Future of the Australian Electricity Market

[Mr Brush]

One of many alternatives out there, and some are MUCH closer to market. Whenever I see an article out of a university, it usually means they've cobbled something together on the bench, initial testing looks promising, and they are desperate to attract funding to further their research. Unfortunately (in my direct experience) academics tend not to have much understanding of the "real world", so it could take them a while (and $$$) to get there :D.

Funny story - I did some consultancy work a few years ago for a university spinoff outfit developing a novel kind of optical sensor. They promoted it as a real "world changing" technology with all sorts of exciting applications, when in reality it had some pretty fundamental limitations (narrow operating temperature range, low bandwidth, very high cost) which really limited it to a few niche markets. All the hype was good enough to attract grant money though, and I'm sure they all lived it up for a few years, but inevitably the bubble burst leaving just a couple of sad little faces covered in soapy water. Website hasn't been updated since 2020, so I guess it finally crashed and burned.

[GraemeCook]

... Website hasn't been updated since 2020, so I guess it finally crashed and burned.

Zinc-Air batteries have been dominant in hearing aids for quite a few years, in part because they have the highest energy density of any commercial battery technology. But there seems to be a couple of constraints on the technology:

It cannot be upscaled to larger batteries - like AAA size, and
It is non-rechargable.

Many of the major battery companies are both using the technology and researching it. Here is a paper by Energiser:
https://data.energizer.com/pdfs/zincairprismatichandbook.pdf

[Bushmiller]

The scientists among you will remember that the utopian concept of nuclear Fusion has been trotted out as being around the corner for at least forty years: Probably more like fifty or even sixty years.

Is limitless clean energy possible? Nuclear fusion could be the answer (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/is-limitless-clean-energy-possible-nuclear-fusion-could-be-the-answer/ss-AA1gqsx7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=551ab6d29ac04c5cbae9bb9fcc0dcdda&ei=9#image=1)

After all this time they have finally been able to produce more energy than it took to make it. The economic viability and large scale now remains. :rolleyes:

I don't think it will be in time to meet the net zero timeline.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

The scientists among you will remember that the utopian concept of nuclear Fusion has been trotted out as being around the corner for at least forty years: ...

Hell, Paul, I can remember when nuclear fission was going to be so cheap that it would not be worth the cost of metering electricity.

Still waiting.

[FenceFurniture]

If I have this story straight, back in (I think) the 1970s there was going to be some kind of nuclear reactor built at Jervis Bay (don't know if it was for power, more research or what). It got to the stage where they had poured at least part of the slab before it got canned.

I just had a look on Maps at where I thought I had previously seen it (in the flesh), and it seems to me it must have been at Murrays Beach, right at the southern tip.

Google Maps (https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/Jervis+Bay,+New+South+Wales//@-35.1267293,150.7538897,279m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x6b148e4df4143e0b:0xa1b1055a55bf8f14!2m2!1d150.7446771!2d-35.0480805!1m0!3e0?entry=ttu)

Zoom out and check this horrible part of the world - definitely worthy of a nuclear bomb! Or not.

[Bushmiller]

I should explain that I am not opposed to nuclear power in total: Just as it exists for the moment with the all the associated limitations. It is certainly worth continued research with the proviso any "solution" has to be safe, able to be built in a reasonable period of time, easily located to the satisfaction of any populace and the requirements of the transmission lines, eventually easily de-commissionable and, most importantly, affordable. The last one means it needs to be economically viable for private enterprise to pick up and run with it.

I don't believe it has to provide cheaper power than renewables, at least, not while they are unable to deliver reliable power 24/7.

Having said that, it is a big ask for such a venture to be viable if only competitive during the sunless or windless hours. It is the very issue thermal stations are experiencing right now and they are the cheapest form of continuous power we have, providing they already exist (ie. don't have to be built).

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

If I have this story straight, back in (I think) the 1970s there was going to be some kind of nuclear reactor built at Jervis Bay (don't know if it was for power, more research or what). It got to the stage where they had poured at least part of the slab before it got canned.

I just had a look on Maps at where I thought I had previously seen it (in the flesh), and it seems to me it must have been at Murrays Beach, right at the southern tip.

Google Maps (https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/Jervis+Bay,+New+South+Wales//@-35.1267293,150.7538897,279m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x6b148e4df4143e0b:0xa1b1055a55bf8f14!2m2!1d150.7446771!2d-35.0480805!1m0!3e0?entry=ttu)

Zoom out and check this horrible part of the world - definitely worthy of a nuclear bomb! Or not.

FF

That was nearly the first nuclear reactor in Oz back in 1969:

Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

As you can see from the Wiki article, it was planned to be a 500MW unit and was nearly a 600MW unit, but as you said, it got canned. Thermal power was just too damned cheap in comparison! However, according to the article, there was an underlying aspiration to make nuclear weapons too. The concept was for a nuclear fission facility rather than the nuclear fusion. There is quite a big difference. The only nuclear fusion reactor within four and a half light years is the sun.

You are quite right and it is probably the only carpark designed by so many high level technicians and physicists.

"About 70 staff were involved full-time in evaluating tenders, principally from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Electricity Commission of New South Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_Commission_of_New_South_Wales), and more than 150 others had a significant part-time role."

:)

Regards
Paul

[NeilS]

...nuclear Fusion has been trotted out as being around the corner for at least forty years: Probably more like fifty or even sixty years.


My late FiL, who was a plasma physicist, was working on the magnetic field containment of nuclear fusion in the mid 60s, so definitely going back sixty years.

The failure of fusion to become a working and economic source of energy is one of the great disappointments in modern science. The theoretical concept is sound but the engineering challenges to bring it into reality, let alone at a competitive price, were too great for it to replace power generation by nuclear fission at a time when it was most needed. I expect it is an idea that is past its used by date.

Unlike other fellow travellers on the left, I too have never been opposed to nuclear power. But, for all the reasons Paul points out, fission is also becoming a source of power that is close to its used by date, for most purposes.

[FenceFurniture]

That was nearly the first nuclear reactor in Oz back in 1969Canned by Billy McMahon of all people. I didn't know that he'd made a good decision.

[GraemeCook]

... I didn't know that he'd made a good decision.

Me, either. Must have been a mistake?

[Mr Brush]

Remember that the "Pyramid of Responsibility" applies. The fewer decisions made, the further up the hierarchy you get. The guy at the top of most organisations only got there by being very careful not to make ANY decisions at all.........:rolleyes:

[FenceFurniture]

Remember that the "Pyramid of Responsibility" applies. The fewer decisions made, the further up the hierarchy you get. The guy at the top of most organisations only got there by being very careful not to make ANY decisions at all.........:rolleyes:Or in the case of Billy McMahon, because John Gorton voted against himself in a tied vote of no confidence.

[GraemeCook]

Or in the case of Billy McMahon, because John Gorton voted against himself in a tied vote of no confidence.

True. The record shows that John Gorton had no confidence in John Gorton, and voted accordingly.

A unique situation of political honesty. Wish more were as insightful.

[havabeer69]

Seems more and more likely that eraring coal fired station in NSW wont be closing in 2025 after all. Its almost like they where planning this from the start to get a bunch of government funding

[FenceFurniture]

I hadn't heard anything about this event at Yallourn in July (presumably those of you in the business might have heard about it?):
Yallourn Power Station safety concerns are bad news as Australia enters long, hot summer - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/yallourn-power-station-safety-concerns-energy-security-summer/102879988)


What situations like this highlight is how badly Australia has dropped the ball in the conversion away from fossil fuel power generation. We have all these power stations closing down in recent years, but because of government intransigence and head-in-the-sand attitudes we are not ready to seamlessly transition to renewables...as we so easily could have been, had we started proper preparation even as few as 10-12 years ago. It would have been better to start in the mid-90s of course, but now we seem to be in somewhat of a panic.

With what promises to be another hell summer coming it will be interesting to see how the grid copes with the air-conditioning demand during daylight hours. On the one hand we have far more solar panels in place in the last few years, but on the other we have lost Liddell 6 months ago (and another?) since the 2019-20 summer, and Yallourn could pack it in any old time, apparently, particularly if it is put under stress. (it's surprisingly difficult to find a list of "what power stations have closed down already")

[Warb]

What situations like this highlight is how badly Australia has dropped the ball in the conversion away from fossil fuel power generation.


I'm no longer convinced that Australia has dropped the ball any more than anyone else. I also believe there's an awful lot of creative accounting involved in the entire climate change and conversion to renewable energy "propaganda". For example, prior to the Ukraine situation I would have told you that Germany and most European countries were well on their way to converting to renewables, but that really doesn't align with the total panic caused by Russian threats to stop selling them natural gas! If they are so "renewable", then why does a shortage of natural gas create such a drama? Some countries may have indeed progressed, by I suspect the majority have just employed some statisticians!

The creative accounting doesn't stop there, of course. Everything that is "carbon neutral" is in fact based entirely on calculating some hypothetical relationship between the present and some imaginary future. For example, in the last month and a half, the monitoring system for my PV system tells me I have saved (i.e. avoided the release of) 2 tonnes of CO2. This is calculated as the equivalent of planting 42 trees. That statement, of course, relies on those 42 trees growing to full size, with no further intervention, watering, management etc., and then (presumably) either staying in the ground or being used in perpetuity as timber. So in reality, all those "carbon neutral" claims just means they planted some trees - it has almost zero impact on the current situation.

Where Australia does seem to have failed is the distribution grid, and energy storage. If we could easily shunt power from one place to another (a prerequisite for renewables) the actual conversion could be quite rapid - I have watched large wind and solar farms being built in very short order. Unfortunately, it seems that whilst the price we pay for the grid has jumped massively over the last 20 years or so, that money hasn't been used to improve anything. Renewables rely on "nature", and nature isn't constant, so a robust distribution system is required in order that power from one place can be used in the other side of the country when it's windy in one area but cloudy in another. Equally, on a smaller scale, power from rooftop systems can be used across the community - at present I have a 25kW PV installation that much of the time feeds 0.5kW to my house, exports at my 5kW limit, and has nearly 20kW of headroom that is simply throttled because the grid can't deal with it. Any excess energy, whether from rooftop systems or "commercial" generators, could be stored for later use, but only if the grid could transfer it.

I suspect that one of the biggest issues here is that the system, as has been discussed previously in this thread, needs to make a profit because it has been privatised. Sadly I don't think it would be any better if it were still publicly owned, because the government(s) don't have great track records themselves!


