is only a certain amount of competitiveness that is viable. Then, in what I think is a direct result of that, they all work their formulae backwards and make it different, just to be bloody different! This just adds to the confusion grossly.

Then there are the handful of retailers who must surely rely on Suckers. One that I can think of (but won't name) is consistently around 50% more expensive than the cheapest on offer. Why would anyone in their right mind sign on for a deal like that?

I was doing some numbers for someone the other day and for the same kWh consumption (peak and CL1) the yearly prices were:
$2995 (but unsurprisingly the FIT was rubbish at 6.71c)
$3030 (with an average FIT of 11.6c)
$3052 (no FIT at all)
$3059 (big player retention rates)
$3120 (big player retention rates)
$3284 (*big player with good rates/discount but sub-standard FIT of 9c)
so that lot are all reasonably close to each other. Then there was a jump to the $3½ grand mob. This holds most of the big players like AGL, Origin, Energy Aust
$3404
$3603
$3646
$3653
$3658 (*same big player with smaller discount but well above average FIT of 17c)
and so on right up to $4409.

Now I get that the way each individual uses their elec will affect these numbers, and also that some of the sca schemes have been designed for the best FIT and will have poorer discounts, and that means buyer beware, but again I cite the example of my computerless pensioner mother.

Speaking of which, it's about time I got on the case for her......but my gawd that's going to be tedious getting the info.....

[woodPixel]

Clean Energy Target dumped by Coalition in favour of Malcolm Turnbull's new plan, a National Energy Guarantee - ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-17/coalition-signs-off-on-new-energy-plan-to-replace-cet-proposal/9057026)

More government interference and oversight.

That will fix the problem.

Doubt.....

[FenceFurniture]

I must be missing something - is there any provision for new power generation? All I can see is that "existing power stations may be kept running longer" and "Mr Turnbull says solar, wind, coal, gas, batteries and pumped hydro will all be part of the energy mix."

Well, yeah, big deal, they already are. And.....?

[swk]

I must be missing something - is there any provision for new power generation? All I can see is that "existing power stations may be kept running longer" and "Mr Turnbull says solar, wind, coal, gas, batteries and pumped hydro will all be part of the energy mix."

No. there is no provision for new power stations. The magic market rules are (have been since the late 1990s) meant to send price signals to investors and they will jump in to build new stuff where an opportunity exists in the market.
And this market always had a chance of failing and it has. The structural rules in place mean there wont be any big coal, gas or nuclear stations. I think we have been over this enough times to understand now that no big investments (ie big power stations of what ever type) will be made by private industry in the coming years. The only alternative now (if big power stations are truly needed) is for the federal (or state) government to stump up and build one (some?) themselves. Even then that will take years and will be too late.
The only energy infrastructure which will be built are the cheaper,smaller renewables and if something can be done about the gas prices maybe some small gas turbines. This will happen at a lower level than it could be because even though the coalition is trying to hold them back, there is still some money to be made by these types of generation. But the long term integration of them into the system (which needs to happen sooner or later) wont be a priority.
My quick take on it. The coalition have kicked the can down the road, again. They are only offering “solutions” which will take them to the next election.
“…requires retailers to use a percentage of electricity from so-called dispatchable sources such as coal and gas, batteries or pumped hydro…”.
Is no long term solution at all. The existing dispatchable stuff which is getting old will be withdrawn from the market anyway (just like Liddell was) because it is old and clapped out. The existing generator owners wont change their long term plans in any meaningful way*. When the amount of “dispatchable” power falls below the “required” percentage, what then? Either the remaining old stations will be there and charge significantly more (because they are not in competition any more, the retailer is required to buy their power and they’ll probably need to spend a fair bit to keep old plant in service) or, less likely, someone will step in with some new middle size plant which will also be expensive as they need to recoup their capital costs much more quickly than normal (and the retailers will still have to pay a premium for the “required” power which they could supply). This wont be a path to cheap power at all.

*The last few might hang on a bit longer than planned if the requirements for dispatchable power drive the pool price up sufficiently.



I had a look back and we covered these self same topics backin 2015 in “The Great Energy Debate” thread, so nothing changes, the can just gets kicked down the road. This is the classic case where a problem develops over multiple years and will take multiple years to solve, but the political cycle is only three (ish) years so pollies cant/wont/are not able do anything of substance.
SWK

[swk]

AEMC - Expanding competition in metering and related services (http://www.aemc.gov.au/Rule-Changes/Expanding-competition-in-metering-and-related-serv#)

Meters -

Just for interest I went back to my contacts and found out some interesting info.
What I am going to write is correct for SA, but as all the states operate under the National Electricity market rules (from AEMO) it should be very similar to the other eastern states.

Types -

Meter types 1-4 are smart meters of varying capacity. They can record power consumption over short time periodsand can communicate the data back to some where.
Meter type 5 is an interval meter (like the smart meters) but it cant communicate and must be physically visited for the data to be down loaded
Meter 6 is the old fashioned type which just records a simple running total and must be visited to be read.
Type 7 is a “meter” which doesn’t have a meter(!) That is, it is a supply with an agreed charge (an example might be for council streetlights)

Since 2015 there has been a rule change which allowed more competition in metering services. This is coming into definite effect on 1 December this year (also true for the other states as well, I believe). Basically any new meter or replacement meter can be owned by the retailer or some third party. In SA the distributor has declined to continue with metering services. All old meters will be owned by the distributor until they are changed, then the retailer (or someone else) will own them. Old meters will be replaced whena customer changes retailer * or the meter breaks down.


*I don’t know what will happen when that customer changes to a second or third retailer, but it could be interesting. J

So, my experience from 12 months ago was AGL pre-empting this rule in an attempt to get their own type 4 meter in place of my (the distributors) original type 6.

Regards
SWK

[crowie]

It sounds like you should contact the Energy Ombudsman, especially if you are being forced to pay more because you can't use your panels (or use them properly). If that doesn't get any action in a month then you might find that another energy co sending them a "cease and desist" notification will stir them up a bit.

Time for hard ball Peter.

