Future of the Australian Electricity Market

[FenceFurniture]

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?I should think that community Redox batteries (the saltwater shipping container type) could just about solve all those problems. The are easily scalable, by all accounts, and so to keep the commercial power producers happy and not having to pay to stay online the number of containers could be increased (or decreased) more or less at will.

Not making use of the renewable power produced on any given day is a crazy notion, to be avoided. Even forcing the commercials to pay to stay online and force -ve prices is crackers.

[Bushmiller]

Warb

I am outlining a reality for the moment.

There are mutiple factors in play with wholesale, retail, profit, viability, projected demand and grid stability all in the mix. I was pointing to the fact that with all the commercial renewables shut down (this being the result of negative wholesale pricing) the minimum fossil fired generation could be 3250MW and the demand on a mild Spring/Autumn day down to 2750MW. I am talking QLD only at this point. Firstly, because it applies to my location and secondly because it is the most extreme of the eastern states. I should also add that it would initially only occur when the interconnector to NSW (worth about 1000MW) is constrained and QLD is unable to export power to NSW.

The rooftop solar situation is both an anomaly and an irony to my mind. However, at least part of the problem must be laid at the feet of those who have implemented the rules to begin with and the failure to move with the dynamic market. They have sat back on their haunches, congratulated themselves on being such good boys and failed miserably to realise the implications of what they have implemented: No vision. I am not advocating that rooftop solar should be shut down. I was merely stating the situation that has unfolded and why.

For the moment I can see why you are aggrieved to only be allowed to export 5KW when you have up to 20KW available. However, when I was at work yesterday, between approx 0700hrs and 1600hrs (don't quote the times as it is only a guide as I was occupied doing other things and was certainly not watching the price all day) you would have had to pay AEMO 4/5c per KWhr for the privilege of generating. It was similar in all states even including Tasmania. It may be that you are not so badly off getting what could be regarded as such a miserable recompense compared to getting next to nothing.

While the thermal generators are indeed required for cloudy days, it is nowhere near as important as for the nights as the system would otherwise go "black!"

Certainly, a rethink is required, but with the market in mainly private hands, I don't see how that will happen without intervention.

Regards
Paul

PS: Hydrogen made from petrol would be worse than just consuming the petrol direct. Hydrogen is a very interesting path, for larger vehicles in particular, but as a tool to combat CO2 emissions it has to be made from a renewable source (through the day when there is an abundance/surplus of solar power?)

[Warb]

I should think that community Redox batteries (the saltwater shipping container type) could just about solve all those problems. The are easily scalable, by all accounts, and so to keep the commercial power producers happy and not having to pay to stay online the number of containers could be increased (or decreased) more or less at will.

As long as it is a long term storage facility, the technology doesn't matter. The problem with batteries, historically, is that they are an expensive proposition. I can store diesel fuel for years with minimal degradation (unlike petrol) and minimal cost, and high energy density. There's a lot of energy in 1500L of diesel, and the tank to store it costs nothing relative to the energy store. Hydrogen, on the other hand, costs much more to store, but was just an example.

The problem with batteries is very simple, and nothing to do with technology. It is simply that if "we" don't differentiate between transient storage, medium term storage and long term storage, I will guarantee that "for economic reasons" we'll use the same storage facility for transient and long term, therefore will be tempted to under provision and will then find that we run out. Then we'll declare that event to be "1 in 100 years" and not fix the problem. It is, sadly, human nature to fail to learn - whether it's the roads falling apart, building standards or anything else, we make a big noise when a "1 in 100 year" event takes place, a year later we forget about it and act surprised when 5 years later the "1 in 100 year" event happens again.......

[Bushmiller]

Not making use of the renewable power produced on any given day is a crazy notion, to be avoided. Even forcing the commercials to pay to stay online and force -ve prices is crackers.

FF

Indeed, but how else is the oversupply prevented?

Take a gander at the QLD prices over this last weekend and note how the average was in relation to max and min figures.


531496

I know you are au fait with the maths, so I don't think I have to add anything.

:wink:

Also, I should refresh memories and point out that the Callide units 3 & 4 are still offline for repairs. there would be another 500MW (min load between the two units) there as well.


Regards
Paul

[Warb]

The rooftop solar situation is both an anomaly and an irony to my mind. However, at least part of the problem must be laid at the feet of those who have implemented the rules to begin with and the failure to move with the dynamic market. They have sat back on their haunches, congratulated themselves on being such good boys and failed miserably to realise the implications of what they have implemented: No vision. I am not advocating that rooftop solar should be shut down. I was merely stating the situation that has unfolded and why.

For the moment I can see why you are aggrieved to only be allowed to export 5KW when you have up to 20KW available....

Certainly, a rethink is required, but with the market in mainly private hands, I don't see how that will happen without intervention.
PS: Hydrogen made from petrol would be worse than just consuming the petrol direct. Hydrogen is a very interesting path, for larger vehicles in particular, but as a tool to combat CO2 emissions it has to be made from a renewable source (through the day when there is an abundance/surplus of solar power?)

Rooftop PV is interesting, it is one of the few areas where the power (no pun intended) to be self-sufficient has actually become a reality, and hasn't it caused a problem (real or imagined!). Normally the process goes the other way, products are taken by big business and we are prevented (either by law or cost) from doing it ourselves. I could build a car, but I wouldn't be allowed to use it on the road!

FWIW, my annoyance with the 5kW limit isn't financial, I'd happily export my excess power for free. My annoyance is that the system is so broken (AKA lack of vision and planning) that I am wasting power whilst other consumers are being charged 55c/kWh!

I believe, though it was some time ago that I read about it, that the hydrogen "petrol station" concept was to use PV to extract hydrogen from water, and that approach was certainly what I was thinking.

[FenceFurniture]

Indeed, but how else is the oversupply prevented?I wasn't clear enough: send the commercially generated sparks to the batteries too (yes, I know that means a lot of batteries, but that's what we need anyway).

I don't suggest to have thought that bubble through fully, and nor am I equipped with industry knowledge to do so. I just think we should post-haste get community batteries happening to make use of the sunshine sparks, and to also provide for people who can't have solar panels due to renting, asbestos roof, too much shade etc. The $15,000,000,000 (?) being spent on Hydro 2.0 would produce an awful lot of redox batteries, and probably in less time. Then there's the "surprise" budget surplus of $20Bill that could be invested in our future.

[Warb]

It seems to me that most, if not all, of our problems are caused by the need to support the profits of our existing commercial suppliers, who are in turn holding the "keep paying us or we'll pull the plug" card. I'm not sure how we get out of that! We've dug ourselves a big hole, boys!

[FenceFurniture]

As long as it is a long term storage facility, the technology doesn't matter. Redox batteries have a lifespan of 25 years, IIRC (in the following vid). I forget how many cycles they can achieve, but it's quite a few.