With what promises to be another hell summer coming it will be interesting to see how the grid copes with the air-conditioning demand during daylight hours

Given that the price of power falls to negative due to over production of PV during the day, I'd assume there is nothing to worry about....... ROFL.....

[FenceFurniture]

The European gas problem is due to external politics (i.e. Russia). Our shortcomings are due to internal politics, when we should actually be leading the way, given the resources we have available. IIRC, we do have the highest per-capita take-up of solar panels but what you have highlighted in your 3rd para is the guts of the issue:
Where Australia does seem to have failed is the distribution grid, and energy storage.Decent energy storage is reliant on still-emerging technologies, so maybe we can't blame Govts for that, but our grid is like John Howard...sooo 1950s. It would have been obvious to any level of management 20 years ago that we needed to get cracking on preparing the grid for modern times.

The coming summer will stress test our system. Will it pass, or will we see multiple failures?

[Bushmiller]

I'm no longer convinced that Australia has dropped the ball any more than anyone else. I also believe there's an awful lot of creative accounting involved in the entire climate change and conversion to renewable energy "propaganda". For example, prior to the Ukraine situation I would have told you that Germany and most European countries were well on their way to converting to renewables, but that really doesn't align with the total panic caused by Russian threats to stop selling them natural gas! If they are so "renewable", then why does a shortage of natural gas create such a drama? Some countries may have indeed progressed, by I suspect the majority have just employed some statisticians!


Where Australia does seem to have failed is the distribution grid, and energy storage. If we could easily shunt power from one place to another (a prerequisite for renewables) the actual conversion could be quite rapid - I have watched large wind and solar farms being built in very short order. Unfortunately, it seems that whilst the price we pay for the grid has jumped massively over the last 20 years or so, that money hasn't been used to improve anything. Renewables rely on "nature", and nature isn't constant, so a robust distribution system is required in order that power from one place can be used in the other side of the country when it's windy in one area but cloudy in another. Equally, on a smaller scale, power from rooftop systems can be used across the community - at present I have a 25kW PV installation that much of the time feeds 0.5kW to my house, exports at my 5kW limit, and has nearly 20kW of headroom that is simply throttled because the grid can't deal with it. Any excess energy, whether from rooftop systems or "commercial" generators, could be stored for later use, but only if the grid could transfer it.

I suspect that one of the biggest issues here is that the system, as has been discussed previously in this thread, needs to make a profit because it has been privatised. Sadly I don't think it would be any better if it were still publicly owned, because the government(s) don't have great track records themselves!



Given that the price of power falls to negative due to over production of PV during the day, I'd assume there is nothing to worry about....... ROFL.....

Warb

Still the same issue of night and day in Europe. Renewables don't deliver at night or when the wind is in the doldrums. They are not 100% renewable even during the day (neither is Australia. Still a long way to go). Negative prices just point to an oversupply on the spot market. Contracts are still in place for the majority of power delivered.
As well as equipment needing replacement or upgrades, there is the issue of distribution, which is down to cable size in many instances. The greater the distance, the larger the cable required, so power from SA is not going to reach Cairns in QLD very satisfactorily.

Privatisation is a major worry for the distribution. It is hard to know even who owns what compared to the previous arrangements. At least then you knew who to blame: Not that it would have done much good.

Your issue with 20Kw that can't be delivered is more to do with all the other people in your vicinity. It is the total amount of power. I know you have looked at storage and that would be your best bet so that you could feed into the grid at night. Down the track I would guess (but certainly don't know) that a premium will be paid for power during the dark and windless hours.

The irony of all this was that back in the fifties (1950 for NSW) the state governments took over the electricity systems to provide continuity of power. That is what they should again, but I won't be betting any body parts on that happening.

There is nothing to worry about with power through the day. Correct. It is the other sixteen hours, on average, that should concern you.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

I hadn't heard anything about this event at Yallourn in July (presumably those of you in the business might have heard about it?):
Yallourn Power Station safety concerns are bad news as Australia enters long, hot summer - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/yallourn-power-station-safety-concerns-energy-security-summer/102879988)


What situations like this highlight is how badly Australia has dropped the ball in the conversion away from fossil fuel power generation. We have all these power stations closing down in recent years, but because of government intransigence and head-in-the-sand attitudes we are not ready to seamlessly transition to renewables...as we so easily could have been, had we started proper preparation even as few as 10-12 years ago. It would have been better to start in the mid-90s of course, but now we seem to be in somewhat of a panic.

With what promises to be another hell summer coming it will be interesting to see how the grid copes with the air-conditioning demand during daylight hours. On the one hand we have far more solar panels in place in the last few years, but on the other we have lost Liddell 6 months ago (and another?) since the 2019-20 summer, and Yallourn could pack it in any old time, apparently, particularly if it is put under stress. (it's surprisingly difficult to find a list of "what power stations have closed down already")

FF

I had not seen anything about that. However, that hangar is a device that supports the large steam/water pipes. As things heat up, they expand so everything has to be able to move freely both longitudinally and vertically. I would expect that following that incident an inspection was made of every hanger in the plant for signs of structural failure. Not that big an issue unless you were under it when it fell. It is a sign that some checks that should be performed are being missed. The typical life of a thermal power station is fifty years and Yallourn is 47 years old. Not much incentive to plough wheelbarrow loads of cash into an ageing plant. I think WPHS would have been on to them.

Just out of the interest, the boilers in all these power stations are suspended on ginormous beams above the boiler. This is so that as the boiler heats up it expands ("grows") downwards. The beams at Bayswater were huge. Imagine a UB with a web 1.8m to 2m deep and flanges more than 50mm thick. I would expect the Yallourn boilers to be at least as big if not bigger, Although the units are smaller, the brown coal boilers are huge in comparison to black coal boilers.

Just on the "ball" aspect I saw that they are going to replace 1480MWs (24 hrs per day) with a 350MW battery (one or two hours?). What are these people thinking?

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Power stations being phased out in the next ten years are (and this could change a bit):
2025 NSW Eraring (but will probably go full term to 2030 or so)
2028 VIC Yallourn
2028 QLD Callide B
2029 NSW Vales Pt B
2033 NSW Bayswater

And in the west:
2024 WA Muja 6
2027 WA Collie
2029 WA Muja 7

According to Wiki, the east has a total of 21,050 MW at max production, and by 2033 when those 5 above have closed we will have lost 9020 MW, or 43% of production.
If Eraring does close in 2025, and Yallourn hobbles through to 2028, we will have lost 5060 MW or 24% by 2028.


Hard to see how this is not absolutely spot on:
Down the track I would guess (but certainly don't know) that a premium will be paid for power during the dark and windless hours.
There is nothing to worry about with power through the day. Correct. It is the other sixteen hours, on average, that should concern you.

That then makes me wonder if selling power to the grid, at what should become decent prices for FITs in dark hours, will make batteries far more viable, even at their current costs.

[Warb]

Still the same issue of night and day in Europe. Renewables don't deliver at night or when the wind is in the doldrums. They are not 100% renewable even during the day (neither is Australia. Still a long way to go). Negative prices just point to an oversupply on the spot market. Contracts are still in place for the majority of power delivered.
As well as equipment needing replacement or upgrades, there is the issue of distribution, which is down to cable size in many instances. The greater the distance, the larger the cable required, so power from SA is not going to reach Cairns in QLD very satisfactorily.

All true, and a major issue for renewables. The grid needs to be oversized to allow for renewables, and that hasn't been done or even started (AFAIK). The distance issue is very real, but to some extent we just need to suck it up - the loses are part of the foundation of the dream! On the other hand, perhaps smaller scale local storage systems could provide a stepping stone solution, allowing shorter distance transport to top up reserves? Australia grows a lot of wheat, but it's not all stored in one place - large storage facilities at export ports are supplied by a network of medium sized storage facilities in turn fed by local facilities, right down individual farm silos. These are all linked by rail and truck networks. Interestingly this system also comprises a large number of different businesses, but they make it work.


Your issue with 20Kw that can't be delivered is more to do with all the other people in your vicinity. It is the total amount of power. I know you have looked at storage and that would be your best bet so that you could feed into the grid at night. Down the track I would guess (but certainly don't know) that a premium will be paid for power during the dark and windless hours.

It's not really to do with the people in my vicinity, it's because the grid can't deal with it. My previous property was very similar, as were the people in the vicinity, yet I could export without limit. The difference was that I had a large 3phase transformer connected to a "big cable" (and maybe higher voltage, just an assumption) section of the grid (the old irrigation pump had a 60kW motor!). My new property has a baby single phase transformer connected to a baby single phase (2 wire) arm of the grid. And the problems are going to get worse. We are being told to replace our fossil fuelled devices with electric ones. My induction cooktop can draw 11kW, and if I bought a Tesla that would be another 11kW. That's 22kW and my transformer is an old 100amp unit. Now imagine everybody on my grid arm doing the same thing. Yes, it's the people in my vicinity, but we're all trying to do the right thing (or at least what we're being told is the right thing!) and the grid simply can't cope!

I did actually get a pair of 10kWH batteries, and they're working very well. My first full month with the new system resulted in a bill with a $0.59 credit, even with the 5kW feed limit. At present the batteries last the entire night, even if I forget to run the "off-peak" water heater during the day, but cooking at night (all electric) plus water heating can run them close to flat (actually they keep a 10% reserve for grid failure events). I'm now looking at a heat pump water heater to reduce my water heating usage, and daylight saving should hopefully mean dinner is cooked with at least some direct solar usage!

[GraemeCook]

The European gas problem is due to external politics (i.e. Russia). ...

Yes, but there is also some basic economic factors at play.

As Europe increased it supply of renewables it also increased instability in the network - the periods when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow - often largely unpredictable. It needed a source to fill in those gaps - batteries are not yet cost effective, pumped hydro has a 10+ year lead time, etc - and so they increased reliance on gas rather than coal fired power stations.

Gas fired power stations can respond to changes in demand fairly quickly, but
Coal fired power stations require Paul (or his equivalent) to go and tell someone to start shovelling coal and then we have to wait for the boilers to heat up.

But when you look at sourcing of gas, two big players emerge - OPEC and Russia. Frankly, I would never trust either. Europe did, but what was their alternative?