I may need one of your letters again please Brett, thank you, Peter

[Bushmiller]

A correction to my post #241, which I can no longer edit:

"
These QLD stations are all very modern, being supercritical stations, and the only stations of this type in Australia. Supercritical means that the steam is heated beyond the point where the density of the steam equals that of the water. The pressure is 24bar compared to 15.8bar in conventional units with a drum boiler."

The pressures are 240bar and 158bar!! Quite a difference. Or 24,000KPa and 15,800KPa if you prefer.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

What do we think? Will it work? Is it a fizza? It seems an extraordinarily simple proposed solution to a complex problem.

I've read a few people's opinions and nobody seems to really be able to call it one way or the other. Of course I am in no real position to call it one way or the other, but this policy is a mere 8 page document, which can be summed up in two lines by:
"retailers have to contract to buy a certain amount of dispatchable energy,
and a certain amount renewable energy that has the overall effect of reducing emissions"

None of the "certain amounts/levels" have been defined. It really is very hard to see how that is going to click magically into gear and result in "no blackouts, less emissions and lower prices". A Trifecta, as Stephen Long describes it.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/national-energy-guarantee-trifecta-missing-detail/9063500)
It seems way too simple. If it really is that easy why didn't someone - anyone - think of this before (a decade ago)? As far as energy production it seems to be relying on "the market will look after itself".

Just looking at the first part "no blackouts" - it's very hard to see how the retailers can control that without the introduction of new dispatchable power sources. Smart Meters/appliance control is too far away for it to be effective, appealing to the public to switch off on hot days will be, I suspect, like pissing in the wind. ("I just spent $20k on this AC for hot weather, buggered if I'm not going to use it - everyone else can turn off").

I'd like to be wrong because simple solutions are the best!

[FenceFurniture]

The market will certainly sort itself out for renewables (but they are not yet dispatchable until we have some large battery storage):
Small town of Glen Innes to become renewable energy hub scattered with wind turbines - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/record-investment-in-renewable-power-near-glen-innes/9063854)

[BobL]

FF asked me to post this "Cost of batteries is falling fast" into the thread.
http://www.woodworkforums.com/f271/grid-3-phase-solar-power-217469/2#post2051728

[Dibbers]

more of the same if you ask me... not enough there for investor confidence IMO.

I love how a 50c a week saving is considered a good thing... when our electricity & gas prices have recently shot up by +20%, we're still at a massive loss... but hey, we don't want facts to get in the way of spin now do we?

The funny thing is, i think most Australian's wouldn't be as outraged by the price spike recently experienced if it actually looked like delivering a sustainable, reliable, renewables focused energy portfolio. Sure you'd still have a lot of people complaining and struggling, but you'd offset some of that with the environmental benefits...

[FenceFurniture]

Sorry to stray back on-topic but it will only be brief :D

This morning I received a call from Origin Energy (with whom I now have both accounts). They said "we have received a notice from AGL to send your elec account back to them".
"BOLLOCKS!" I said. "They're incompetent!"
So he had to transfer me to AGL so I could tell them not to do anything, and she had to transfer me to someone else, who got a pretty good roasting.
These bloody companies are so much in bed together that they can transfer phone calls between them :doh:. One wonders if they also share the same call centre.

I finally got off the phone (3 people later) and the next thing I know I get a call from the AGL Retention team. Well, after telling him that I knew this was not his fault personally, he got the bollocking of his short life. :((:~:(( Finish up he mumbled something about taking me off all marketing lists and then he hung up as quickly as he could. Dunno why.:?



Yep, there's more. A minute later I got an SMS from Origin saying "can we tempt you to stay?" Fer crying out loud, haven't I just sorted this out?

This is beyond ridiculous, but I had to call Origin to make sure that my accounts were really truly ruly cross yer heart and hope to die staying with them because I just don't want any more cock ups. So they have taken me off their marketing lists as well, which means I have to be vigilant to watch out for rate changes in 12 months time.

No problem.

[ian]

What do we think? Will it work? Is it a fizza? It seems an extraordinarily simple proposed solution to a complex problem.I think it will work


...this policy is a mere 8 page document, which can be summed up in two lines by:
"retailers have to contract to buy a certain amount of dispatchable energy,
and a certain amount renewable energy that has the overall effect of reducing emissions"

None of the "certain amounts/levels" have been defined. It really is very hard to see how that is going to click magically into gear and result in "no blackouts, less emissions and lower prices". A Trifecta, as Stephen Long describes it.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/national-energy-guarantee-trifecta-missing-detail/9063500)
It seems way too simple. If it really is that easy why didn't someone - anyone - think of this before (a decade ago)? As far as energy production it seems to be relying on "the market will look after itself".it's essentially what I suggested in post #102.
possibly the least expensive "fix" to SA's and the Eastern States' power woes might be to mandate that for every 10 MWh of solar and wind electricity bid into the market the bidding organisation must be able to supply 5 MWh of "dark time" reserve: battery, pumped hydro, coal generation. This should change the generator pricing equation enough to provide some measure of market certainty to the existing base load stations.I note that my "dark time" reserve is termed " dispatchable energy" in the PM's "glossy".

In part the supply "problem" has arisen because the "zero cost" generators -- wind and solar -- have been able to hit the economics of coal stations for six. You can't run a coal fired power station that takes a day and a half to start or stop (or hours to ramp output up and down) if the return is less than the cost of generation. If you look at a solar farm like Royalla, you will see that the owner is being paid something like 18.4 cents per kWh, even if the actual wholesale price is around 5 cents per kWh.

Leaving aside government's (at least in NSW) unwillingness to invest in new generating capacity over perhaps most of the past 35 years, for the past 15 to 20 years, consumers have been encouraged to conserve -- you remember the Free low energy light bulbs handed out at train stations? and Turnbull's ban (in 2005?) on new incandescent light globes?
I have my own views on why the electricity supply situation has reached its current parlous state, in which China plays no small part.