Reposting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm2hNNA4lvM

[FenceFurniture]

It seems to me that most, if not all, of our problems are caused by the need to support the profits of our existing commercial suppliers, who are in turn holding the "keep paying us or we'll pull the plug" card. I'm not sure how we get out of that! We've dug ourselves a big hole, boys!Yes, every day is bi-polar: we need them at night but not during the day, so they have to be medicated during the day or they get spiteful. :D

[Bushmiller]

I believe, though it was some time ago that I read about it, that the hydrogen "petrol station" concept was to use PV to extract hydrogen from water, and that approach was certainly what I was thinking.

Warb

I may have misunderstood your direction there in your earlier post. My apologies.

Electrolysis is used to separate the hydrogen out of water and that process is achieved with electricity. The concept of a petrol station using solar power to produce hydrogen is interesting, but I can't see them doing that. At a previous power station (Bayswater) we made our own hydrogen, for use in the generator cooling system and indeed supplied Liddell too, but we used our fossil sourced power.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

Electrolysis is used to separate the hydrogen out of water and that process is achieved with electricity.

It's an interesting area. I read about it some time ago in relation to Toyota's hydrogen powered car, though I recall it was more centred on Europe than Australia. Still, various groups are looking at it, and as a circular system (solar splits H2O, H2 "burns" back to H2O) it is about as green as you can get - as long as the component parts can be made without negative impacts!

This is from last year:

Out of thin air: new solar-powered invention creates hydrogen fuel from the atmosphere | Hydrogen power | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/07/out-of-thin-air-new-solar-powered-invention-creates-hydrogen-fuel-from-the-atmosphere)

[Bushmiller]

It's an interesting area. I read about it some time ago in relation to Toyota's hydrogen powered car, though I recall it was more centred on Europe than Australia. Still, various groups are looking at it, and as a circular system (solar splits H2O, H2 "burns" back to H2O) it is about as green as you can get - as long as the component parts can be made without negative impacts!

This is from last year:

Out of thin air: new solar-powered invention creates hydrogen fuel from the atmosphere | Hydrogen power | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/07/out-of-thin-air-new-solar-powered-invention-creates-hydrogen-fuel-from-the-atmosphere)

Thanks for the link Warb.

I took two items from that in particular:

“Hydrogen is the ultimate clean energy … as long as you have renewable sources of energy to electrolyse the water,” Li said.

This article was amended on 14 September 2022 to make clear that hydrogen produces only water as a byproduct when used in fuel cells. When burned in air it also produces nitrogen oxides.

The first is conditional and the second cautionary.

A good option that warrants more research for the likes of trucks, trains, boats etc. where there is more space available.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

A good option that warrants more research for the likes of trucks, trains, boats etc. where there is more space available.

I was more considering it as a long term energy storage system for domestic or community generators, based on production from excess PV. But for vehicles, did you know you can (in theory, at least) buy one? In fact there are/were at least two companies marketing them.

Mirai 2023 | Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle | Toyota AU (https://www.toyota.com.au/mirai)

I briefly looked at them (on the web, not in person!) when we moved to the Canberra area, because there is or was a hydrogen "petrol station" in Fyshwick, to fuel the massive fleet (20 vehicles!) of hydrogen powered Hyundai's that the ACT government was buying. It is/was a trial system, but I recall it being available to private car owners "by arrangement".....

[Bushmiller]

I was more considering it as a long term energy storage system for domestic or community generators, based on production from excess PV. But for vehicles, did you know you can (in theory, at least) buy one? In fact there are/were at least two companies marketing them.

Mirai 2023 | Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle | Toyota AU (https://www.toyota.com.au/mirai)

I briefly looked at them (on the web, not in person!) when we moved to the Canberra area, because there is or was a hydrogen "petrol station" in Fyshwick, to fuel the massive fleet (20 vehicles!) of hydrogen powered Hyundai's that the ACT government was buying. It is/was a trial system, but I recall it being available to private car owners "by arrangement".....

Warb

Our son is in Norway. They have had H2 vehicles on the road for some while. Also, after 2025 the Norwegians will only be able to buy new cars that are electric (I think the H2 is for larger commercial vehicles).

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

Also, after 2025 the Norwegians will only be able to buy new cars that are electric (I think the H2 is for larger commercial vehicles).

Norway is a small country with lots of green electricity, so EV's are an excellent fit! Australia is a much larger country, with (at the moment) far less green energy. Over here, EV's are a great fit in cities, especially as you can hire a vehicle if you have the need for an occasional long drive, but they still suffer from the emissions issue that they are being charged from fossil fuel (this will change with time). For those living in rural areas they are still not 100% suitable - the 600km round trip to Sydney and back is beyond the comfortable range of most EV's, and a "quick charge" (assuming a charging station is appropriately located and available) makes it a long day. This will all change, but we need more renewables and more charging points! Australia will get there, and I suspect my wife's next car (now we live only 30minutes from a city) may well be an EV.

[GraemeCook]

... - the 600km round trip to Sydney and back is beyond the comfortable range of most EV's ...

It is also beyond the range of most ICE cars, too, but we are used to pumping petrol in five minutes. There used to be four times as many servos as there now are, but we have adapted and still cope.
Post fuel: Australian service station of the not-too-distant-future (https://www.conducthq.com/journal/post-fuel-the-australian-service-station-of-the-not-too-distant-future/)

It can be as short as 20 minutes to recharge an electric car with an ultrafast charger. I think we will learn to recharge during business appointments and lunch breaks, etc, and then wonder why we ever worried about such details.


EDIT: Typos

[FenceFurniture]

I think we will learn to recharge during business appointments and lunch breaks, etc, and then wonder why we ever worried about such details.Agreed Graeme, and charging times will come now very soon: as soon as next year there will be new chemistries that will take about 10 minutes, IIRC.

[Bohdan]

Forget the chemistry, to recharge a 60 kWh battery in 10 minutes would require a charger capable of delivering 360kW.

If the charge station has six chargers then the cables to the station have to handle 2.16MW and if it is a 230v mains that amounts to approx 9400 amps.

I can't see it in the conceivable future becoming commonplace as the existing grid can't handle that sort of load increase.

[FenceFurniture]

I should never trust my memory for stats: here (https://thedriven.io/2023/05/24/breakthrough-ev-battery-pack-could-last-2-million-kms-or-130-years-of-average-driving/) it's saying the LMFP chemistry is 18 minutes fast charge (not sure to what %). So while the battery may be capable of that, as Bohdan says, the infrastructure has to be able to deliver too.

[Warb]

It is also beyond the range of most ICE cars, too, but we are used to pumping petrol in five minutes. There used to be four times as many servos as there now are, but we have adapted and still cope.

I have two vehicles, my farm ute (diesel) and my Golf that I bought because my ute won't go in Canberra carparks. Both will do 600km on a tank without effort, both will fill up in a couple of minutes, and I can't remember the last time I wait to wait for a pump. There may be fewer servos, but I'm guessing the number of pumps has probably increased - mom and pop single pump stations replaced by >10pump gas stations. The same applies to grocery stores!