[FenceFurniture]

I'm now looking at a heat pump water heater to reduce my water heating usage, and daylight saving should hopefully mean dinner is cooked with at least some direct solar usage!Then you should research the NSW Govt ESS scheme for replacing old HWS with Heat Pumps for free - have to pay some installation costs, and not sure how that will work in your area. Here in Katoomba my total outlay for a 215 litre HP installed will be around $160.

Upgrade your hot water system | NSW Climate and Energy Action (https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/households/rebates-grants-and-schemes/household-energy-saving-upgrades/upgrade-your-hot-water#contact-an-approved-supplier-)

Be warned that the have not organised this site at all well. You might expect that you could look for who does them in your area? Nope, got look at each website and get a minor clue, and then make numerous phone calls. Disgustingly poor organisation, done by a chimp.

Older aircon units can also be upgraded. Bon chance!

[Bushmiller]

Coal fired power stations require Paul (or his equivalent) to go and tell someone to start shovelling coal and then we have to wait for the boilers to heat up.

But when you look at sourcing of gas, two big players emerge - OPEC and Russia. Frankly, I would never trust either. Europe did, but what was their alternative?

Graeme

Actually we have some pretty impressive "coal shovelers", although they can turn up their toes during prolonged wet weather events. However, the response time of coal fired units is dictated by the boiler capability. All units have ramp rates, although they will be very variable from station to station. Typically, they will be between 3MW/min and 5MW/min in the raise direction and likely a little faster in the lower direction. Unfortunately, coal fired units are better suited to more consistent loading hence part of the reason why they have traditionally been regarded as "base load" power plants, but not solely, as base load relies heavily on economics first and foremost, particularly in today's competitive market. Conversely, Gas and Hydro have very fast response times in times of crisis.

It may be a very long time before anybody can count on Russia. As for OPEC, I am guessing that their aim is to make a few shekels before they become a total pariah so no economic relief there.

Regards
Paul

[doug3030]

... but our grid is like John Howard...sooo 1950s. It would have been obvious to any level of management 20 years ago that we needed to get cracking on preparing the grid for modern times.

Well, yes the powers that be DID see that. That's why it was all privatised. Not their problem any more. :rolleyes:

[Warb]

Then you should research the NSW Govt ESS scheme for replacing old HWS with Heat Pumps for free - have to pay some installation costs, and not sure how that will work in your area.

Thanks!

I've just had a quick look and there seems, at least on the face of it, to be no overlap between Sanden dealers and ESS approved (A)CP's in my area (NSW but near Canberra). Unfortunately I'm finding that there are so many people in Canberra who can be easily separated from their money that the tradies don't really want to drive 30 minutes out of the city. Equally, and perhaps because of this, they are very cluey about the government grants in the ACT, but often less so about NSW.

Having said that, I'll phone the dealers that Sanden list for my area (even though at least one lists the suburbs they cover and mine isn't amongst them) because Sanden do say their heaters are now ESS approved.....

[FenceFurniture]

Sanden do say their heaters are now ESS approved.....Interesting. The two companies I have spoken to only use EcoGenica. Be prepared for whomever you speak to act like they are doing you a giant favour by letting you give them business. Both of them had to be told in no uncertain terms to stop emailing, texting and calling me at peril of not getting the business, and that I will let them know when I am ready.

[FenceFurniture]

Warb, this might help:
Find a Dealer – Sanden Hot Water Heat Pumps (https://www.sanden-hot-water.com.au/find-a-dealer/)

On the right there are three dropdowns, and I am currently checking the Rebate Calculator.

[Warb]

Be prepared for whomever you speak to act like they are doing you a giant favour by letting you give them business.

This I'm having to get used to! I lived on the same farm for the last 20odd years, and along the way I gathered a group of "old men" tradesmen who I could deal with on sensible and friendly terms, would give me honest opinions and turn up when they promised. Having sold the farm, retired, and moved to this new area, I'm dealing with younger tradesmen who charge like a wounded bull, don't always turn up, often don't have the right parts when they do turn up, and charge a callout fee for each visit - very annoying when the second and third visits are because they didn't bring the parts they should have known they needed the first time! The only thing they can be relied upon to do in a timely manner is to send the invoice........

[Warb]

Warb, this might help:
Find a Dealer – Sanden Hot Water Heat Pumps (https://www.sanden-hot-water.com.au/find-a-dealer/)

On the right there are three dropdowns, and I am currently checking the Rebate Calculator.

Sadly it doesn't cover the ESS, only the STC's. I got a "quote" from one of the three dealers listed for my area, and it was a painful process. I called them and was told to use their website to get a quote. Not interested in talking. The quote page doesn't allow for selection of system, it basically just emails a standard quote (from what I can see) for the smallest Sanden tank. They want pictures of the existing system, including serial number etc. before they go any further (presumably to calculate rebates?).

Unfortunately my system is in a 45 degree corner in the basement, the nameplate is hidden, I want a bigger tank than standard, and WiFi, and the heat exchanger outside. So their quote is useless to me. When I looked further I noticed that whilst they say they service my area, no physical address is given. My suspicion is that they are a web-based company in an office somewhere who just find a local plumber wherever the customer happens to be. I could be wrong, but it didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling!

Sanden list two other dealers in my area. One specifies the suburbs it services, and mine isn't listed. The other seem to have a physical address in Canberra, but their webpage is big on hype and short on detail. I think I may pay them a visit and see if they can help!!

[FenceFurniture]

Sadly it doesn't cover the ESS, only the STC's.Yes, I noticed that. They may be having some teething problems trying to fit into the clunky NSW system. I have sent an email to one supplier and a text to another, but I may also ring Sanden direct. The ESS scheme is not due to finish until "sometime 2025" so there is no rush (even though the installers pretend there is).



They want pictures of the existing system, including serial number etc. before they go any further (presumably to calculate rebates?).They want to be able to see the installation site so they can calculate how much the "heavily subsidised" installation will be, and they want to know what they will be taking away for recycling. They also want to see your circuit board.



I want a bigger tank than standardHP HWS can be smaller capacity than what it is replacing. It starts heating up water as soon as you turn the tap on, so that, e.g. a 215 litre tank can give you 300, maybe 400 litres a day if necessary. You have 215 litres before you hit the water that is still being heated, and IIRC they heat about 60 litres per hour. In my case, because I am using Amber Electricity at wholesale prices, I will aim to have showers at around 11am to 2pm when sparks are usually super-cheap. It will also mean that I will not have Controlled Load needs, and will save that daily connection fee.

Perhaps you could consider relocating the HP and Tank somewhere else outside (hot water pipes and circuits permitting).

[Warb]

They want to be able to see the installation site so they can calculate how much the "heavily subsidised" installation will be, and they want to know what they will be taking away for recycling. They also want to see your circuit board.


HP HWS can be smaller capacity than what it is replacing. It starts heating up water as soon as you turn the tap on, so that, e.g. a 215 litre tank can give you 300, maybe 400 litres a day if necessary. You have 215 litres before you hit the water that is still being heated, and IIRC they heat about 60 litres per hour. In my case, because I am using Amber Electricity at wholesale prices, I will aim to have showers at around 11am to 2pm when sparks are usually super-cheap. It will also mean that I will not have Controlled Load needs, and will save that daily connection fee.

Perhaps you could consider relocating the HP and Tank somewhere else outside (hot water pipes and circuits permitting).

There's really no need to relocate the system, the current location is perfect and simply requires the pipework to go through the outside wall that the tank sits against. The issue in this case is simply that the nameplate of the existing system is hidden because it's tight in a corner.

The circuit board requirement is also strange, though not really an issue. Replacing a 5kW (ish) system with a 0.9kW one shouldn't require anything other than a smaller breaker, I would have thought! Equally they wanted to see the meter box. Why? My only thought was to see if the existing system was on a controlled load circuit, and it's not, it simply has a timer which isn't in either the circuit breaker box or the meter box and so wouldn't be covered in either p[icture!

Our existing tank is 400L. I'd like the 315L Sanden tank (from memory) because 200L is too small by their own reckoning, and the "usual" 300L tank is too tall. The 315L is wider but somewhat shorter and would fit the space (assuming all the connections are on the same side!).

My concern was more the way they seem to do business than the details of the system, especially as they also fail to mention the ESS anywhere in their quote, they simply list STC's etc.

[FenceFurniture]

The issue in this case is simply that the nameplate of the existing system is hidden because it's tight in a corner.Can you see the compliance plate with the aid of a mirror? Take a pic of the reflection, and then reverse it with software?

[Warb]

Can you see the compliance plate with the aid of a mirror? Take a pic of the reflection, and then reverse it with software?

I don't think so. The tank is tight in a corner of two brick walls (45 degree angle or so). There's no nameplate on the visible side, and no room to get around (or over) the tank to see the other side. I'd have to use a long inspection camera, and even then it would be tricky because I have no idea where the plate might be!! I'm guessing it won't be visible until the tank comes out, but I also can't see why that should be an issue - why do they need the serial number in advance, especially as they're not even quoting for the ESS replacement scheme.

[FenceFurniture]

why do they need the serial number in advance, especially as they're not even quoting for the ESS replacement scheme.Maybe they need pre-approval for the STCs? I suspect you may need to talk to Sanden about who can do it under ESS. One of the local (small) operators here has just told me he does them under ESS so the available operators might be a bit more widespread than the website suggests. The previous two I dealt with were both Adelaide based. I'll know more in a day or two.

[FenceFurniture]

Funnily enough, there's a new Matt Ferrell vid on Heat Pumps.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npqzHpeIvhM&list=TLPQMTkwOTIwMjPep6vmzRFZzw&index=3

[havabeer69]

It's not really to do with the people in my vicinity, it's because the grid can't deal with it. My previous property was very similar, as were the people in the vicinity, yet I could export without limit. The difference was that I had a large 3phase transformer connected to a "big cable" (and maybe higher voltage, just an assumption) section of the grid (the old irrigation pump had a 60kW motor!). My new property has a baby single phase transformer connected to a baby single phase (2 wire) arm of the grid. And the problems are going to get worse. We are being told to replace our fossil fuelled devices with electric ones. My induction cooktop can draw 11kW, and if I bought a Tesla that would be another 11kW. That's 22kW and my transformer is an old 100amp unit. Now imagine everybody on my grid arm doing the same thing. Yes, it's the people in my vicinity, but we're all trying to do the right thing (or at least what we're being told is the right thing!) and the grid simply can't cope!