[A Duke]

Sorry to stray back on-topic but it will only be brief :D

This morning I received a call from Origin Energy (with whom I now have both accounts). They said "we have received a notice from AGL to send your elec account back to them".
"BOLLOCKS!" I said. "They're incompetent!"
So he had to transfer me to AGL so I could tell them not to do anything, and she had to transfer me to someone else, who got a pretty good roasting.
These bloody companies are so much in bed together that they can transfer phone calls between them :doh:. One wonders if they also share the same call centre.

I finally got off the phone (3 people later) and the next thing I know I get a call from the AGL Retention team. Well, after telling him that I knew this was not his fault personally, he got the bollocking of his short life. :((:~:(( Finish up he mumbled something about taking me off all marketing lists and then he hung up as quickly as he could. Dunno why.:?



Yep, there's more. A minute later I got an SMS from Origin saying "can we tempt you to stay?" Fer crying out loud, haven't I just sorted this out?

This is beyond ridiculous, but I had to call Origin to make sure that my accounts were really truly ruly cross yer heart and hope to die staying with them because I just don't want any more cock ups. So they have taken me off their marketing lists as well, which means I have to be vigilant to watch out for rate changes in 12 months time.

No problem.


Hi,
I hope you have a good stock of candles, with such competence you could need them.
:wink:
Regards

[FenceFurniture]

A boost for electric vehicle charging, in today's news:
Electric car charging stations power up in NSW with NRMA set to add 40 around the state - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-20/investment-in-more-electric-car-charging-stations-around-nsw/9068906)

[Mr Brush]

Symptomatic of the general disconnect between our illustrious political leaders (all sides) and the public interest.

Individual consumers and organisations have to take it on themselves to sort out the pressing issues, while the pollies continue to bicker between themselves over silly citizenship matters and other petty point scoring.

[ian]

I was in Seattle a few weeks ago with an afternoon to fill so I spent quite a bit of time talking to a Tesla sales rep.

You need to know that on average I drive 1500 km per week. That works out at around 250 km per day, though about once a fortnight the car will travel 500 km in a day. Less often the drive becomes is 800 km before stopping for the night. About 75% of the average daily drive is on freeway at 115 to 120 km/h. Any slower and you are at risk of being run over by a semi. Longer drives have up to 95% freeway travel. On average I fill the 63 litre tank 3 times per week for a total cost of around $160 to $180. For about 4 months of the year, the external air temperature is well blow zero. Batteries, even those in Tesla vehicles, don't like extreme cold.

According to the Tesla rep I spoke to, none of their current, or about to be released, cars can do my daily commute.
The best they can offer is the option of plugging a Tesla into a high capacity charger at the turnaround point for about an hour to guarantee the car has enough juice for the return journey, especially in winter.
(A similar question to a BMW i3 sales person got the response "sorry, this car is not for you!")

For me the take away was that long highway commutes are very tough on battery powered vehicles.
Accordingly, I'm very skeptical about the future of battery powered vehicles in Australia, especially outside urban areas.

[FenceFurniture]

That is an unusually high amount of kms though Ian, at 75-80,000 per year.

Certainly there are a number of things that will have to change for EVs to become widely accepted in Australia, and perhaps we will always have a mixture of EVs and something else (maybe Hydrogen). What I can see happening is that driving a petrol or diesel vehicle will become as restrictive as EVs are now.

We may end up with giant driverless car pools, so to do a long commute might be a few different vehicles (which could be difficult with a load). I don't know what the breakdown of city commute kms verses rural kms is but I suspect city wins by quite a margin (even just using the number of petrol stations as a guide). I would think EVs are clearly aimed at city drivers, at least in the early stages. Overnight charging etc.

Thee will have to be modified solutions for cold climates, of which there are plenty, so the demand will be there.

[Mr Brush]

Well, we generally don't have the low temperature issues, and it is already possible to do Adelaide-Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane using Tesla charging stations:

https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/findus#/bounds/-0.6911344,166.7429167,-51.6633232,100.0911072?search=supercharger&name=Australia

Add in the latest NRMA initiative, and the possibilities (even with existing ancient Li-ion battery technology) start to look a lot better in NSW at least. Hopefully this expansion will tie in with wider availability of cheaper Tesla models over the next few years, together with the release of more battery-only vehicles from other established car manufacturers. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

[Dibbers]

I think the biggest problem with the political decision making is there focus on the "Here and now" to ensure re-election.

The problem with that is it doesn't set anyone up for the future, and makes any changes once technology is at a point where it could replace the existing infrastructure expensive and extremely disruptive. The NBN is a prime example.

For everyone against the spend, it was always touted that "we don't need superfast internet, people only use it to watch Netflix", but what it was doing was future-proofing our infrastructure to be able to keep up with advances in technology down the track.

Its the same with energy. While batteries and renewables aren't in a position to totally replace existing power generators, the vast majority of the scientific community agree that it will be in the near future. What Australia are doing is putting all their eggs in the fossil fuel basket and missing out on the potential economic boost of renewables. Research and development and being a supplier of renewable solutions rather than a consumer of one for example... what we need until renewables can replace everything is a blend of supply solutions, with a target of gradually reducing the reliance on non-clean sources over time. Investors won't be jumping up and down to build a new coal plant, because they know that in all likelihood renewables will be more and more reliable before they see an ROI...

Australian politicians are too short sighted for the countries own good. I don't know what needs to change to influence that, i just know something needs to change...

[ian]

That is an unusually high amount of kms though Ian, at 75-80,000 per year.yes it is. It works out at about six times the average km in Australia. It's also pretty high for here, but not unusual for Alberta.
But it beats what I was doing in AUS before moving to Canada -- about 40,000 per year around half of which was to and from the snow fields at night.
At least here in Canada, most of the long distance stuff is in daylight.

[ian]

Australian politicians are too short sighted for the countries own good. I don't know what needs to change to influence that, i just know something needs to change...our polies need to agree on stuff other than anti-terror laws and "border security".

But in general, despite what you see in question time, in the main there is a bipartisan approach to most things -- except where the polies see an opportunity to differentiate their parties.

this piece from the ABC The National Energy Guarantee doesn't end the climate wars, but provides rules of engagement - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-20/neg-doesnt-end-the-climate-wars,-but-provides-framework/9070350) is what gives me some hope.