It can be as short as 20 minutes to recharge an electric car with an untrafast charger. I think we will learn to recharge during business appointments and lunch breaks, etc, and then wonder why we ever worried about such details.

Assuming that every carparking space has a charger, then yes I agree. On the other hand, if you have 30minutes for lunch, and have to get to your car, drive to a charger (hoping it's available!), charge, pay and get back to the office, maybe it's not as easy as it sounds. Worse still when the b*stard at the charger is in a meeting, or having lunch, and ties the charger up for an hour!

Don't get me wrong, it will happen. But we are glossing over the problems, because they're not yet problems (and because early adopters are always very keen to extol the positives and play down the negatives!).

Most people will want to recharge at home, overnight. Solar power is no good for that. The fast charger systems may be able to recharge the vehicle quickly, but will the grid survive? If you look at a city service station and see how many cars go through, then slow that down to 10 minutes per car and total up the power draw for however many cars are charging at the same time, I don't think it will work!

The sensible approach is that every parking spot, whether private or public, has a trickle charger. Most people will never need anything more than that, as long as they plug in every time. Fast chargers should only be required on freeways (and other long distance routes).

[doug3030]

Forget the chemistry, to recharge a 60 kWh battery in 10 minutes would require a charger capable of delivering 360kW.

If the charge station has six chargers then the cables to the station have to handle 2.16MW and if it is a 230v mains that amounts to approx 9400 amps.

I can't see it in the conceivable future becoming commonplace as the existing grid can't handle that sort of load increase.

Exactly. Just thinking about a major fuel station on a major highway; six chargers would not be anywhere near enough for the number of vehicles needing to recharge. Try 12 to 15 chargers and you are looking at 5MW. There's a hell of a lot of infrastructure needed before running EV's on the highways becomes mainstream in Australia.

[Bushmiller]

Some information for the three levels of charging that are generally (but not plentifully) available in Australia. The third level is the so-called fast charging and ultra fast charging which can be anything from 50KW/hr to 350KW/hr and will require a three phase source converted to DC.

EV Charging explained: Home and public charging, power levels and plugs (whichcar.com.au) (https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/ev-charging-guide-home)

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

Some information for the three levels of charging that are generally (but not plentifully) available in Australia. The third level is the so-called fast charging and ultra fast charging which can be anything from 50KW/hr to 350KW/hr and will require a three phase source converted to DC.

EV Charging explained: Home and public charging, power levels and plugs (whichcar.com.au) (https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/ev-charging-guide-home)

Regards
Paul

An interesting read, especially the included link to "how long do batteries last". If, as stated in that article, you shouldn't charge to more than 80%, or discharge to less than 10%, and the slowest rate of charging is best for battery life, how does this impact range? Are the manufacturers quoted ranges based on 100% to 0%, or 80% to 10%? And just how quickly does ultra-fast DC charging degrade batteries?

[FenceFurniture]

An interesting read, especially the included link to "how long do batteries last". If, as stated in that article, you shouldn't charge to more than 80%, or discharge to less than 10%, and the slowest rate of charging is best for battery life, how does this impact range? Are the manufacturers quoted ranges based on 100% to 0%, or 80% to 10%? And just how quickly does ultra-fast DC charging degrade batteries?Those numbers are the same for all Li-Ion batteries (phones, tools etc). and they are built into the batteries to happen automatically. With my phone I try to recharge when it falls below 30%. When it says it's 100% it is referring to "usable" capacity, the stated range should be accurate unless they are telling porkies.

If you exclusively fast charge any battery it will not yield as many cycles as trickle charging, so again referring to my phone, I only fast charge it when I need juice quickly, which is not often. Apart from anything else it keeps the battery cooler during charging. Extrapolating that out to vehicles, fast charging should be reserved for road trips where possible, and always trickle charge when time is on your side.

Fast charge and discharge, and the resultant heat is to be avoided for any Li-Ion battery. This is yet another reason why other chemistries and solid state batteries are being pursued.

[Warb]

Those numbers are the same for all Li-Ion batteries (phones, tools etc). and they are built into the batteries to happen automatically. With my phone I try to recharge when it falls below 30%. When it says it's 100% it is referring to "usable" capacity, the stated range should be accurate unless they are telling porkies.

I understand the adjustment for battery degradation, I was more thinking about the fact that using an EV to it full quoted range (i.e. charging to 100% and then driving until "flat") is detrimental to its battery life. So for maximum battery life you need to subtract 30% from the stated range, to allow for 10% minimum charge and the 20% "avoid charging above 80%" advice?

Do EV's manage their charging to stop at 80%? I know my iPhone (according to the marketing) manages its charging to only charge the last 20% just before it thinks I'll need it, based on my historical usage.

[FenceFurniture]

Do EV's manage their charging to stop at 80%? I know my iPhone (according to the marketing) manages its charging to only charge the last 20% just before it thinks I'll need it, based on my historical usage.AFAIK, and I'll stand corrected, all Li-Ion batteries only ever charge to 80%, but show that they are 100% charged, which I regard as the "usable" charge. So for you phone I suspect it's only charging to actual 60% mostly, but adding on the last 20% to go to 80% when it thinks you'll need it.

So the usable range is 10-80%, and I believe that that 70% is displayed as 100% of usable sparks.

[Warb]

AFAIK, and I'll stand corrected, all Li-Ion batteries only ever charge to 80%, but show that they are 100% charged, which I regard as the "usable" charge. So for you phone I suspect it's only charging to actual 60% mostly, but adding on the last 20% to go to 80% when it thinks you'll need it.

So the usable range is 10-80%, and I believe that that 70% is displayed as 100% of usable sparks.

So, when the iPhone tells me (in the battery health section) that maximum capacity is "98% of new", that's 98% of the 80% that it originally told me was 100%? Oh what a tangled web...... :wink:

[FenceFurniture]

I think so.

[FenceFurniture]

So, when the iPhone tells me (in the battery health section) that maximum capacity is "98% of new", that's 98% of the 80% that it originally told me was 100%? Oh what a tangled web...... :wink:They have to do it that way really. Imagine if they used the actual numbers:
"Why will my phone not charge above 80%?"
"Why does my phone keep turning itself off when there is still 10% of battery left?"

Rinse and repeat over 100s of millions of users.

[Warb]

They have to do it that way really. Imagine if they used the actual numbers:
"Why will my phone not charge above 80%?"
"Why does my phone keep turning itself off when there is still 10% of battery left?"

Rinse and repeat over 100s of millions of users.

I agree, if that's what they're doing. But if it is what they're doing, why bother also doing the "stop charging at 80% until the last minute" thing on the iPhone? And why does the EV battery link tell us to avoid charging above 80%? If the safety limit (for want of a better phrase) is 80% of "real", why further reduce that by another 20%? Is the suggestion that charging above 60%odd "real" degrades battery life?