!

yeah, dunno what its going to be like in 20 years.. the poor old power lines above will be glowing red when everyone is trying to cook dinner and fast charge their electric car at the same time.

[GraemeCook]

... I'd have to use a long inspection camera, and even then it would be tricky because I have no idea where the plate might be!! ...

Or put your phone on a wanker stick, hit the video button, and record all of the back of the cylinder. Then take a still of the compliance plate from the video. If it is not clear, then you will now know where the compliance plate is so you can take a high res photo.

[FenceFurniture]

This news article highlights why we need to sort out storage asap (like we didn't know...but)
Rooftop solar '''cannibalising''' power prices as Australian generators pay to stay online - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-23/rooftop-solar-cannibalising-australian-power-market/102889710)


I'll serve this over to those in the industry that know better:

we know we are facing a problem that needs a solution with regard to providing industrial quality power, and any rating of power when it's dark, no wind and so on.
Referring back to my post about losing ¼ of our FF power in five years, and 43% in ten years (remember the Covid pandemic started just under 4 years ago – time flies),
and also given that we aren't going to economically solve the storage problem for at least 5 years (maybe longer),
what would be wrong with building 1 or 2 Gas fired power stations with current technology being cleaner than previous, as long as we can stay within the net zero target?


Wouldn't that be better and more reliable than pouring $12(?) billion into Snowy 2.0? IIRC, GF can be pumping out sparks within 60 minutes of being asleep (as it would be during the day, and NOT having to pay to be awake).

Industry needs certainty for confident investing, and I'm sure that they are not particularly confident of having their power supply demands met in the next decade or so. All well and good for households with rooftop becoming so dominant and relatively cheap, but industry needs a different quality of power.

We can still put out some CO2 as long as we compensate for that output with sequestering, or other reductions. GF power stations would have to be a whole lot less CO2 (et al) than Eraring and co.

[Bushmiller]

FF

That article is quite a good summary of the situation, although I don't quite agree with the apportioning of blame.

Home owners, primarily although not exclusively, dig into their pockets and place solar on their roof to mitigate their rising electricity bills. Solar farms build their facilities to make money. Did they do their research? They had no problem taking money when fossil fuelled stations were back to negative prices (negative prices are typically in effect between 0900hrs and 1500hrs, but this does vary considerably). There is a shoulder period either side of the negative prices where the cost is in the black, but still uneconomic. To say that roof top solar is to blame for the issues is a little trite and quite disingenuous.

However, it has to be remembered that we are talking about the spot market, which is a small section of the market. My guess is that the spot market could be somewhere in the vicinity of 20% to 30% of the total with the rest being under fixed contracts. At the start of Spring demand is low (same situation when we come to Autumn) and the pricing anomalies are exacerbated at this time.

As the article pointed out and we have stated so many times on this thread, we have been at the point for some time where we really need to concentrate on storage more than straight renewables. The dilemma is that the renewables cannot cope with continuity of supply and the fossil fueled stations cannot compete economically only operating at night. As more renewables come online and supply through the day (solar), the thermal stations will be less able to renew their fixed contracts at economic prices.

Regards
Paul

Edit: On the Gas Stations, most of them are remote controlled. The "once through" units are only marginally better regarding CO2 emissions than the supercritical coal fired units. The HRSG plants with a conventional, but low pressure, boiler tacked on to the back end to utilise the heat in the exhaust gases are a little slower to reach full load, but the Gas Turbine component is still pretty quick: Just a few minutes to start and reach full load. They have about two thirds of the CO2 emissions of the supercriticals assuming they get to use their conventional boilers, which may not be the case. Consequently, I don't see too many investors jumping in to make some hay (when the sun isn't shining) as the life expectancy may not justify the outlay.: Sorry to repeat this, but it has to be viable or subsidised.

[FenceFurniture]

Right now, at 10am, the renewables in the system here are at 70%, and the price per kWh is 9c supposedly dropping to 6c in a moment...hang on...ok, 5c. Not negative though.

[Warb]

So if/when we reach the point where commercial solar generation on an average day can produce sufficient power to "run the world", should we not simply discourage the construction of additional commercial solar facilities, and encourage alternatives like wind that are not dependent on sunshine? And should we not do that directly, rather than through an indirect method such as pricing that punishes all producers rather than simply the targets?

Note that obviously we still have a storage issue that has to be addressed, but over-production of solar to the detriment of renewable investment as a whole is surely counterproductive? I don't think that rooftop solar, whether domestic or commercial (factory or shopping mall roof space) should ever be actively discouraged, because local generation and usage is always a good thing, but perhaps commercial RGC's (the commercial version of RECs, IIRC) should be rebalanced on an ongoing basis to drive the industry in a suitable direction? Or maybe this happens already?

[FenceFurniture]

I would have thought that by then we would just be adding on whatever generation is required of whatever highly developed type is currently used, and that "renewables investments" as such would be an historical artefact. That is, this period from say 2015 until maybe 2040 or so will be seen as The Great Energy Transformation Period. Everyone can then relax, and go back to business as usual for energy....and worry about the next crisis (water security? housing security? staggering numbers of refugees? prevalence of far-right nutjobs? invasions by another country?).

[Warb]

But if we're getting to negative prices, surely we are close to sufficient solar right now? I realise there are other factors at play, slow startup coal generators etc., but on the face of it, prioritising storage and non-solar renewables would seem more sensible even now. Solar is quick and cheap (relatively) to install, and domestic roof-top solar will continue to grow as long as retail prices are high. So why not encourage commercial generators to do something else? If we create a negative pricing issue we'll surely discourage investment in ALL renewables?

[FenceFurniture]

Again, I'll defer to the pros, but it seems to me that there will be far less commercial generation, even for solar, once we get storage sorted out and that will mean that -ve prices would be a thing of the past. I think (or at least hope) a big part of the future will be community batteries because there will always be landlords that won't put up solar panels (unless they are forced to) and there will always be roofs that can't have them (asbestos, shaded etc), and there will always be apartment blocks that don't have enough roof area to service the many floors below them.

When that is all largely in place we will be left with solving the industrial power conundrum. I don't know what proportion of power they use (compared to the type power consumption that can be provided by solar. Maybe by then (20 years?) there will be some sort of advancement in small or smaller scale Green H20 generation, perhaps where an industrial hub or town can have their own localised big sparks production.

I can see a lot of +ve disruptive tech will probably emerge. There's an incredible amount of stuff being developed in all areas of energy.

[GraemeCook]

Had some minor day surgery last week, and as I was in the recovery room I read some of the hospital magazines. One included an article on unintentional effects of pricing policy re renewables. Because of the anaesthetic, my memory is not 100%.

First, I will prefix my comments by stating that my local electricity retailer, Aurora, only offers a single feed-in tariff for solar panels - currently 8.883 cents per kWh. It does not matter if the wholesale price is negative or spiking, the retail feed-in tariff is the same.

The article said that this encouraged people to maximise the total output of their solar systems rather than optimising the output when it was most required - in the breakfast and dinner peak periods - when wholesale prices were highest. Peak solar production was commonly in early afternoon when wholesale prices were low or negative.

Current rhetoric is that ideally solar panels should face due north or slightly east of north in most localities - this does maximise the average output in a 24 hour period. However, demand varies in the course of a day. It suggested that, theoretically, panels could be re-orientated so that half faced east and half faced west. This would reduce the daily output by 15-25%, depending on latitude, but it would optimise output early and late in the day when demand was higher. But current feed-in tariffs discouraged this.

It suggested that feed-in tariffs should, somehow, be linked to wholesale spot prices. In most cases this would require upgrading of meters.

[FenceFurniture]

Aurora, only offers a single feed-in tariff for solar panels - currently 8.883 cents per kWh. It does not matter if the wholesale price is negative or spiking, the retail feed-in tariff is the same.
It suggested that feed-in tariffs should, somehow, be linked to wholesale spot prices. In most cases this would require upgrading of meters.This is high-lighting how antiquated the whole system is – you could say it's not FIT for purpose.

Maximising the attitude of panels for feeding as much as possible back to the grid is a ridiculous notion brimming with short-term thinking. A few years ago the FITs were much higher than now. Changing the attitude of the panels to get the most out of them for the house in question won't be all that cheap an operation, but having panels facing E, N & W is where it's at. Actually, probably facing NE, N, NW would be the most appropriate for ¾ of the year.

[havabeer69]

another day,
another new battery tech

I guess techincally this ones old (70's), but a company wants to mass churn it out
NASA Battery Tech to Deliver for the Grid - IEEE Spectrum (https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen)

[Bushmiller]

another day,
another new battery tech

I guess techincally this ones old (70's), but a company wants to mass churn it out
NASA Battery Tech to Deliver for the Grid - IEEE Spectrum (https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen)

haveabeer

Interesting, but not yet tested on a large scale in the real world (only in outer space :rolleyes: ). In a way it is a bit like the SMRs, around which there is much hype as if they already exist: Except they have not been produced yet in the commercial world. Also, on the H2 batteries, I did not see much indication of cost. Cost, as we know, is something that just cannot be ignored.

I certainly subscribe to the argument that Lithium-ion battery storage by itself will be insufficient. It will serve as a stop gap until something else takes over.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

The article said that this encouraged people to maximise the total output of their solar systems rather than optimising the output when it was most required - in the breakfast and dinner peak periods - when wholesale prices were highest. Peak solar production was commonly in early afternoon when wholesale prices were low or negative.

Current rhetoric is that ideally solar panels should face due north or slightly east of north in most localities - this does maximise the average output in a 24 hour period. However, demand varies in the course of a day. It suggested that, theoretically, panels could be re-orientated so that half faced east and half faced west. This would reduce the daily output by 15-25%, depending on latitude, but it would optimise output early and late in the day when demand was higher. But current feed-in tariffs discouraged this.

It suggested that feed-in tariffs should, somehow, be linked to wholesale spot prices. In most cases this would require upgrading of meters.

I sometimes find myself wondering who writes these articles, and where their allegiances lie. The power industry, obviously, would much rather keep the supply of power entirely under their own control (and therefore profit) and are usually very negative about roof-top PV, as exemplified by their bid a while back to punish roof-top solar owners with an additional daily fee (supply charge). This, they said, was to recover the costs of running the grid from people who didn't pay the "poles and wires" part of each kWh they self-consumed.

The "maximum daily generation" alignment of panels is no longer relevant, and that advice is very outdated. At present the FiT is very low, 6c to 8c, compared to the (in NSW) 60c rate when much of the "maximise daily production" advice was relevant. These days most PV installers suggest E and W facing for morning and evening production.