[fenderbelly]

when I lived further up the coast I was renting and with AGL.
I was in the local pub one night and the conversation got round to power prices and discounts.
I sad I was getting 9% discount, another guy said he was getting 12%.Next day I rang AGL and asked for a better deal, got 12% and was quite happy with that.
Then I moved to where I am now. Rang AGL to see they could offer me, was offered 16%. After a year that dropped to 15%.
I rang the only to be told " we don't do 16% any more.
So a couple of weeks ago I got a letter from the Premiers office saying if I switched to origin I would get 18% on supply and usage.

This morning I get a call from AGL asking if I authorized the change, I said I had and the guy asked why, I said because they are
giving me 18% discount, he then said will you stay if I offer you 20%. I said no, he asked why, I said well you could have offered me that before but you didn't. he hung up.

[Bohdan]

The real issue is not the amount of discount but what they are actually charging. They go to a lot of trouble to hide that and even their advertised rates don't match with what they actually finish up charging.

Would you buy anything in a store that only wanted to talk discount but neatly avoided mentioning the actual price?

[FenceFurniture]

The real issue is not the amount of discount but what they are actually charging. They go to a lot of trouble to hide that and even their advertised rates don't match with what they actually finish up charging.

Would you buy anything in a store that only wanted to talk discount but neatly avoided mentioning the actual price?Yep, it's a bit like the current pop-up stand at the local Coles that has a banner saying "up to" in half-inch high letters "70% off sale" in foot and and a half high letters. The banner looks tired, worn and well used (like, always used). I feel like asking them when they are not on sale, how many people purchase from them? Think I know the answer to both parts of that question. I thought the idea of a sale was "every now and then".


You absolutely have to check the price being charged for energy, and the discount being offered. The easiest way to do that is to use this Fed.Govt website - it's pretty accurate:
https://www.energymadeeasy.gov.au/

Be aware that you don't have to enter four different bills for four consecutive quarters - you can just tally up the peak and off-peak hours into one bill. The results are the same, and quicker to access.

I have just received my first full quarter lecky bill, and it was 70% of the same period a year ago. We used a little less power (83%) so the rest of the savings is due to the significantly higher discount that I was eventually able to negotiate, even after the high price increases in July.

Interesting to note that our discount is not dependent upon "pay on time", and I didn't realise this until Origin had cocked up the direct debit (and I had to call them again - I was sent a reminder notice). I asked about the discount and late fee being reversed and they said it was just a late fee.

Personally I think the Govt needs to step in and stop the shenanigans of the Retailers. Not everyone has the wherewithal to wade through the minefield of energy prices, and many if not most people are being ripped off, particularly aged people who are no doubt being savaged. It would seem to me that none of the politicians have actually had to spend any time on the phone with energy retailers.

[OldGrain]

Afternoon all....so down my way we have only 1 electricity supplier. When i moved here 18 or so months ago my first bill was $1200 for the quarter! My last bill (Jan) was $490 for the quarter. Numerous calls after each bill received....different answers each time.....from needing a new meter to whatever else they could think of including "you have an industrial building so tariff is justified"! Rates/water/purchase of property are recognised as Residential. Sparky says i don`t need to change meter. I now run Leds throughout entire property - 25 to be exact. There`s just me & my faithful deaf/blind pooch. Mate down the road installed 5Kw solar panel linked to Sanden heat pump two years ago with dedicated floor 'kill' switches. Kitchen/dining - lounge - bedrooms.IE: finished cooking/eating,step on the switch. Finished watching tv/video etc,step on switch.His last bill was $1.25 Credit. Most any one else i`ve spoken to in this time pay on average $150 to $200 per quarter.

[FenceFurniture]

so down my way we have only 1 electricity supplier.Just to be clear: we have only one supplier here too (Endeavour Energy) because there can only be only supplier. However we have a number of retailers. The supplier sends the meter readers around, and then sends each retailer the readings for their batch of customers, and then the retailers bill the customers.

Are you saying you only have one retailer? If they are charging you higher rates than other people in your area then you should probably invoke the Energy Ombudsman, but the first thing to do is to tell whoever is ripping you off that you are going to talk to the Ombudsman. You may be surprised at the response.

[Sturdee]

Are you saying you only have one retailer?

In Tasmania there is only one retailer for residential properties (https://www.canstarblue.com.au/energy/electricity/tasmania-energy-market/).


Can I choose my electricity retailer?

Aurora Energy is currently the only electricity retailer servicing homes in Tasmania. While the Tasmanian government introduced Full Retail Competition in 2014, allowing for other retailers to enter the market and compete for customers, no one has yet come to the table.

Peter.

[ian]

Afternoon all....so down my way we have only 1 electricity supplier. When i moved here 18 or so months ago my first bill was $1200 for the quarter! My last bill (Jan) was $490 for the quarter. Numerous calls after each bill received....different answers each time.....from needing a new meter to whatever else they could think of including "you have an industrial building so tariff is justified"! Rates/water/purchase of property are recognised as Residential. Sparky says i don`t need to change meter. I now run Leds throughout entire property - 25 to be exact. There`s just me & my faithful deaf/blind pooch. Mate down the road installed 5Kw solar panel linked to Sanden heat pump two years ago with dedicated floor 'kill' switches. Kitchen/dining - lounge - bedrooms.IE: finished cooking/eating,step on the switch. Finished watching tv/video etc,step on switch.His last bill was $1.25 Credit. Most any one else i`ve spoken to in this time pay on average $150 to $200 per quarter.
sounds to me as though
1. no one is actually reading your meter, the retailer is just estimating your usage based on past (before you became the owner) billing records.
2. you are using electric heating and the place leaks heat like a sieve.

[OldGrain]

Hi Ian. Actually they do read the meter.And probably yes,leaks like a seive.

[FenceFurniture]

Interesting article in today's news on printing solar panels:
Printed solar panels: Overhyped pipedream or renewable game changer? - Science News - ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-09-06/printed-solar-panels-renewable-energy/10186950)

Cheap, not long lasting, but rapidly evolving technology. Sounds like it will be just one more cog in the wheel, rather than a complete game changer.