[FenceFurniture]

:shrug:

[doug3030]

I agree, if that's what they're doing. But if it is what they're doing, why bother also doing the "stop charging at 80% until the last minute" thing on the iPhone? And why does the EV battery link tell us to avoid charging above 80%? If the safety limit (for want of a better phrase) is 80% of "real", why further reduce that by another 20%? Is the suggestion that charging above 60%odd "real" degrades battery life?

What bothers me is all these "round" numbers: 80%, 10%, 60%.

Everything on these EV's is engineered down to several decimal points, but they expect us to believe that a round 80% is the optimum charge for the batteries and discharging them below a round 10% will damage them.

And from the discussion here about if 100% is really only 80% or not, the whole battery thing seems to be made deliberately confusing by the manufacturers.

I have a bank of auxiliary batteries in the back of my ute for camping. I have a sensor on the batteries that bluetooths to my phone, telling me stats about my battery bank to two decimal places yet with a high tech EV we can't tell if 100% is really 100% or just 80%. :rolleyes:

[Warb]

I've just looked back through my LiPo notes from my electric RC car days (slightly different battery, but I'm guessing the graph would be similar for both). There is quite a fine line between charging voltage, capacity and lifetime.

531553

I guess the nice round numbers are because the manufacturer can simply choose a point on the graph that gives enough "life" to cover the warranty, and enough power to give the vehicle a suitable range. Clearly Barney Stinson doesn't work for them, otherwise it would be 83%....

[doug3030]

I guess the nice round numbers are because the manufacturer can simply choose a point on the graph that gives enough "life" to cover the warranty, and enough power to give the vehicle a suitable range. Clearly Barney Stinson doesn't work for them, otherwise it would be 83%....

With several brands competing in a market, all trying to make out that THEIR product is the one to buy, it's a wonder it isn't 83.17649% :roll:

[FenceFurniture]

Warm winter sees wholesale energy prices fall sharply, as demand for electricity hit record lows - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-19/wholesale-power-price-plunge-thanks-to-warm-winter/102993954)

[Bushmiller]

FF

Thanks for that link. I thought this was pertinent:

The regulator said while the growing influence of cheap renewable solar and wind power on the grid is welcome, the transition still isn't occurring quickly enough.
"Overall, the rate of new entry into the market is not in line with what the market needs to transition," it said.
"In Victoria, for example, no new capacity has entered the market since April."

However, there was still no mention of the need to store electricity! As I keep mentioning, without a realistic storage system we are not solving the problem. In fact, more renewables at the moment would be close to useless.Solar farms are likely to be shut down for most of the day and they don't work at night. I would not be proposing any new solar farms for the moment and if they are doing their homework I don't think there will be too many coming online.

The trend at the moment, with mild Spring weather, is for the wholesale price to go negative by 0800hrs and remain there until about 1600hrs. This means that the most opportune time for a solar farm to generate is removed. There is the occasional spike:



531557

I wasn't at work to witness the spike on Monday, but they typically last for 5 minutes. It still makes a big difference. However, generally I would fully expect that the solar farms are losing money right now and I am not surprised to hear no new solar farms have come online since April in Victoria as pointed out in the linked article. If they had, I would be questioning their diligence.

Of course, the issue is that the low prices are not flowing on to the retail sector. It is a little like the banks being fast to pass on rate rises, but slow to pass on the decreases. The retailers will say that contracts are in place I suppose. The retailers screamed when prices did not go their way. What are they saying right now? Perhaps they are down the pub celebrating.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

And in the mean time my Amber Wholesale prices continue to be about 18% lower than Origin Mate's, and 36% lower than Origin Idiot's rates. (total costs shown)


531564

[GraemeCook]

With several brands competing in a market, all trying to make out that THEIR product is the one to buy, it's a wonder it isn't 83.17649% :roll:

Ah, the illusion of precision!

In a former life as an economist I had many pointless discussions with econometricians, aka "quants", who would make broad brush assumptions and then calculate the results to three decimal places - or six if Doug calculated to five places! Usually, their precision was dependent on their having next quarters economic indicators - as likely as having next week's horse race results.

In your previous career, Doug, presumably you were counselled to never expect your work to be more precise than it was. "Know thy weaknesses ... before the enemy does"

[doug3030]

In your previous career, Doug, presumably you were counselled to never expect your work to be more precise than it was.

No, but I learned not to expect anyone to believe it was as good as it invariably was. :wink:

[Bushmiller]

If the Snowy 2.0 rows your boat, the Four Corners programme this coming Monday (and probably on Iview subsequently) may be of interest.

Tunnel Vision: The nation-building project that went horribly wrong - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-19/tunnel-vision:-the-nation-building-project-that/102995830)

A cost blowout of 600%, a stuck tunnel boring machine 150m into a 15Km tunnel and a projected completion date not before 2028 are some of the issues likely to be dissected.

Regards
Paul

[NeilS]

If the Snowy 2.0 rows your boat, the Four Corners programme this coming Monday (and probably on Iview subsequently) may be of interest.

Tunnel Vision: The nation-building project that went horribly wrong - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-19/tunnel-vision:-the-nation-building-project-that/102995830)



My impression at the time was.... yet another hastily cobbled together election headline grabber. I liked the direction but questioned the merits of spending the original estimated cost on that project rather on other well thought through and planned infrastructure, like the national grid.

Without looking at the programme, my thinking now is that it is far too early to say if the updated estimated $12bn will be a good investment. Some projects need the benefit of very long time horizons before they can be properly assessed. Two come to mind.

The Sydney Opera House opened 50yrs ago this week. The cost, value and time to build it was widely derided during my youth in NSW. In retrospect it has turned out to be not only NSW's, but also Australia's, best investments, IMO.

The other contentious 'investment' that comes to mind also goes back exactly 50yrs this year when Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles was purchased for $1.3m with taxpayers' money. I was in the art world at the time and got some of the brunt of the outrage against the spending of public money on something that a 'monkey could do'. I though at the time we were very fortunate to be able to acquire it, let alone afford it. Its art value may still be contentious for some, but in monetary terms that $1.3m ($11.3m in today's A$) is now valued at $500. In retrospect a good investment.

So, whether Snowy 2.0 itself will be a good investment is probably too soon to tell, but whether the money would have been better spent at this key time in the transition away from FFs is another matter.

[Bushmiller]

My impression at the time was.... yet another hastily cobbled together election headline grabber. I liked the direction but questioned the merits of spending the original estimated cost on that project rather on other well thought through and planned infrastructure, like the national grid.



Neil

The concept of pumped hydro power is, to my mind, one of the best stored energy sources, although economics and the effect on the ecology need to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, not all the dams and generators in Snowy 2.0 have pumped capability and I feel it is less able to provide stored energy than we have been led to believe.