The reality, of course, is that for most people the alignment will very simply be "which way the roof faces". Also, of course, since the 60c FiT days the price of PV has reduced (though seems now to be creeping up again) so the approach is often to install as much as possible (or can be afforded) wherever the roof points!

The other issue is that the power industry is pushing up prices at an alarming rate - my last increase was approaching 50%. At that point, the FiT is almost irrelevant - people are installing PV to avoid the bills, so linking the FiT to the spot price is largely pointless. The industry is in an interesting situation, like all businesses it is trying to increase profits, but by increasing prices it is actively encouraging people to install PV which in turn reduces the market for power. This is not just domestic usage, many businesses with available roof space are doing the same thing. As storage technology becomes cheaper, if the power companies keep increasing their prices I am sure more and more people will end up with sufficient PV+storage to leave the grid completely. The power companies need to realise this and adjust their thinking to suit. Perhaps their approach to profit should be driven by efficiency and customer service, rather than bloat, poor service and price hikes!

It is also the case that the future is quite unpredictable. For example, PV produces most power at solar noon, when traditionally "everyone is at work". But since Covid we have encouraged people to work from home (this may now be changing, but for the sake of argument let's run with it!), so now a great many people who would previously have been at work will now be at home perhaps 3 days a week. There's a fair chance that this translates to a huge rise is home air conditioning usage during the day. So large chunks of that overproduction of solar power could well be soaked up. Prior to Covid, just 3 years ago, that "working from home" boom wouldn't have entered into the equation! The same changes apply to EV's - we can encourage the installation of car park charging systems such that when EV's become the norm they can soak up the excess PV during the day rather than being charged at home overnight. We can modify our world and lifestyles to make the best use of available resources, but that requires thought and cooperation!

[GraemeCook]

I sometimes find myself wondering who writes these articles, and where their allegiances lie.

I vaguely remember source as UNSW but .... (Anaesthetic) and I was in a medical facility so magazine was probably 10 years old!



... The "maximum daily generation" alignment of panels is no longer relevant, and that advice is very outdated. At present the FiT is very low, 6c to 8c, compared to the (in NSW) 60c rate when much of the "maximise daily production" advice was relevant. These days most PV installers suggest E and W facing for morning and evening production. ...

Not down here. CSIRO still suggest due North as starting point. Rannnnng three installers and one said NNE and two said 020 degrees - essentailly the same thing. One mentioned the easterly offset was due to afternoon shading from Mt Wellington. None mentioned east-west alignment.


... The reality, of course, is that for most people the alignment will very simply be "which way the roof faces".

True; this seems dominant except where it is modified by planning rules. I live in a heritage listed suburb and we are barred from installing solar panels on street facing roofs - side and rear roofs are fine. NBN connection boxes cannot be on front of buildings either.



... At that point, the FiT is almost irrelevant - people are installing PV to avoid the bills, so linking the FiT to the spot price is largely pointless.

Again, not down here. The big user of domestic energy is heating - 70% of houses have heat pumps - and houses need heated when the sun isn't shining. Mid-winter, it gets dark at 5 pm.

And the daily peak demand periods for electricity are morning and evening, not mid afternoon when solar production is at its peak.


... It is also the case that the future is quite unpredictable. ...

Like horse racing!

I see the basic problem as an instability in the supply - sun and wind are not fully predictable - coal stations cannot be ramped up quickly - batteries are not yet cost effective (in most circumstances) - and solar does not work at night.

We need some lunar panels.

[Warb]

I see the basic problem as an instability in the supply - sun and wind are not fully predictable - coal stations cannot be ramped up quickly - batteries are not yet cost effective (in most circumstances) - and solar does not work at night.

Entirely correct, although changing rapidly. I started the process of installing more panels on my new house, and wanted to include a battery. I went through the process of working out whether a battery was a sensible investment or a nice-to-have, and decided it was simply a luxury. However, that changed significantly with our last energy price hike. I haven't done the math in detail, nor included such things as the return on investment had I bought shares instead of a battery, but on the basis of our current pricing I suspect the payback time for my 25kW PV system including 20kWh of batteries is now below 15 years. Prior to the price hikes (nearly 50%!) I had guesstimated it as >25years, and 15 years is potentially within the lifetime of the battery. A few more price hikes and it might look like I knew what I was doing!

Apart from the FiT being trivial in comparison to the retail price of power, the other reason why I commented on it being largely irrelevant is because of export limiting. I realise this doesn't apply across the board, but for those affected there is zero point in aligning panels for maximum daily production, when for most of the day the panels will be restricted by the export limit. Under those conditions, even for maximum daily export (rather than unachieved potential production) the east/west split is better.

[Warb]

Then you should research the NSW Govt ESS scheme for replacing old HWS with Heat Pumps for free - have to pay some installation costs, and not sure how that will work in your area. Here in Katoomba my total outlay for a 215 litre HP installed will be around $160.

Edit:
The information below is not correct, though it is stated as being the case on several supplier websites. The real information is a few posts further down the thread.

I've spent some time looking at this, and it's not a "free" replacement, it's a set $ discount. For replacing an electric heater I'm told it's a $1200 rebate (or $350 to replace a gas heater). This is added to the STC's and any other schemes that apply. The result is that you can indeed have an electric storage system replaced with a heat pump for next to nothing (I've seen $33 quoted), but only if you don't care what brand of heat pump you get! The heat pump systems involved in the $33 deal carry a RRP (according to the supplier/installer of around $3200. The Sanden system is waayy more than that! The end result is that a Sanden system, even after the ESS and STC's, will cost you a bit above $5.5k. However, that's still $1200 cheaper than the dealer down the street who isn't approved for the ESS, so thanks!

[FenceFurniture]

I've spent some time looking at this, and it's not a "free" replacement, it's a set $ discount. For replacing an electric heater I'm told it's a $1200 rebate (or $350 to replace a gas heater). This is added to the STC's and any other schemes that apply. The result is that you can indeed have an electric storage system replaced with a heat pump for next to nothing (I've seen $33 quoted), but only if you don't care what brand of heat pump you get! The heat pump systems involved in the $33 deal carry a RRP (according to the supplier/installer of around $3200. The Sanden system is waayy more than that! The end result is that a Sanden system, even after the ESS and STC's, will cost you a bit above $5.5k. However, that's still $1200 cheaper than the dealer down the street who isn't approved for the ESS, so thanks!I'm just waiting on a quote from a local(ish) installer on a Sanden unit.

But something doesn't appear to be right with those figures. If the $3200 unit (presumably an EcoGenica 215 litre) is $33, then how come the Sanden is only $1200 cheaper and not $3167 cheaper? I'm aware that the STC rebate on the Sanden 250 litre is the same as the 350 litre, and that's because the heat pump is the same.

We have gas central heating here which is hell expensive in winter ($600 for the coldest 3 months), and I would love to replace that, but I haven't seen any info on replacing heaters, only air conditioners. This page (https://www.energysustainabilityschemes.nsw.gov.au/upgrades-households-and-small-businesses) lists what can be replaced but I can find no further mention of replacing windows and doors, and draught proofing.

[Warb]

But something doesn't appear to be right with those figures. If the $3200 unit (presumably an EcoGenica 215 litre) is $33, then how come the Sanden is only $1200 cheaper and not $3167 cheaper? I'm aware that the STC rebate on the Sanden 250 litre is the same as the 350 litre, and that's because the heat pump is the same.

I'm actually still trying to work it out! I have one quote that includes $924 of ESC's and $864 of STC's, to give a price of $5590 for a 250L unit.

I have a second quote, which isn't broken down into items, for a 315L tank, including a WiFi module, wall mount and additional cost for installing the compressor remotely (AKA drilling three holes through the wall!), for $5679.

I assume the 315L tank costs more than the 250L version (but no idea how much), the WiFi module costs $300, I'd assume the "remote mounting" fee would be $150 (because isn't that the standard "money for nothing" price?) and the wall bracket probably another $100 or so. So the second quote is discounted from the first, but not, I suspect, by $1200.

Edit:
I think the discount is indeed a combination of the STC's (federal) and the ESC's (NSW state), therefore I suspect that the $924 of ESC's and the $864 of STC's are the total rebate available. It may be that some water heaters qualify for slightly more or less, based on their output. I now suspect that the references I have found to a $1200 rebate are simply marketing or math or both, but do not actually represent a rebate in addition to the STC's and ESC's. I can only suspect that the calculation that results in an "RRP" $3200 water heater costing only $33 to install is more likely based on the "RRP" being entirely hypothetical, and in fact it's just a cheap unit! It has also, more than likely, been designed to maximise the rebates in order to be a cheaper option for the customer whilst still being profitable. There is also the possibility, and I've seen this many times with other products, that all of the websites offering these $33 installs are in fact owned by a single entity operating under many names!

The main problem here is that as you (I think) said right at the beginning, the government websites explaining this are entirely useless. They have a great many words that glorify their actions, and explain why they are doing this, but don't actually clearly state WHAT they are doing!

My overall conclusion is that if I want the Sanden unit, it's going to cost me $$$!

Edit:
The NSW scheme does indeed provide "ESC's", based on the technology being replaced, and also the location (metro, rural etc.). The value of the ESC's, just like the STC's, can change. The fixed $1200 does not exist, it is an incorrect statement by a few (same company but different names?) installers, who are either ill-informed, deliberately misguiding customers, or (benefit of the doubt) have simply calculated the rebate for their particular offering, then rounded it to an easy number and then quoted it as "the rebate from NSW".

The outcome, I believe, is that the $33 system is inherently just a far cheaper system than the Sanden. It gets the same/similar $ discount (based on like for like sizing, location etc.), but has a much (much) lower price tag before any discount is applied.

[Warb]

Best and final.. Hopefully!


I had a long conversation with a dealer about the rebates etc. for heat pump water systems. Federally there are STC's available, based on various criteria (size, location etc.). In NSW there are ESC's available, based on much the same criteria but also what technology is being replaced (and the caveat that the old heater MUST be taken away or otherwise made incapable of working - it's a "replacement" not an addition). Those are the available discounts in NSW. Depending on the fine details, they come out at somewhere around $1800ish. The value of both STC's and ESC's can change.

The $33 heat pump is the combination of the discounts above and a really really cheap heat pump system, many are rebadged versions of the same thing. Allegedly they are quite noisy, and the warranty is only three years.