Towards the bottom of the article is a link to another that talks about the cost of renewables now being cheaper than new coal fired power.

[Bushmiller]

Brett

I heard that talked about on RN a few days ago and it sounds very interesting. Clearly there is more development work required and by their own admission the initial tests are a pilot scheme. There are two critical issues to my mind. Firstly the ability to make the panels more affordable for everyone and secondly the concept of buying into the scheme as an "investment." I am not quite sure if I understood the radio broadcast completely, however it may be that you buy into the scheme, but the panels do not go up on your own house. However that needs some clarity. It was likened to hunting around for mobile phone contracts, although even that is a little difficult to grasp.

I recently had a disastrous discussion with a family member and it literally resulted in tears. The essence was that I was too forceful and negative in my rebuffals. I tried to point out, not entirely satisfactorily, that I was pragmatic rather than fanciful. I pointed to the fact that we have rooftop solar, which we had taken out a loan to afford and because I believed in solar, but at the same time I am not blind. I mentioned that in all these things it is absolutely necessary to visit the agendas of the various proponents. On the one hand there are the climate change denialists such as Abbott et al and at the other end are the Greens who would have all fossil fueled stations shut down and go immediately to insufficient renewable power.

I have in the past pointed out that there has to be a transition from one to the other and that secondly there has to be a plan to achieve this. neither state is acknowledged that I can see. The constant changing of governmental position has removed any confidence in the market for new installations. Power stations are huge investments and until some degree of stability and certainty is given I don't see investors willing to commit their dollars. In the two reports you linked it would have been good to see more detail. For example, a good friend who lives a little way out of town told me a while back (three or four years) that there was 2000MW of solar going in up the road from him. The reality was that approval had been given in principle and after three years or so nothing has happened at all and the cows are still grazing the grass.

I don't want to repeat too much of what I have said before in other threads and I have to declare that I tend to get fired up by people trotting out cherry picked phrases or simply not know what they are talking about (referring to politicians primarily here but some others too).

Something I would point out regards solar power (also applicable to wind power) is that in an extreme where everything was solar powered, we would require at least three times the amount of power that was generated by the old, equivalent fossil fueled stations. By the way, I refer to fossil fuels as this includes gas as well as coal. The reason is that solar only generates for a average maximum of eight hours in a day. In winter this may be considerably less. If we develop battery storage, and this is another area that requires significant development in technology, we have to generate three times as much during the day to provide for the sunless hours.

The Tesla battery in SA, the largest of it's kind, produces 100MW for a single hour. SA's load ranges, as with all states, but it is the smallest in terms of electricity demand along with Tasmania,at around 1000MW to 1800MW so to power the state a battery would have to be at least eighty but more like 200 times as large as the Tesla installation if continuity of supply was to be reasonably guaranteed. It is a positive step. but a long way off the solution.

Nevertheless, I am very pleased that new technology is being pursued as it is the way of the future.

Regards
Paul

(Disclaimer. I work for the second most efficient col fired power station in Australia.)

[FenceFurniture]

Yes, needing 200sq.m to run a house is a bit silly - that's half of the current size of building blocks needed. More work to do, but a good part of the mix which will no doubt have some very specific applications for short term use (e.g. where power is required for a two year project and then needs to be removed).

[ian]

I'm very jaded by all the "debate"
last time I looked,
the ACT government was paying large scale solar producers something like $1.78 / kWh for solar power that retails for something like $0.22 / kWh.
around 75% of people who live in North Sydney can't access solar because they live in apartments and/or rent -- but guess who subsidies those who can access roof top solar.

as mentioned here and elsewhere until we (those within the SE Australia electricity market) have adequate storage -- battery, pumped hydro -- renewables will remain heavily subsidised.

[crowie]

Talking Solar...
Does any remember about 5 years ago [I think], the University of Woolongong along with Bluescope Steel made a "corrugated iron roofing sheet bonded with a solar paint" as part on an international heating and cooling challenge in China where the team won hands down on all the sustainability tests with something like 99 out of 100....

[FenceFurniture]

I do remember something about Solar Paint being talked about a few years ago, and thinking that would be great, but of course it depends on efficiency, life expectancy and cost.

[FenceFurniture]

Moree Solar Farm is selling its power to 18 Sydney Councils (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-04/moree-solar-farm-to-power-sydney-councils/10336952).

And an even better story about the Tesla battery in South Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420) from a couple of days ago. You would think that might silence the critics who can't think big, but it probably won't.

Makes me wonder if a large battery attached to the Moree farm would be worthwhile. The battery seems to be excellent at keeping the power supply stable.

[Bushmiller]

Brett

Until now the solar and wind farms have been unable to provide frequency control and it was the big detractor of solar within the system. I think that the advantage of the Tesla battery is more in the area of frequency regulation than absolute power. As far as actual generation is concerned it is a stop gap measure to buy some time to resolve a crisis. This is a revealing comment from the article you quoted:

"He dismissed some claims from enthusiasts who had implied that the big battery has single-handedly saved the electricity system from collapse when big coal-fired power generators have failed — it's not big enough for that.
But it has played a role and responded extremely rapidly, demonstrating the potential of the technology."

Unfortunately some people do themselves no favours by either stating or implying that something will do more than it possibly can. Equally others do themselves no favours but decrying something in it's entirety.

Regards
Paul

[rwbuild]

Like all technology, solar generation has been evolving for decades but its refinement and efficiency has improved exponentially in the last 5 years and i can almost guarantee that in the next 5 years, its efficiency will improve at a minimum of 50%+ above current standards.
Its the impatience of Mr and Mrs Average that want instant 100% efficiency now at almost zero cost to them as opposed to a % of them that invest in the technology/companies for a return on their investment.
The world is on the cusp of an unprecedented leap forward in this field and it all takes time and people to rationally critique all aspects it develops.
Unfortunately, government policy and the vested commercial interests are not as efficient at achieving this without being dragged and screaming to account.