However, I will be interested to see the programme as it seems to me that the desire to provide this facility may have clouded judgement or, if I was being more cynical, it was the result of a political grab. Having said that, it is a shame as it seems to be the only instance where the government of the day has made an attempt to intervene and actively support electricity storage. For the moment, it appears to be as ill-fated as the Inland Rail project. Hopefully, something can be extracted from the debacle.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

A little information of where renewables are going and their penetration of the market. A few records were broken, but as usual it is a little sketchy. It focuses on how good the renewables are during the day, but not very much mention of how they are going to cope at night and during the evening peak. Ironically, the controversial issue of daylight saving does help a little as far as electricity demand is concerned as it spreads out the evening high demand period.

Fresh records for renewables but fears linger for bills (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/fresh-records-for-renewables-but-fears-linger-for-bills/ar-AA1iEHwK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5582c6c9a38b4d03b3a6cae54ec24e97&ei=22)

It is certainly a good time for those with retailer alternatives to hunt around for better deals. Having said that, The air conditioners will be taking a hammering with temperatures in my area around 35° today and tomorrow and 36° forecast for Wed.

Also a reminder to take a peek at Four Corners this evening (Tunnel Vision on ABC @ 2030hrs) to see whether the Snowy project is still stuck in the tunnel and/or "synched" without trace :rolleyes:.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

Been waiting for your response to the Four Corners program, Paul. I thought it was a little disjointed - possibly the old "commercial-in-confidence" wall or silence and/or the journalist's work had been edited by the ABC lawyers.

Some things not mentioned or glossed over.

COSTS: Mentioned that the original estimate of $2 billion had grown to $12 billion. No mention of viability at either cost. But in over 2019 contracts of $5.7 billion were issued - over four years ago! Not new news?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjAze-4w42CAxVqa2wGHeDADccQFnoECDkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.felix.net%2Fproject-news%2Fcontractors-appointed-to-deliver-works-on-snowy-2.0&usg=AOvVaw2NTUJl_TJe0FFjr30lLGi_&opi=89978449

Lead contractors were a joint venture between Clough Engineering of Perth and Santini Impregilo of Italy. Clough went broke a year ago and Santini, who had changed their name to "Webuild Spa", bought the wreckage. There must have been legal and personnel disruptions in the fall out.

Contractor names: I do not recall mention of the contractor's names, merely "the best tunnelers in the world". Not sure if they were being satirical or if it was on legal advice.

Tunneling machines: Early it mentions three tunneling machines, but the focusses soley on Florence which has been perpetually bogged. Presumably the other two machines are busy boring away at 1-2 metres per hour?

Geoligical risks: Four Corners said the contractors were doing insufficient pre-drilling and ignoring risks; management says they were managing those risks .... Who is right?

This gung ho approach is the subject of a classic business school skit referenced as the John Wayne school of management, as in this military example:

We have a problem, Sir.
CHARGE!
Which way, Sir?
You heard the order, CHARGE.

Will be interesting to watch the political and business reaction.

[Bushmiller]

Graeme

I was waiting for everybody else to chime in as I didn't wish to lead the viewers! :)

I thought the programme was a little light on and really, as you say, only focused on the "Florence" flop, which does not appear to have been resolved even now. I too thought there were two other tunnels being drilled simultaneously.

I was a little disappointed that the succession of dams was not discussed as that I feel is more pertinent to the success or failure of the project. That is unless you factor in the cost, which for the moment looks as though it would be a non starter if the project had not already started. I felt Mr. Turnbull ducked and weaved with aplomb. Mr. Morrison likewise looked as though he might have had the politician's handbook of photo ops in his back pocket. I had to go and get a fairly stiff drink at that point so I could continue watching. So I hope I didn't miss too much.

The new CEO cannot really be blamed for the failures so far, other than he must have known what he was getting in to. I felt he conceded enough past failures to be plausible, but not enough to instill confidence. Unless something really changes regarding performance of contractors and catch up on progress, it looks to be the proverbial goat propagation.

That's a shame as it is the only government effort towards renewables. One other thing I found surprising was the various statements that batteries are now so good we should not really be countenancing hydro storage. True to say Hydro is good when the topography lends itself easily to the project, but not when mountains have to be moved. Batteries on the other hand would be good, if they put enough in place. That has not be done so far: Not even close.

Lastly, comments about long term storage seemed a little out of place as really it is the short term storage that is more urgent for the moment from day to night: Every day.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

When presented with a stuff up as huge as the tunnel boring machine debacle, a lot of the low level stuff ups (some of which I witnessed first hand) pale into insignificance...

Many years ago I quoted them for a fibre optic temperature measurement system (Distributed Temperature Sensing, or DTS) to be installed on the HV cables, but at the rate they are going I'll be retired long before they ever get to that phase of the project :(

[GraemeCook]

I held off, too, Paul, as I didn't want to lead the debate ... We are basically singing from the same song book.

Agree about batteries. No where near commercially cost effective.

Also was puzzled about reference to long term storage. Pumped hydro only needs to tide you over until the next sunny or windy day. Guess it was just loose journalism.

Costs: $2 or 12 billion - wonder if any credibility in either number? If Snowy 2 is commercially viable at $12 billion capital cost, then it must have been hyper-profitable at $2 b. Why weren't there a queue of commercial developers?

But is commercial viability even relevant now? Roads are not commercially viable! But essential. Would love to see the calculations being done in Treasury about the possible economic costs of the instability in the electricity network, and modelling possible scenarios from the participants:

coal burning generator may decide that they will only accept a take or pay contract for entire capacity, or decomission their plant - no spot sales,
solar or wind generator may decide it is more profitable to mine cryptocurrency than to sell into the grid.

[NeilS]

My threepence worth...

I watched the program and I now know more about Florence.

As suspected, it confirmed for me that there was insufficient project feasibility and planning before approval to proceed.

The potential risks were known but not given sufficient weight. The incentives to proceed were as much political as economic. I put that down to the ownership and political incentives to have a large flagship renewable project underway.

Snowy Hydro has always been a government venture. First by the Comm Gov, then owned by NSW & Vic, and now fully owned again by the Comm government. It may have been, is, or will be profitable in the future, but it has never been a commercial venture. Like Australia Post, the execs in Snowy Hydro may think they are running a fully commercial venture, but they make decisions with a large government safety net suspended below them. Snowy 2.0 wasn't a fully commercial decision.

Other than the grid expert expressing his views about batteries being a better option, alternative storage solutions to Snowy 2.0 were understandably beyond the scope of the 1hr programme.

Large infrastructure project very rarely come in on budget and on time. So, nothing new there. The optimists usually prevail over the pessimists in the planning stage.

As governments are either the primary or joint partnership investors in most large infrastructure projects the need for an early return, other than political, is not the same as it is in the commercial world. Whether there will ever be a Return on Investment (ROI) for the Australian taxpayers with Snowy 2.0 may not be known in my lifetime, but it would be good if it could at least start to contribute to digging us out of our energy storage hole some time soon, although digging Florence out of her current hole doesn't give one a lot of hope there.