[Bushmiller]

This sand battery could be interesting:

The world's first sand-powered battery (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-world-s-first-sand-powered-battery/ss-AA1hApLP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e68b8bade3a04683a055fc419a5dbf6e&ei=14#image=1)

Although touted as a commercial installation, it seems a little on the small side to me. If they can keep it hot in Finland, I don't think we would have much trouble here.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I couldn't see any info at all in that link Paul, apart from the pic, so I went looking.

How a sand battery could transform clean energy - BBC World Service - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8XiqCxUL44)
(except he thinks they should be heated up from cheap power at night, rather than solar power, which is a bit odd)

And from the BBC:
How the world's first sand battery stores green power - BBC News - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azaf9tKJNoA)
(saying they use green energy)

And old mate Matt Ferrell for a deeper dive:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZrM-IZlTE

[Bushmiller]

I couldn't see any info at all in that link Paul, apart from the pic, so I went looking.



Try clicking on the pic. I think it will take you through the slides.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Not wishing to be seen as unduly biased (actually everyone of us is biased) I thought I would include this "spin" on just how good the nukes are:

15 interesting facts you didn’t know about nuclear energy (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/15-interesting-facts-you-didn-t-know-about-nuclear-energy/ss-AA1hGhH6?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=92dc174b1a6a45f19cfadcd7f7394c2f&ei=34#image=1)

Interesting. for example, as how forgetful they can be when they say there have only been two major accidents: Did they forget Three Mile Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) ? It was on their own shores.

I would be interested to know who actually sponsored this article and indeed forum members own thoughts.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

"if you follow the instructions to the letter, it merely explodes. Get anything wrong, and you're really in trouble" - Clive James

Clearly Three Mile Island doesn't count as a "major incident", and I seem to remember something going seriously awry at Windscale in the UK many years ago?

"I once absent-mindedly ordered Three Mile Island dressing in a restaurant and, with great presence of mind, they bought out Thousand Island dressing and a bottle of chilli sauce" - Terry Pratchett

[Bushmiller]

"

Clearly Three Mile Island doesn't count as a "major incident", and I seem to remember something going seriously awry at Windscale in the UK many years ago?


Mr Brush.

Clearly that is the implication as it was not deemed a catastrophe. However, it was in a heavily populated area and this is the sobering thought I took from this incident, which we now know as "minor."

"Cleanup at TMI-2 started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cost of about $1 billion (equivalent to $2 billion in 2022)."

and this

"TMI-1 was restarted in 1985, then retired in 2019 due to operating losses. Its decommissioning is expected to be complete in 2079 at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion"


Regards
Paul

PS: Call me skeptical, if you wish, but it could just be why nobody wants one in their backyard.

[Mr Brush]

Very expensive to build, and exceedingly expensive to decommission. The future decommissioning costs would likely be multiples of those figures.

I don't see how large scale nuclear can ever compete with adding storage (battery/hydro) to renewable generation. There may still be a place for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), but the technology has been "coming soon" for quite a while now.

The countries building miniature nuclear reactors - BBC Future (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200309-are-small-nuclear-power-plants-safe-and-efficient)

[doug3030]

Clearly Three Mile Island doesn't count as a "major incident", and I seem to remember something going seriously awry at Windscale in the UK many years ago?

While it is not a secret, it seems to be a little-known fact that there is a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney. It is not for production of electric power but has been there since 1958 producing medical isotopes and being used for research purposes.

Back in the late 1970's or early 80's, (a long time ago so I'm not sure of the year) a lot of military personnel in the Sydney area, particularly Transport drivers, were put on emergency standby in case they were needed to evacuate selected people (Read VIP's - politicians etc) fron a location in Sydney.

Because of my position in Defence at the time, I also became aware that there had been an "incident" at the Lucas Heights reactor that coincided with this. Join the dots ... :rolleyes:

[Bushmiller]

While it is not a secret, it seems to be a little-known fact that there is a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney. It is not for production of electric power but has been there since 1958 producing medical isotopes and being used for research purposes.

Back in the late 1970's or early 80's, (a long time ago so I'm not sure of the year) a lot of military personnel in the Sydney area, particularly Transport drivers, were put on emergency standby in case they were needed to evacuate selected people (Read VIP's - politicians etc) fron a location in Sydney.

Because of my position in Defence at the time, I also became aware that there had been an "incident" at the Lucas Heights reactor that coincided with this. Join the dots ... :rolleyes:

Doug

Nominally the Lucas Heights reactor is 5MW, but as you said, it does not produce electricity. When it was first commissioned, my understanding is that there was very little housing around, but nowadays it is in the middle of suburbia and a constant source of complaint from the residents.

I suspect that most "incidents" are covered up to prevent the populace freaking out. Only the big ones that cannot be covered up become general knowledge. The safety people would point to the triangle of incidents.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Sorry Doug, that conjures up an image of Homer Simpson with a glowing green rod stuck to the back of his shirt........D'OH !

[doug3030]

Sorry Doug, that conjures up an image of Homer Simpson with a glowing green rod stuck to the back of his shirt........D'OH !

Well this would have happened around a decade before the Simpsons were a thing. Maybe the creators of the Simpsons based Homer's character on some unfortunate clumsy misfit who worked at Lucas Heights. I guess we will never know.

[Mr Brush]

They have had their share of minor bungles in recent years, not just the earlier (and possibly more serious) incident you were referring to:-

Lucas Heights nuclear medical facility should be replaced owing to safety concerns – report | Sydney | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/22/lucas-heights-nuclear-medical-facility-should-be-replaced-owing-to-safety-concerns-report)

[GraemeCook]

... "TMI-1 was restarted in 1985, then retired in 2019 due to operating losses. Its decommissioning is expected to be complete in 2079 at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion" ...

Paul: I assume that that is a quote from a government agency. When did any government agency bring in a project on time and under budget? Frequently both get blown, sometimes spectacularly.

[GraemeCook]

... Interesting. for example, as how forgetful they can be when they say there have only been two major accidents: Did they forget Three Mile Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) ? It was on their own shores. ...

And there were also some incidents (plural) where they actually lost nuclear bombs.

Helpfully, the infallible Wikipedia has published a fairly comprehensive list of nuclear incidents - it is a little longer than I expected.
List of military nuclear accidents - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents)

[Bushmiller]

Paul: I assume that that is a quote from a government agency. When did any government agency bring in a project on time and under budget? Frequently both get blown, sometimes spectacularly.


Doug

Just extracted from Wikipedia, which I linked earlier. I did omit the references, but they can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) in the original 3 Mile Island article.

[FenceFurniture]

Very expensive to build, and exceedingly expensive to decommission. The future decommissioning costs would likely be multiples of those figures.Pffft. I don't see any problem at all because it'll be someone else's problem. :B

[FenceFurniture]

A couple of points about the Lucas Heights reactor.

Between the years 1993 to 2009 I lived within about 4km of it, in Menai, which was at the time the closest suburbia. Since then the housing has crept closer to it from the north, and east which is now about 1km away. It's not in the middle of surburbia, but more or less adjacent to it. The east can't get any closer because of the valley and Woronora River.

See the map here: Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.0328548,151.0059649,14.15z?entry=ttu)

The locals never expressed any concerns that I heard of – It just wasn't a discussion point. They were FAR more concerned about the 2nd airport being built at Holsworthy, but hadn't stopped to look at a map to learn that Menai was equidistant from Mascot International and the proposed Holsworthy site, notwithstanding a plethora of UXBs to overcome. Too many of these people had got the vapours about the proposed airport I said "Is the current noise from planes directly overhead a problem for you."
"Well, no, it's good, actually"
"In that case you are looking at exactly the same distance away to Holsworthy, and the noise will be, at most....the same as now."


The second point to make is that the Lucas Heights reactor has saved however many lives of cancer patients.


Nuclear power for Australia is just another brain fart from Lord Voldemort, and we wouldn't even be discussing it if he had any proper, decent ideas. I suspect that we'll have solved renewable energy storage not too long after the first Nuke power station could be built for whatever staggering amount of money. It's a fool's errand.

[Bushmiller]

From the newsfeeds I picked up on this:

'Third-world country’: Renewable energy does ‘not work’ (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/third-world-country-renewable-energy-does-not-work/ar-AA1hWV8h?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0dc9ea7ea5d742c99698929049b29bc6&ei=39)

It seems that Mr. Canavan does not think renewables are working. Well, there are a couple of aspect to which I would point. Look at these recent average wholesale figures for QLD. I have chosen QLD only because our traders provide these statistics and I don't have to go looking for them. The trends are similar, although not exactly the same, for most of the other states with the exception of Tasmania, which, as we have discussed previously, appears to have it's own set of rules for a completely different world. :shrug:

531285

531286

531287

Even back in September

531288

To put these prices into context, it was identified in the late nineties, when our station at Millmerran was being conceived, that the entry point for a new player in the market was $35 per MW/hr. That was close to 25 years ago. Now in 2023 we are in Spring, which is typically a low demand period, and prices are back to those of twenty five years ago!

Yes, at times during Winter prices were high but the average is still quite reasonable to my mind. The reason for the low prices, however, is indisputably the emergence of renewables. A large company has the option to organise contracts and any company worth it's salt would be doing exactly that to even out the peaks and troughs. So, either Boral is not up to the changes in the marketplace and needs to get with modern developments (there are companies that specialise in advising ways to minimise power consumption) or Mr. Canavan is profoundly mis-informed. These two statements are my euphemisms and you should substitute whatever vernacular, in your opinion, best suits the situation.


Regards
Paul

[Warb]

Yes, at times during Winter prices were high but the average is still quite reasonable to my mind.

You are talking about wholesale prices. I doubt that Boral (quoted in the article as having to stop production due to energy costs) have the ability to buy at wholesale prices. Nor do I, nor any "consumers". The result is that we, the consumers, are indeed paying massive prices for power. My peak rate is now 55c/kWh. If I was still trying to run an irrigation farm, I'd be struggling with a price that high.

Another way to look at it is that the average rate on the first line of the first of your attachments is $39/MWh, or $0.039kWh. So someone, from that data, has bought a kWh of electricity for 3.9c and sold it to me for 55c. Most businesses operate at around a 30% profit margin, which means that unit of power should have cost me around 5c. When, at least on paper, the profit margin appears to be over 1300%, doesn't that look like a broken system? Even if you take out the ridiculously high "poles and wires" charge for (from what I can see) 20 people to eat sandwiches whilst one person does some work, the price the consumer is paying is crazy.