[FenceFurniture]

I think that the advantage of the Tesla battery is more in the area of frequency regulation than absolute power.Yes, that's the context that I was thinking it could be used, as AEMO said they would welcome more large batteries in the system for regulation of frequency. The Moree farm would seem (to me) to be an ideal place to add on a battery because in the event that the whole lot was dumped into the system then it probably wouldn't take all that long to recharge the battery - although I don't know what the data for recharging the SA battery is. For freq. regulation the battery may be able to be somewhat smaller I suppose.

I wonder if this is a somewhat unexpected side benefit of the battery, or whether it was anticipated? It does seem to have taken them all by surprise.

[ian]

Moree Solar Farm is selling its power to 18 Sydney Councils (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-04/moree-solar-farm-to-power-sydney-councils/10336952).
crunching some numbers.
The agreement runs for 11 years.
the solar farm will supply 440,000 MWh over that period -- works out at 40,000 MWh per year.
(and according to the Australian https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/saudi-billionaire-set-to-collect-180m-from-moree-solar-farm/news-story/bc042c1e542eb385c566d26a16d3810a , that power is worth $80 / MWh, or $3.2 M / year.)


And an even better story about the Tesla battery in South Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420) from a couple of days ago. You would think that might silence the critics who can't think big, but it probably won't.
The battery seems to be excellent at keeping the power supply stable.the battery is "excellent" because it's response time is measured in milliseconds, whereas conventional systems -- which rely on inertia -- are measured in tenths of seconds

[FenceFurniture]

And another article today.
'Renewables capital of Australia'? Port Augusta shows off its green energy credentials - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-05/port-augusta-becomes-australian-renewable-energy-hub/10338812)

A couple of interesting take-aways from it:
concentrated solar thermal produces electricity at 30-40% less than newly built coal power at about $78 per Mwhr
800 hectares of Solar produces about 10x the power of the previous (old) coal fired plant. 570 Gigawatt hours per year compared to 500-540 Megawatt hours from old coal.

Paul can probably give us a current comparator for the Millmerran station which is (from memory) the second cleanest CF in the country? And perhaps an idea of how many hectares the whole operation is? Clearly solar will take up much more land, but that's one thing we seem to have in abundance, along with Sunlight - plenty of non-arable land.

[Bushmiller]

Brett

That's an interesting article. I am not sure exactly how they come up with the cost of newly built coal power as the the last coal fired station built in Australia was Kogan creek in 2007 with it's single giant 750MW unit. Perhaps they are projecting the figures.

The coal fired power stations themselves do not occupy a large area: Possibly twenty or thirty acres, but if you taken into consideration the mine as well, that considerably increases. In times gone by, power stations bought their coal from a mine or mines in their area and in fact it was a good outlet for a mine to offload their inferior coal, which is what power stations burn. However, transportation became increasingly costly (the Northern Power station quoted below obtained coal from 280Km away) and the trend was to sit the power station alongside the mine. This is the situation at Millmerran. I don't recall the extent of the land our company owns but it is very extensive: Hundreds of acres. Most of it is still farmed or grazed. This land is often leased back to the original owners for that purpose.

Millmerran is the second most efficient CF station, but I am not aware of where it sits in the cleanliness stakes. All I can say there is that the supercritical stations are the cleanest in terms of carbon emissions and all six supercritical units in Australia, including the two at Millmerran, are in Queensland. I don't think there would be much between them in which is the "cleanest."

One of my pet hates is the way politicins and other people in the industry cherry pick information and the way they talk things up. I am not sure whether it is intentional or whether it is just a lack of understanding. From that article:

"When stage two is complete, the entire project will cover more than 800 hectares — an expanse nearly as big as the Melbourne CBD — and generate up to 570 gigawatt hours of electricity a year, enough to power about 82,000 households, according to its owners, Italian multinational Enel Green Power and the Dutch Infrastructure Fund.
"Note that the Northern Power Station, when it was operating, was only producing between 500 and 540 megawatts," Mr Johnson said."

They are confusing units of energy. One is Gigawatt hours per year. The other is MW/hour: Very misleading. The units of power that are quoted should be consistent to make a fair comparison. A gigawatt is 1000 megawatts. Therefore the Solar Thermal project would be producing 65MW/hr. (compared to approx 500MW/hr for the old coal station). That also assumes the solar station can generate 24 hrs per day. If it has a storage system (salt or batteries) it has to generate three times a much at least and under ideal conditions to produce 65MW/hr. Effectively the 65MW now becomes a third of that at 22MW. This assumes they have a storage system. As I recently explained to my daughter, I am a big fan of solar, we have it on our house, but I am pragmatic rather than blind. This was not well received. Daughter and I are still not talking on the subject. :(

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Yes indeed, apples have to be compared correctly. I just assumed that Mr Johnson forgot to add the "hours" on to the end of his sentence.

I had started a post earlier which was going to compare the Mwhr per hectare between Moree and Port Augusta, but when I searched for the size of the Moree farm I got answers of 44 hectares, 350, something else, and something else again, so it couldn't be done.

[FenceFurniture]

That also assumes the solar station can generate 24 hrs per day. If it has a storage system (salt or batteries) it has to generate three times a much at least and under ideal conditions to produce 65MW/hr. Effectively the 65MW now becomes a third of that at 22MW. This assumes they have a storage system.Not sure if I have this correct or not but here goes:
570 Gw hours is 570,000 Mw hours which is the yearly output of the Port Augusta plant
So that is 570,000 / 365 = 1561 Mwhr per day produced. No need to factor in Sunlight etc, because that is the actual production. If you want to look at hourly production then I guess you have to work on the yearly average amount of production hours per day which I suspect would be about 10 (8 good hours in winter and 12 in summer, ignoring the first and last hour of the day). So an average hourly production would be around 150.

Is that right?

[ian]

I doubt that Mr Johnson forgot to include "hours" at the end of his sentence.


570 GW hours over a year (8760 hours) works out at 65 MW per hour.
For comparison, a typical wind turbine is rated at around 2.4 MW, so the solar installation is equivalent to about 27 wind turbines.

The decommissioned Northern Power station was generating around 4,700 GW hours per year -- about 5.5 times as much

[Bushmiller]

I doubt that Mr Johnson forgot to include "hours" at the end of his sentence.