[Bushmiller]

Mr. B, Graeme and Neil, you have all made very pertinent points.

There is indeed a time when necessity outweighs (I can't bring myself to use the word "trumps" :rolleyes:) economic viability and only a government can step in with this in a competitive market.

This is an interesting article from back in 2019 and interestingly some of their forecasts at the time have come to bear and were even conservative predictions of gloom.

Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-0-will-not-produce-nearly-as-much-electricity-as-claimed-we-must-hit-the-pause-button-84279/)

Towards the end of the article, it investigates the claims of what the system would supposedly deliver. It may well be less than half of the 2000MW originally touted. The claim is based on idealistic dam levels that are not possible in practice and ignores the draw from other stations in the original Snowy system. It was once again a gross lie for political purposes.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Just on a slightly different tack I was called into work yesterday and an interesting situation had developed because of the local bushfires. The transmission line out of a substation for one of our two units was under threat from the fires and if it came out of service one of our units would have tripped as there would have been nowhere for the power to go. Fortunately, for both us and the system in general, the wind changed or died down and the fire became more controllable. AEMO removed their alert notice and life continued as normal (mild chaos and occasional panic).

One of the fires itself is only about 15 to 20kms out from Millmerran. On Sunday the choppers came in and sucked the water out of the local swimming pool. No small children were lost in this process as everybody was told to go home and the pool was closed to the public. I am told they didn't go home and they watched this fascinating procedure from outside the railings. I would have watched too if I had known what was going on. I did see all the choppers going over not realising where they got the water from.

Farm dams are often used for this purpose, but it has been extremely dry this way of late and dam levels are probably low. The original pool was rebuilt recently and has been open less than a month.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

It was once again a gross lie for political purposes.

I'm quite certain that the overall view was "optimistic" for political reasons. But the difficulty with that is that these things don't go away and tend to come back to haunt people. Politicians know this, so whilst they may be "optimistic", they don't normally go too overboard if they don't genuinely believe the project will work - they have at least some grasp of the future ramifications of having their name on an utter failure.

For most of my adult life I would have made the above statement, based simply on common sense and logic (yes, I realise neither hold much sway in politics!). However..... after I retired and we moved to the Canberra area, my wife got herself a job in the public service. She's not involved in the energy sector, but her job does involve planning, dealing with contract companies, designing and reviewing policies and the like. And it's frightening. Having been quite a high ranking executive 20 years ago, and then running her own business for 20 years, she's finding it hard going, because "they" are completely detached from reality. Obviously I can't go into details, but decisions are made based on nothing, and statistics are regarded as gospel for decision-making purposes, yet when questioned they are seemingly baseless - nobody knows where the number came from - it's like Barney Stinson - the answer is 83%!!

So now, whilst my statement would remain the same, the reasoning has changed. I now believe that the public service is largely incompetent, and the information it deals with is either incorrect, meaningless, or a distillation of the two designed to provide the person above with what they want to hear. I now feel (a bit) sorry for politicians, because if they ask for information and are supplied with what somebody thinks they want to hear, how can they possibly get things right?

Edit: I also believe (know, from experience) that when outside contractors are used, the contract details are often far below what is realistic because once a company has got the contract it can delay, increase prices etc. to its hearts content. Contract companies almost never get penalised, pressured or suffer any other "punishment" for doing this! Combined with the inability of the public service to come up with accurate real-world information and estimates, it's a massive problem.

I'd also note that it seems to me that public servants don't seem to care much about outcomes or spends. I suspect this is because at the end of the day there is NEVER a downside for them. In the private sector, when the company loses money questions are asked and somebody suffers (whether reputation or financial). In the public sector they just go on to the next project....

[GraemeCook]

... And it's frightening. Having been quite a high ranking executive 20 years ago, and then running her own business for 20 years, she's finding it hard going, because "they" are completely detached from reality. ...

Years ago this dicotomy was identified as Canberra and "the real world".

The "real world" starts at Queanbeyan.

Nothing is as terrifying as a second generation Canberran.

(My contribution) ... now we have third generation Canberrans.

[Bushmiller]

Edit: I also believe (know, from experience) that when outside contractors are used, the contract details are often far below what is realistic because once a company has got the contract it can delay, increase prices etc. to its hearts content. Contract companies almost never get penalised, pressured or suffer any other "punishment" for doing this! Combined with the inability of the public service to come up with accurate real-world information and estimates, it's a massive problem.

I'd also note that it seems to me that public servants don't seem to care much about outcomes or spends. I suspect this is because at the end of the day there is NEVER a downside for them. In the private sector, when the company loses money questions are asked and somebody suffers (whether reputation or financial). In the public sector they just go on to the next project....

Warb

In our industry we call those subsequent changes in price "variances" and I think frequently that is where contractors make their money. They bid low to gain the contract and charge high when alterations are made to the original specs.

As far as accountability is concerned, it is just not at the same level as within the private sector.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

I've worked on some power cable projects where a fairly incompetent contractor submitted a low-ball, tender-winning price (largely because they didn't really understand the scope of work and price it accordingly), then proceeded to submit variations like you wouldn't believe to try and make up the difference. Did the customer (power utility) ever sit down at the end of the project and add up the total they ended up paying? No, that would have involved large helpings of egg on face for all concerned.....:rolleyes:

[FenceFurniture]

I haven't seen 4 Corners yet (been away). It seems to me that Turnbull 2.0 wasn't much cop at his nation-building projects. The NBN and SH 2.0 are both way over budget, late, and probably far less effective than they could have been. For the former (NBN) I don't know if he was put under control by his superiors, but it's hard to see that he was not controlled. He was certainly compromised, particularly as PM.

For the latter, I think his heart was in the right place, but it seems to have been highly politically motivated to try and nostalgically reinvigorate the nation-building exercise of the 1950s. However, those times were completely different and all the planets lined up beautifully. The war was over, we needed skilled people and increased population (to eat all that wheat and wear all that wool), and we needed electrical power to crush said wheat and mill the wool.

And yet Turnbull was probably the smartest PM we've had since Rudd The not-so-fat Controller right up to Albo. That should be pause for thought regarding the Aukus project, and how that could go awry.



I had dinner on Monday with someone who works for Defence in a planning role of some kind. A fairly aware person, but she is hell-bent on nuclear power being the right fit for Australia. "What about the waste problem?" I asked her. "It's a big country." was her solution. I didn't bring up what First Nations people might think of that, confident in the knowledge that it would be dismissed. She glossed over the shortest start-up time-frame of 10 years, and the staggering cost. Apparently Voldemort's Koolaid is pretty sweet nectar, and she's chugging it down.

This, by the way, was just one or two streets away from Morrison, in Lilli Pilli, and the conversation was on the balcony while we drank in the expansive water views.

[Mr Brush]

I thought Malcolm came across on the 4 Corners prog as very sheepish and defensive - if in doubt, deflect, deflect, deflect.