Placing the blame on renewables is certainly a questionable call, but from the consumers viewpoint there's definitely something wrong, and power IS massively expensive.

[Bushmiller]

Placing the blame on renewables is certainly a questionable call, but from the consumers viewpoint there's definitely something wrong, and power IS massively expensive.

Warb

The thrust of my reasoning is that renewables are not causing a price hike. I am pointing out that the figures at the wholesale level do not reflect an issue: On the contrary, they have leveled out and are at a point where the generators are becoming concerned that they can make a reasonable business at that level.

I believe larger companies, like the retailers themselves, can indeed deal direct or at the very least have access to preferential rates. As to the average consumer, well, I agree he is not in such a good place. Much depends on your location. There is not so much choice at all in small regional locations compared to the big cities where you can tout around for the best price.

The contention was that Matt Canavan stated categorically that renewables were not working. There are aspects that are troubling, to me at least, and they revolve around the ability or rather the lack of ability to store the energy. For the moment, as we have discussed here on this thread, storage is woeful. However, clearly they are working.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

The thrust of my reasoning is that renewables are not causing a price hike. I am pointing out that the figures at the wholesale level do not reflect an issue: On the contrary, they have leveled out and are at a point where the generators are becoming concerned that they can make a reasonable business at that level.

I believe larger companies, like the retailers themselves, can indeed deal direct or at the very least have access to preferential rates. As to the average consumer, well, I agree he is not in such a good place. Much depends on your location. There is not so much choice at all in small regional locations compared to the big cities where you can tout around for the best price.

The contention was that Matt Canavan stated categorically that renewables were not working. There are aspects that are troubling, to me at least, and they revolve around the ability or rather the lack of ability to store the energy. For the moment, as we have discussed here on this thread, storage is woeful. However, clearly they are working.

Indeed, and I really wasn't arguing with any of it. Large companies can certainly get preferential rates, although nowhere even close to the wholesale prices (unless things have changed in the last few years!).

The difficulty is that a politician (any politician) can very easily say "prices are crazy" because for the vast majority of people (AKA voters), they are. Having established that he or she "understands" the impact this is having on the voter, he or she can spin that sentiment in any way they choose. Where they take it depends on their own bias, funding, pressure groups (industry or otherwise) etc., and how far they think they can lead people before they are questioned.

I have no knowledge of the person in question (I'm assuming they're a politician, but it's just an assumption!), but the basis of their argument, to the average person who sees constant reference to renewables, notices wind farms popping up everywhere (assuming they ever leave the city!) and then receives an enormous electricity bill, would possibly seem valid.

[Bushmiller]

I may have mentioned before that our son is living in Norway. He sent these pictures of a power station (Hydro) that is right behind the house to which he has just moved:

531290

A little on the specification

531291

and for those of you who's Norwegian is a little rusty. :rolleyes:

531292

Simon described it as sexy, but I would say cute. Admittedly 1.6MW is not huge, but whatever rows your boat. It would appear that a hydro facility next door is a lot more attractive than a Nuke. :D

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

... I have no knowledge of the person in question (I'm assuming they're a politician, but it's just an assumption!) ...

He is a senator from Queensland, a far right member of the LNP.

I think Paul is right, Warb. The margin between wholesale and retail electricity prices has widened substantially in the last 18 months.


... Simon described it as sexy, but I would say cute. Admittedly 1.6MW is not huge, but whatever rows your boat. It would appear that a hydro facility next door is a lot more attractive than a Nuke. ...

I would love to have a little hydro scheme like that next door, but we do not have the requisite river or creek.

And 1.6 MW or 1,600 kW is rather more electricity than I use. The wire connecting my house to the street is 80 amp, capable of carrying 19 kW, but I am sure we never run it hot.


EDIT: Typos corrected.

[Warb]

I think Paul is right, Warb. The margin between wholesale and retail electricity prices has widened substantially in the last 18 months.

My point exactly - the "man in the street" is seeing prices skyrocket, he has no knowledge of why, or the wholesale price, he just sees his bill getting (much) bigger. It's a lever for any politician to use to "prove" whatever he or she wants to "prove", in this case, that "renewables aren't working".

The interesting point is that "renewables" obviously do work, but we have rather botched the transition (no storage!) and our current system (50% retail price increases) is clearly broken. The problem is not renewables, but rather how we are implementing them, and the need in our society for exponential profit growth. When the power market is saturated (usage will increase only with new houses, especially as consumers move to lower energy devices) how do you increase profit? Increase the prices. Which is where we are now, apparently!

[GraemeCook]

Extremely well argued, Warb.

However, I do object to your use of the word "we". You and Paul and I have not botched the transition. We are mere consumers. It is Paul's employers, the rest of the electricity industry, the universities and the politicians that have failed to anticipate the problem and develop timely storage solutions.

A while back, I taught sailing for about 15 years, mainly to adults but we ran two annual camps for 14-15 year olds. All the kids had a passionate interest in the environment - David Attenborough was their favourite "grandfather" - but they all hated David Suzuki. Both are very renowned environmentalists seemingly with a similar philosophy and the kids reactions really puzzled the instructors. The answer was quite simple:

Attenborough was saying that there is a major problem in the environment and we must work together to solve it,
Suzuki was saying there is a major problem in the environment and you have caused it,
The kids just said that they have not trashed the environment and resented the false accusation.


I also object to the false accusation:

It is not feasible to put a pumped hydro scheme in my backyard, and
I am not willing to be ripped off by Elon Musk for a battery storage system.


I think we are all in the same boat on this.

[Warb]

Extremely well argued, Warb.

However, I do object to your use of the word "we".

Typing "we" is quicker than typing "Australia"! The three of us have not, as you say, botched the transition. But we are part of the whole.......


The kids just said that they have not trashed the environment and resented the false accusation.

This is indeed what they say, it is the sentiment expressed by most young people. Whilst it may be true to some extent, it is also true that they have massively benefited from the process that caused the situation. They are also continuing to exacerbate the problem, fully adopting the philosophy of consumerism. They are very keen on avoiding responsibility, far less keen on putting effort into fixing it - happy to sign a Facebook petition (zero effort), really resentful of being asked to limit a shower to less than 10 minutes. Walk a few hundred meters to the shops? What? Turn off the lights when they leave a room? Huh?

It's interesting to consider, based on both the above points, exactly who is responsible? I have never deliberately produced CO2. I have produced it as a side effect of doing something else, driving a car, heating a room, wearing clothes etc. But not just for the sake of it. So clearly if those kids aren't "responsible", then neither am I. Or you, presumably. So who is?

A 16 year old charging their phone (from the grid) results in the same amount of CO2 being released as me charging mine or you charging yours.....

I have always found it strange to blame people for doing things that turn out, years later, to have a negative impact. Continuing to do them when the impacts are known, that's a different matter.

[FenceFurniture]

He is a senator from Queensland, a far right member of the LNP.There's a little more to his story than that, and it's particularly relevant to his views on renewables vs coal. If you put "matt canavan coal interests" into a search you'll find he had family ties to coal mining which may or may not have since been shed, partially or completely.

I don't think anything he says on energy can be "fully relied upon" to be impartial.

[FenceFurniture]

I have always found it strange to blame people for doing things that turn out, years later, to have a negative impact. Continuing to do them when the impacts are known, that's a different matter. A couple of points to make here: It's the baby-boomer and Gen X politicians who have kept bad policy going when the impacts were actually known (a helluva long time ago), and we can't expect "kids" to have fully informed, mature opinions on such matters. All they can see is dickhead politicians bitching at each other while their (kids) future is being trashed. I'd be angry at us too if I was their age, because I sure as hell am angry at the deniers and vested interests that have been holding us back for so long.

After all, a 16 year old hasn't got any power to vote the mugs out, but we have had a lifetime of opportunity to do so.

Some of these idiots won't be convinced of global heating until it's so bad that there is absolutely nil can be done about it, and then they'll die, leaving the mess for someone else.
In Katoomba, September 2023 was 35% hotter than the 66 year average, and we had 14.5% of our average rainfall.



Regarding wholesale rates and retail pricing, I have just posted a full month's data in t'other thread.
https://www.woodworkforums.com/f28/getting-energy-deal-joke-217233#post2320205

[Warb]

After all, a 16 year old hasn't got any power to vote the mugs out

because


we can't expect "kids" to have fully informed, mature opinions on such matters




It's the baby-boomer and Gen X politicians who have kept bad policy going when the impacts were actually known

This is true, but it's very easy to criticise decisions when we're not the people making them. I entirely agree that there are vested interests, and that decisions are made for the wrong reasons, but above all that is the reality that the world runs on commerce. In this thread we have discussed the fact that things will not happen if they are not profitable, and also that consumers don't want to pay too much. We also know that politicians are voted into power, and that people will vote them out if they don't like what is happening. The climate change issue is fraught with problems from all these viewpoints, whether it's that renewables have to cost more so the companies can profit, or that people for some reason like black roofs on their houses, it's actually a very difficult path to tread for a politician who wants to avoid being voted out. People are very keen on having someone else fix the problem, as long as they don't have to make any effort or sacrifice. As a result, the cost of living or restrictions on what you can and can't do (even if those restrictions are intended to fix climate change) are far more important to the average person than addressing the problem.

If we are sticking to a democracy where leaders are voted for by a short sighted, avaricious, self-centred population, we must expect those leaders to exhibit the same traits.

[FenceFurniture]

...consumers don't want to pay too much.I believe that this has come about because of all the cheap junk that has become available in our throwaway society. If decent quality goods that were repairable were all that was available then consumers would pay for them, and probably without much complaint.

Perhaps we need to think more like the Norwegians do. Highest rate of EV take-up (AFAIK), on a fast track to renewable energy (with LOADS of oil available to them), and regularly voted the happiest country in the world.

[Warb]

I believe that this has come about because of all the cheap junk that has become available in our throwaway society. If decent quality goods that were repairable were what all that was available then consumers would pay for them, and probably without much complaint.

People are greedy. I suspect it's an evolutionary trait, we are basically carnivores and/or hunters gathers. We take the easiest path; farming came about because when our camps grew to the point where food to "gather" wasn't enough, we had to find another way to feed ourselves. The same applies to consumerism - we want "stuff" but we don't want to work hard or pay too much to get it. So cheap rubbish becomes the norm. It's always fascinated me that people want to be paid more to make stuff, then buy the cheap stuff from overseas and wonder why their company goes bust and they lose their job!