570 GW hours over a year (8760 hours) works out at 65 MW per hour.
For comparison, a typical wind turbine is rated at around 2.4 MW, so the solar installation is equivalent to about 27 wind turbines.

The decommissioned Northern Power station was generating around 4,700 GW hours per year -- about 5.5 times as much

Ian

Things are not quite as good as that. A coal fired station can indeed achieve close to that barring unscheduled trips due to such things as tube leaks and routine maintenance: Think around 90% - 95% perhaps, although very few stations do this because of the competitive market pricing structure. However the solar station only has the benefit of the sun playing on the PV cell,or reflector plate in the case of solar thermal, for around 8 hours on average even with solar tracking. It also assumes no cloudy or rainy days. Cloud and rain affect solar thermal more than they do PV, which is more disadvantaged by excessive heat (efficiency reduces progressively at temperatures above the relatively low point of 25 C).

So if there is a storage facility, some of that power generated through the daylight hours has to charge the storage system: About 16 hours worth. Hence my earlier comment that the system would only deliver about a third of that 65MW. Of course, my figures are supposition and significantly rounded to make the sums easy, but I'm sure that people can get the drift.

Looking at the Port Augusta installation the first stage appears to be 110MW. There is one further stage scheduled and the possibility of a third stage. Final output should all that happen would be around 300MW so how Mr.Johnson could refer to the old station only producing 500 to 550MW is, how shall I say, "mischievous." :wink:

Regards
Paul

[crowie]

This may seem a silly question but I’ll ask it anyway.
What are the costs both physically and environmentally to make these fancy batteries
plus are they recyclable at end of life?

I ask as about 20 years ago I read that German law makers passed a law saying that all local manufacturers must either use components that can be recycled at end of life of the manufactured goods or take the goods back.

[fletty]

As Bushmiller said earlier, there is a lot of ‘mis-information’ around this whole subject. Some of it is unbridled idealism and some of it is cynical politics and lobbying. Crowie has hit on another of the dark corners of this discussion and I’ll try to explain it but only after telling everyone that my detailed knowledge is now about 2 years out of date. As Crowie said, Germany and ( I think) ALL of the EU, mandated several years ago that all Government financed and/or legislated projects must comply with both ISO9000 ( series) and ISO14000(series) standards. ISO9000 is quality assurance and ISO14000 is environmental assurance. ISO14000 demands a disposal path at the economic end of life. TO DATE, lithium ion and related batteries DO NOT have an accredited disposal path. This is why you will note that there have been no European car manufacturers offering electric vehicles. They have designed, developed and prototyped some of the most stunning electric vehicles but these have not been available for sale because there is no validated disposal path for their batteries and hence they cannot comply with ISO14000. America does not require ISO14000 and is very cautious with even ISO9000 and so the Tesla style of battery is freely available for sale. Australia (thankfully!) is closer to Europe and definitely requires ISO9000 and selectively requires ISO14000. When the ‘Tesla style’ technology was offered many years ago, it was rejected because it did not; and could not, comply with ISO14000. However, once the brown stuff hits the fan.......
5 years ago, a disposal path for lithium ion batteries was accredited within ISO14000 and so NOW we will start seeing European electric vehicles and hang on to your hats because they are amazing.
This ISO14000 disposal path is not a path to clean destruction but a path to re-use. This re-use revolves around the batteries getting ‘tired’ of a daily re-charge cycle. Their accredited disposal path is their removal from a daily re-charge regime (=electric vehicle) and re installation in a long term recharge regime ( = substation emergencypower and stability support), in other words, all ISO14000 accredited electric vehicle batteries, will from now on, be available for very cheap substation load and stability support. The “Tesla miracle” in SA will soon be regular business all around the World but in an environmentally sustainable way.
As for the general argument about renewables, I’m sorry but for someone who has been inside the industry for many years, I can’t see any solution for Australia’s short term power future but another 2 coal fired power stations which we need to have started at least 3 years ago! There are potentially 2 mid term technologies, a sudden and currently unexpected technology break through in storage .....or nuclear.
The nuclear solution however has such bad press that Australia WILL suffer major power black outs while we sit around waiting for someone else to drive the sustainable technology break through.
We desperately need the very talented experts within Australia ( certainly not me!) to be listened to!

[Bushmiller]

Thanks Fletty for that information.

It was something of which I was completely unaware. One of the major flaws for nuclear power, but by no means the only flaw, is the disposal of waste issue. How would Europe and the world cope with ISO14000? In fact how does a country like France with a very high nuclear power plant component (around 75%) already comply with this today?

My understanding is that the Fukushima disaster was exacerbated by the storage of spent rods in the containment area. In other words they had not dealt with the waste at all and kept the spent material on site, primarily because there is currently no acceptable path.

Regards
Paul

[ian]

I'm not convinced that the spent fuel rods at Fukushima were kept on site for lack of an acceptable waste disposal system.
As I understand the system, spent fuel rods are stored at the power plant / reactor till they have cooled enough to be safely transported to a "recycling" facility.
(spend fuel rods from Australia get sent to France for recycling / reprocessing after which the long term (and stabilized/immobilised) radionuclides are returned to Australia for long term storage.

A similar system operates in France.

[Bushmiller]

This is an exert:

"It’s also true for spent fuel rods sitting in the pool. They’re all hot and radioactive, right? These fuel rods have to be cooled for anywhere between five to 10 years before they’re safe enough to be taken out of these pools and put into dry cast storage. Until they are safe enough for that, they need constant attention. They need a constantly operating cooling system to keep them covered up with that water, or we are talking about the same kind of meltdown that you see in an active reactor that has been shut down for some reason.
The difference is that with the spent fuel rods, it’s probably worse. I realize this is a tough time to say worse. I’m not saying it to be upsetting. I’m saying it because I think it is frankly less upsetting to actually understand what’s going on than it is not to understand.
This is understandable. The reason spent fuel rods could be even more dangerous than a shutdown active nuclear reactor is because of two things. First: a spent fuel pool that loses its cooling system and has all of its water evaporate is a potentially greater source of a radiation leak than a reactor is, simply because there are often more fuel rods in a spent fuel pool than there are in an active reactor."