Felt sorry for the current project manager guy from Snowy Hydro who has basically inherited most of the mess from his predecessors, but at least was prepared to face the cameras and respond as best he could.

[Bushmiller]

I was recently made aware that there are two pumped hydro storage facilities under consideration in QLD. I'm not quite sure why I was unaware of these projects so shame on me for that.

Firstly at Borumba in the Sunshine Coast hinterland:

Borumba Pumped Hydro Project | Queensland Hydro (qldhydro.com.au) (https://qldhydro.com.au/projects/borumba/)

and secondly at Pioneer Burdekin 75 Km west of Mackay.

Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project | Queensland Hydro (qldhydro.com.au) (https://qldhydro.com.au/projects/pioneer-burdekin/)

The second project is at a very early stage.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

I thought this one was laughable. To my mind it is only a group of politicians who are pushing for nuclear power and it seems that in itself is just a diversion to take the heat off the fossil fuel industry while at the same time supposedly offering an alternative to solar and wind: It is a delaying tactic.

Poll shows public support for ‘green energy fantasy’ declines as push for nuclear rises (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/poll-shows-public-support-for-green-energy-fantasy-declines-as-push-for-nuclear-rises/ar-AA1j8TW9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=98389857f0f94954910ee0d025fb0399&ei=48)

Recently there has been huge opposition, by the local public in Newcastle, to the proposal for offshore wind farms. If there is objection to wind turbines 20Km out to sea, I am wondering how receptive they will be to a nuke in their backyard.

Wake up!

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I thought this one was laughable.
Poll shows public support for ‘green energy fantasy’ declines as push for nuclear rises (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/poll-shows-public-support-for-green-energy-fantasy-declines-as-push-for-nuclear-rises/ar-AA1j8TW9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=98389857f0f94954910ee0d025fb0399&ei=48)Can't get it to play, but now that I see who the "reporter" (distorter?) is...I think I'll take your word for it.

[Warb]

Recently there has been huge opposition, by the local public in Newcastle, to the proposal for offshore wind farms. If there is objection to wind turbines 20Km out to sea, I am wondering how receptive they will be to a nuke in their backyard.

Assuming for a moment that the survey is genuine and random, not the result of asking people with shares in "Reactors R Us"..

It's par for the course that people support things "in principle", but don't want to be directly impacted. The more directly people are (or suspect they might be) impacted by things, the less likely they are to support them. Wind farms have great support amongst people who stand zero chance of having one built in their backyard, far less support from those who will have to watch them go around every day. Except, of course, from those who own rural land and will gain income from the leases but don't actually see them, I know this from experience. At my previous property I saw the range of reactions to a proposed windfarm, from massively positive from people who would have turbines on their land but not where they were in view of the homestead (or where the landowners lived somewhere else), through to pulling out of a farm purchase by a supposed climate believer who had previously extolled the virtues of all things green/renewable... but not in their backyard! The guy who found out there was a 280m high turbine planned 500m from his house, right in the view from his living room window but just over the fence on his neighbours' land (so zero compensation for him) was apoplectic.

So why would someone in the Eastern suburbs of Syndey not support nuclear? They assume the plant will be built out in the sticks, the same way wind and solar farms aren't built in Bondi.

[GraemeCook]

I thought this one was laughable. ...

Recently there has been huge opposition, by the local public in Newcastle, to the proposal for offshore wind farms. If there is objection to wind turbines 20Km out to sea, I am wondering how receptive they will be to a nuke in their backyard. ...


Not sure which idea is the most ridiculous, and the most expensive.

Just had a look at a marine chart - Approaches to Newcastle. Twenty kilometres offshore the water depth is around 120 metres (~400 ft for fossils) and the bottom is "mud and sand". It would be quite an engineering challenge to erect a tower there, especially if it had to be cost effective.

[ian]

Just had a look at a marine chart - Approaches to Newcastle. Twenty kilometres offshore the water depth is around 120 metres (~400 ft for fossils) and the bottom is "mud and sand". It would be quite an engineering challenge to erect a tower there, especially if it had to be cost effective.
as far as I know, the "fossil" preferred measure for sub[sea]surface depth was FATHOMS, so for this fossil, the marine chart for the Newcastle approaches would have represented the depth as 65 FATHOMS, which was then converted to 120 metres when the chart was metricated.

(The "mud and sand" observation of the bottom might date to when the depth was determined using a lead line with a hollow filled with tallow.)



but back, sort of, to the general thrust of this overall thread, if AMEO is bemoaning the dirth of new renewable investment, perhaps it represents "the market's" assessment that there's no money to be [currently] made by investing in new off-shore wind generation. Especially while coal remains the primary source of of reliable electricity generation.

[ian]

Recently there has been huge opposition, by the local public in Newcastle, to the proposal for offshore wind farms. If there is objection to wind turbines 20Km out to sea, a quick gander at this chart The distance visible to the horizon from different heights (totally-cuckoo.com) (http://www.totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_the_horizon.htm) suggests that almost all of a wind turbine located 20 km offshore would be visible to a person standing on Merewether Beach.
(to save you opening the link, I've copied and pasted part of the table below.)

assuming that an off-shore wind turbine was sized at around 15 MW (one this size was slated for construction in 2022), the blade length would be in the order of 120 metres, so allowing say 15 metres clearance for the expected worst case swell, then another 25 metres to clear the worst case wave height -- and all these clearance estimates might be far too optimistic -- the actual generator would be sitting on top of a 160 metre tall (above sea level) mast.

all of the mast, bar the swell and wave height clearances, would be above the horizon for someone standing on Merewether Beach. with the whole structure potentially visible to a person standing on Nobbys Head.
(whether a person can see that far on a clear day is another matter)





<tbody>
Height (ft)
Height (m)
Distance (miles)
Distance (km)








10
3.05
4.18
6.76








30
9.14
7.25
11.75


40
12.19
8.37
13.52


50
15.24
9.35
15.13


65
19.81
10.25
16.58


70
21.34
11.07
17.86


80
24.38
11.83
18.99


90
27.43
12.25
19.79


100
30.48
12.23
19.63


150
45.72
16.22
26.07


200
60.96
18.72
30.09


300
91.44
22.91
36.85


400
121.92
26.46
42.65


500
152.40
29.58
47.64


1000
304.80
32.41
52.14

</tbody>

[Bushmiller]

as


but back, sort of, to the general thrust of this overall thread, if AMEO is bemoaning the dirth of new renewable investment, perhaps it represents "the market's" assessment that there's no money to be [currently] made by investing in new off-shore wind generation. Especially while coal remains the primary source of of reliable electricity generation.

Ian

I think Spring and Autumn are bad times of the year for investors contemplating entry to the market. Demand is low and as I mentioned in an earlier post, rooftop solar is going close to supplying a good portion of that demand. In fact, it has been to the point where negative wholesale prices are evident from about 0730hrs in QLD and this is despite the staggered morning peak, courtesy of daylight saving.