Equally, of course, the same greed means companies have to make ever more profit, and that doesn't happen if you sell products that last forever. Things are therefore designed to just about survive the compulsory warranty period and then fail or need replacing for some other reason.

We are also foolish/greedy enough to fall for the advertising that says our phone must have twelve cameras, and be foldable, small, big, made of metal or whatever. I'm fairly certain that the evolutionary need to attract the best possible mate makes it easy to manipulate us - "wear this brand of clothing and people will think you're great"!

You're right that people would buy repairable items if they were all that was available. But the point is that someone would instantly grab the market by making something cheaper and less durable, so the cycle begins again!


Perhaps we need to think more like the Norwegians do. Highest rate of EV take-up (AFAIK), on a fast track to renewable energy (with LOADS of oil available to them), and regularly voted the happiest country in the world.

I have often considered the difference between the Scandinavian countries and many others. I have concluded that the climate up there has resulted in the development of a society in which everyone is committed to the common good, simply because on our own you freeze to death! The "warm country" option to sit around, sleep in the open and survive on very little doesn't apply when you need to consume a million (!) calories a day just to maintain your body temperature! Equally, if you get hurt whilst hunting for your family's dinner, your family starves unless others help you out until you recover. But those others will also (historically) cast you out to die if you take the mickey and don't pull your weight. The result is Scandinavia working together for the common good. That approach is perhaps not so ingrained in warmer countries, if it exists at all.

[FenceFurniture]

Agreed Warb, except I just don't get this bit:
We are also foolish/greedy enough to fall for the advertising that says our phone must have twelve cameras, and be foldable, small, big, made of metal or whatever.I'm not disagreeing – you are sadly right, but I always do my due diligence when spending any significant amount of money (say $50+) because I want the best bang for buck. Some things I just won't buy online unless they are easily returnable "in case of crap product".

[woodPixel]

This will blow you up with the opportunities.

A bit of imagination and we can now generate methane out of sunlight, water and CO2.

Production of Methane by Sunlight-Driven Photocatalytic Water Splitting and Carbon Dioxide Methanation as a Means of Artificial Photosynthesis. (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.3c00034)

CO2 concentration is getting easier. I saw a sponge-like thing only last week. Its (yet another) perovskite discovery .... it absorbs CO2 as air passes through it and its squeezed to release it.

Farmer Joe will soon be able to pull fuel from the very air using sun/water. Even the water can be pulled from the air! We seem to have the sun part covered....

[rwbuild]

Toyota in partnership with a Chinese auto company have developed an internal combustion engine that uses ammonia as the fuel, very interesting development, it cuts noxious gases by 80-90% and can be blended with other fuels depending on the application of the engine.

[doug3030]

Production of Methane by Sunlight-Driven Photocatalytic Water Splitting and Carbon Dioxide Methanation as a Means of Artificial Photosynthesis. (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.3c00034)

From the above link ...

531394

Things like this make me wonder about how good the rest of the information in the article is.

How long is "more than several months"?

Presumably, it's longer than just "several months"?

What's next?

more than nearly several months,

Almost several months,

almost more than several months,

almost more than nearly several months.

I hold no great hopes for the future of the human race. :roll:

[GraemeCook]

... Perhaps we need to think more like the Norwegians do. Highest rate of EV take-up (AFAIK), on a fast track to renewable energy (with LOADS of oil available to them) ...

Thanks, FF, I had a look at Norway's energy situation.
Electricity production - Energifakta Norge (https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftproduksjon/)

Their actual sources of electricity in 2021 were as follows:

<tbody>

Hydro
90.0
%



Wind
6.4
%



Solar
1.6
%



Thermal
2.0
%



</tbody>

Thermal production was only by industrial complexes for their own use. Major investment in additional hydro and wind was in construction.

Norway was a major exporter of electricity, so their actual production from renewables was over 100% of their usage.

Unfortunately, Australia does not have the topography or the rainfall of Norway to replicate their model.

[FenceFurniture]

Unfortunately, Australia does not have the topography or the rainfall of Norway to replicate their model.No, we just have a staggering amount of sunshine. :D

[GraemeCook]

No, we just have a staggering amount of sunshine. :D

True, but not at night.

We need lunar panels! :D

[FenceFurniture]

Yeah. We need batteries yesterday. Maybe saltwater batteries, which IIRC, are not very energy dense for their size, but have several other virtues such as scalability (and relatively cheeap IIRC). We have lots of space in our cities (thick of all those abandoned factories – blow 'em up and bring in the saltwater shipping container batteries). We really do have to start.

Plenty of articles in this search (https://www.google.com/search?q=saltwater+battery&oq=saltwater+ba&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgGEAAYgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyDQgBEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQyDQgCEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQyBwgDEC4YgAQyBggEEEUYOTIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCTEwMjgzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) to choose from.

[FenceFurniture]

Matt Ferrell talking about harvesting electricity from air....with a lot of big "ifs":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyY1PLTlmT0

[FenceFurniture]

another day, another new battery tech

I guess technically this ones old (70's), but a company wants to mass churn it out
NASA Battery Tech to Deliver for the Grid - IEEE Spectrum (https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen)hab, I had seen (and posted) the following video some months ago, but I just watched it again. If they can solve the Platinum/Palladium problem (and one guy thinks he has) then it sure sounds pretty good.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zG-ZrC4BO0

[Bushmiller]

This article commenting on the likely changing pattern of electricity consumption reflects much of what we have discussed on this thread: We should be transitioning from a market that is driven by low demand at night to one that is driven by cheap availability though the day.

Households face rethink on electricity amid these 'massive shifts' (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/10/15/electricity-energy-monash/?ahe=df367c01cfb5ffd84b418a037b7b8a99122b184b2f77914ecd0b3985af301fd5&acid=4161031&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020231016&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=)

This was a particular statement I extracted:

Even an age-old adage like putting the dishwasher on overnight faces being flipped on its head.
In a world where the grid relies more heavily on renewables, power will be cheapest and most plentiful in the middle of the day.

Strangely, the market, for the moment, is pretty much dictated by rooftop solar. We had a discussion with our traders last week and they commented that the solar farms and wind farms are pretty much shut down as the prices go negative which starts from 0600 to 0700hrs during these longer days. Rooftop solar in many locations does not have the facility to be shut down remotely: I know there are a few places, mainly where the installation is more recent, and the prerequisite smarts are installed, where this is possible, but in the main rooftop solar generates regardless.

The irony is that the solar farms in particular find there is no demand for their product at a time when they are most able to deliver. When they are most required, during the morning peak and more so again in the evening peak their ability to generate is low or nonexistent.

We are fast moving towards a situation, where in Spring and Autumn primarily, the minimum generating capacity through the day of the coal fired generators will exceed the demand even with all the renewables offline. At that point AEMO will not ask a generator to come off line, they will tell them "Come off!"

But... who do they chose? Is it the generator that has the highest minimum load? Is it the one with the fastest restart? Is it the one which will produce the least disruption to grid stability? Because come the evening peak, AEMO will want that station back online again.

A Conundrum and one that is likely to play out in about a year, give or take a few months.

:)

For the moment the market should be encouraging daytime usage and minimising nightime consumption. In fact it is a similar dilemma to worldwide food. Plenty of food is produced, but not necessarily in the right place. So it is with electricity in Oz. Plenty of it, but not always at the right time.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

We should be transitioning from a market that is driven by low demand at night to one that is driven by cheap availability though the day. Here is the evidence to back that up. Prices for me today are forecast to be down to single digits between 10:30 and 16:00. Yesterday it was mostly 5c / kWh (actual, not forecast) for that whole same period.

531476

On Saturday I used 9.1 kWh for a cost of 94c, so average price for 24 hours of 10c / kWh.

[Warb]

Rooftop solar in many locations does not have the facility to be shut down remotely: I know there are a few places, mainly where the installation is more recent, and the prerequisite smarts are installed, where this is possible, but in the main rooftop solar generates regardless.

Whilst I can see the reasoning here, the practicality is interesting;

1/ Assuming we are talking about shutting down EXPORT, rather than rooftop PV entirely, it flies in the face of the free-market economy that one person should be prevented from selling a product in order to protect the sales of another (though it wouldn't be unusual!). The variable pricing structure seems more fair - people export their power for (say) the "spot" price, and have control to stop their exports if they don't like that price (i.e. it goes negative), exactly as the commercial renewable generators can (and do!). If they have batteries they can export at night, and so forth. Encourage people to become part of the solution!

2/ Forcing people to shut down ALL domestic rooftop PV cannot (I would think) be done. But that still means that the market for power during the day is shrinking, which the commercial generators won't like.

3/ With the high retail price of power, more and more people are installing PV to offset the rising costs. This applies not only to domestic, but also to commercial enterprises. I know several small businesses that have installed rooftop PV, and even large companies like Ikea are covering their roofs with panels. This shrinks the market still further.

4/ Given a high uptake of PV, the commercial generators will (do?) struggle. But they are still needed, at the moment, for those days when there is minimal sun.

It is an interesting problem, that has been compounded (caused?) by the industry upping prices to increase their profits. Perhaps, given the technologies currently available and emerging, there needs to be a rethink? Perhaps the days of the large power companies owning the market are coming to an end, and smaller local power sharing arrangements will take over?

Another interesting thought is that we are focussing on batteries to store power. Perhaps the 80:20 rule should apply here - batteries are great for transient and short-term cover, like nighttime and single cloudy days. But for those times when there are several cloudy days in a row, perhaps we should take a leaf from the off-grid book? Maybe small generators? On average through the day my house draws around 500W of power and exports (limit) 5kW. On a good day that means I have 20kW of PV doing nothing. Even on an overcast day like today, my PV is outputting 5kW and will have charged my batteries by late morning. If I could use my spare generation capacity to create a longer-term energy store, I could then use (and share) that during a longer-term cloudy spell. It wouldn't matter if it were an inefficient (lossy) system, because it would be using my otherwise unrealised production capability. Maybe if we stopped worrying about the large commercial generators profit margins, we could build local hydrogen plants - I believe there are already petrol stations that make their own hydrogen - which together with rooftop PV and private (or community) batteries could make "big energy" irrelevant for domestic users.

Haha.