The full article is here:

What's the deal with spent nuclear fuel? | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/whats-the-deal-spent-nuclear-fuel)

Of course as I have stated many times, everybody has an agenda. so here is one that may be sympathetic to the nukes. It is from the U.S NRC. I would draw attention particularly to point No.2 and the industry standard of ten years.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html

Regards
Paul

Ps: My apologies to the OP, FenceFurniture, as we have taken this off track. In our defence it is actually difficult not to be sidetracked as the issues are so interwoven.

[Bushmiller]

This is an exert:

"It’s also true for spent fuel rods sitting in the pool. They’re all hot and radioactive, right? These fuel rods have to be cooled for anywhere between five to 10 years before they’re safe enough to be taken out of these pools and put into dry cast storage. Until they are safe enough for that, they need constant attention. They need a constantly operating cooling system to keep them covered up with that water, or we are talking about the same kind of meltdown that you see in an active reactor that has been shut down for some reason.
The difference is that with the spent fuel rods, it’s probably worse. I realize this is a tough time to say worse. I’m not saying it to be upsetting. I’m saying it because I think it is frankly less upsetting to actually understand what’s going on than it is not to understand.
This is understandable. The reason spent fuel rods could be even more dangerous than a shutdown active nuclear reactor is because of two things. First: a spent fuel pool that loses its cooling system and has all of its water evaporate is a potentially greater source of a radiation leak than a reactor is, simply because there are often more fuel rods in a spent fuel pool than there are in an active reactor."

The full article is here:

What's the deal with spent nuclear fuel? | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/whats-the-deal-spent-nuclear-fuel)

Of course as I have stated many times, everybody has an agenda. so here is one that may be sympathetic to the nukes. It is from the U.S NRC. I would draw attention particularly to point No.2 and the industry standard of ten years.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html

Regards
Paul

Ps: My apologies to the OP, FenceFurniture, as we have taken this off track. In our defence it is actually difficult not to be sidetracked as the issues are so interwoven.

[ian]

Paul,
I'm not trying to disagree with you.
the point I was trying to make, which you have provided in detail above, is that the spent rods need to cool before being "reprocessed" or "recycled".
My mind boggles at the complexity of safely moving hot spent rods to an off-site cooling facility.

Perhaps the "error" at Fukushima and similar installations is that the spent fuel rods are stored in an "open" pool rather than inside a containment vessel.

[Bushmiller]

Paul,
I'm not trying to disagree with you.
the point I was trying to make, which you have provided in detail above, is that the spent rods need to cool before being "reprocessed" or "recycled".
My mind boggles at the complexity of safely moving hot spent rods to an off-site cooling facility.

Perhaps the "error" at Fukushima and similar installations is that the spent fuel rods are stored in an "open" pool rather than inside a containment vessel.

Thanks Ian

I may have misunderstood your direction.

It is worrying to my mind that these so-called spent rods ( the half life of Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239, being the isotopes commonly used, are mind boggling. The shorter lived material is something like 24,000 years) are hanging around for up to ten years. In other words more than ten times the amount of fuel that is actually being used.

I did not realise that some reactors had an open pit. That makes the phrase "containment area" seem something of an oxymoron. I think many mistakes were made at Fukushima, not the least being built on a fault line and secondly initially lying about the extent of the catastrophe. Neither had I realised how old the station is: Over fifty years old!

This is information on containment areas for anybody interested and also points to fundamental differences of design between the PWR (Pressurised Water Reactor) and the much older BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) design, which was the Fukushima model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

Regards
Paul

[Lappa]

BMW have had European built electric cars since 2013/2014 - i3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3

There is also Mercedes, Volkswagen, Bollore, Renault.

Some started sales as early as 2011

[FenceFurniture]

Two more Solar Farms under construction (inc the largest to date):
Two of Australia's biggest solar farms set for NSW, as market operator looks at how to manage power grid - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-10/two-of-australias-biggest-solar-farms-set-for-balranald/10359110)

There seems to be a momentum shift happening. I wonder of the mainstream media reports on al of this? There is no chance that I will be doing that research.....

Just had a quick look at The Guardian (just about the only other news site i look at - are they MSM?). Can't see any reference there but they do have this:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/13/battery-storage-and-rooftop-solar-could-mean-new-life-post-grid-for-consumers

[swk]

...

The decommissioned Northern Power station was generating around 4,700 GW hours per year -- about 5.5 times as much

No, it really wasn't. At its very best when it was new in the 1980s-early 90s, it achieved 96% availability of 2x250 units (= 4200 GWh). Although it was later nominally re-rated to 2x260MW it never really achieved that availability again, due to problems, mostly with tube leaks. It got progressively worse after that as it could not compete in the market, then in the last years it was running with one unit or other mothballed, so wasn't producing more than 2000GWh.
If your numbers include Playford, that was another nominal 4x60MW alternators. But that never ran all of them together, since the 90s. In the early-mid 2000s that was refurbished but to the best of my knowledge never ran in a meaningful way in the last decade.

SWK

[swk]

...

I wonder if this is a somewhat unexpected side benefit of the battery, or whether it was anticipated? It does seem to have taken them all by surprise.

No, it is one of the man reasons the battery was put in. Just that it is hard to get this message across as the majority of people only understand battery = back up storage.
I wrote about the uses of batteries as part of an electrical system (back in 2015) (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/energy-debate-196885/4?highlight=battery#post1892237) on these very web pages:

"In fact a system like this does more than just shift the peaks, it actually has 7 functions, the easier explained ones are;
In the very short term (less than seconds) it can stabilise frequency and control power quality (ie the timing and shape of the ac waves).
At slightly longer time periods (some seconds) it can act as spinning reserve, that is, for outages caused by loss of a big generator it can quickly pick up load and help the remaining generators which are trying to share that extra load.
At the minutes to hours level it can detect if the power requirements have gone over a defined maximum level and "shave off" short term peaks and for longer time periods it can shift the loading level around..."

What AEMO were saying as reported in the ABC article that you linked to upthread was that they were surprised the spinning reserve response was actually happening in the sub second time period.

SWK