What this means is that from 0730hrs through to around 1600hrs, give or take a few minutes solar farms and wind farms have to shut down. There is no money there for them. Unless an investor chooses to put some storage in place, which for the moment will be batteries, I don't really see where there is any viability for a new player.

Admittedly this will change as summer temperatures increase and the air conditioners start cranking up in anger, but that is not happening right now. As we see -$40 hit the AEMO dashboard (https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem) you just know that is it for the solar and wind farms. Wind farms are in a slightly better position in that they can capture some of the nighttime money providing the wind blows. It is my impression, but I have no evidence to back up this statement, that wind is stronger during the day because of thermal circulation.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

a quick gander at this chart The distance visible to the horizon from different heights (totally-cuckoo.com) (http://www.totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_the_horizon.htm) suggests that almost all of a wind turbine located 20 km offshore would be visible to a person standing on Merewether Beach.




Ian

I picked that figure of 20Km as an arbitrary figure. I am not sure of how far out the turbines in any proposal would be situated, although I imagine it would have to be of that order to minimise interference with shipping lanes.

It is for the moment a very vague proposal.

Offshore wind farm proposed for Hunter coast, Chris Bowen calls for community feedback - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-23/hunter-coast-offshore-wind-farm-proposal/102012404)

I did find some information that said the overall height of an offshore wind turbine was 200m. This was I think for the latest and largest machines, which would equate at least to your 15MW example.

Regards
Paul

[ian]

I picked that figure of 20Km as an arbitrary figure.
(snip)
I did find some information that said the overall height of an offshore wind turbine was 200m. This was I think for the latest and largest machines, which would equate at least to your 15MW example. Paul
although your 20km might be arbitrary, the continental shelf drop-off is approximately 50 km off-shore so that would place an upper limit in how far off-shore the turbines could be located.

At 50km, the earth's curvature wouldn't "hide" the turbine blades, but would the sky be clear enough for anyone be able to see them?
However, the water depth would be a construction challenge -- constructing the required piers is one of the reasons there's not a four-lane bridge connection to Tasmania.

Me thinks it's more likely that the Minister is having a go at distracting the great unwashed.
Make an announcement, spend a few million $ on a study, and when it comes to the crunch the study will recommend that the "proposed wind turbines" be located relatively close to shore -- somewhere outside a State's 3 Nm limit (known as coastal waters and legally part of each state) but inside the Federal Govt's 12 Nm limit. If the turbines were to be located beyond 12 Nm from shore they would be in a legal grey area.

At 4 Nm, the turbines could be visually intrusive. But at least the operators wouldn't need to pay the landowner a "usage fee"


NB,
3 Nm is about 5.6 km
12 Nm is about 22.2 km

[ian]

I was recently made aware that there are two pumped hydro storage facilities under consideration in QLD.

Firstly at Borumba in the Sunshine Coast hinterland:
Borumba Pumped Hydro Project | Queensland Hydro (qldhydro.com.au) (https://qldhydro.com.au/projects/borumba/)

and secondly at Pioneer Burdekin 75 Km west of Mackay.
Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project | Queensland Hydro (qldhydro.com.au) (https://qldhydro.com.au/projects/pioneer-burdekin/)
interesting that the early stage cost estimates for these two projects are in the same order of magnitude as for Snowy 2.0



or should that be Snowy 20 (billion $)

[Mr Brush]

Remember that you need a large subsea power cable to connect to these offshore windfarms - every additional km off the coast adds a substantial cost. Where the cable comes ashore, that's when the real arguments start. To get the generated power to where it needs to be, overhead transmission is the only cost-effective option. Massive landowner opposition to that already in the case of SOTS (Star Of The South) project. Those who say "oh, just put it undergound" have no idea of the massive costs involved in doing so.

[Mr Brush]

interesting that the early stage cost estimates for these two projects are in the same order of magnitude as for Snowy 2.0



or should that be Snowy 20 (billion $)

Ahhhh, that explains ALL the issues with the project - all down to a silly typo :D

[Bushmiller]

Remember that you need a large subsea power cable to connect to these offshore windfarms - every additional km off the coast adds a substantial cost. Where the cable comes ashore, that's when the real arguments start. To get the generated power to where it needs to be, overhead transmission is the only cost-effective option. Massive landowner opposition to that already in the case of SOTS (Star Of The South) project. Those who say "oh, just put it undergound" have no idea of the massive costs involved in doing so.

Mr. B

There is a degree of precedent in that there is a pretty big cable over to Tassie already. So cable undersea to the shore and a short(ish) above ground connection to a substation and from there into the grid. All doable, until the objectors come out of the woodwork. I have a relation who thinks solar panels are an eyesore.

:shrug:

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

There is a degree of precedent in that there is a pretty big cable over to Tassie already.But would they do it again?

[GraemeCook]

Mr. B

There is a degree of precedent in that there is a pretty big cable over to Tassie already. ...

Another example is in New Zealand.

Do a little sailing around that glorious country, and you will find that there are quite a few high voltage cables running offshore, presumably as a cheaper or more stable option than building transmission towers in the Shaky Isles.

[Mr Brush]

and a short(ish) above ground connection to a substation and from there into the grid.


Just one teensy problem with the short(ish) above ground connection, and landholders are already up in arms about overhead transmission lines. Its a VERY long way to do this underground !

531962

[Bushmiller]

But would they do it again?

FF

They have done it twice already. Once, then again when it broke. As to another brand newie...probably not to Tassie.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Just one teensy problem with the short(ish) above ground connection, and landholders are already up in arms about overhead transmission lines. Its a VERY long way to do this underground !

531962

Mr.B

I think we may have our wires slightly crossed here :rolleyes:. I was referring to the project proposed off Newcastle. I think you are referencing a Victorian site.

However, the problems are fundamentally similar. The power does not have to return to the old power stations. It can tap into the grid wherever there is a suitable substation and transformer. Typically, the voltage is stepped up for long transmission lines to reduce losses. Conversely, if there is no suitable HV line existing (Say 330KV), we have a problem: A very expensive problem. In fact it has been just that issue that was problematical in the early days of renewables as the new companies expected transmission lines to be made available and were most put out when they realised they had to contribute to those facilities.

At Newcastle there would be suitable lines existing, but how easily they are accessible is another matter.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Yes, I'm talking about SOTS, and it does need a 330kV line, and there isn't one. Cost to build is likely to be prohibitive, so its uncertain whether the project will go ahead.

I know the costs of putting this stuff underground; I installed some sensing hardware on a 5km section of underground 330kV cable at the new Sydney Airport site - they decided having overhead transmission lines across the end of the new runway might not be a good idea :D. So they installed UGOHs on each side, and took the cable undergound for a short section. Cost to do that from SOTS to Loy Yang would be gajillions.

[FenceFurniture]

they decided having overhead transmission lines across the end of the new runway might not be a good idea :D. Pffffft, have none of them ever seen how effectively that sort of get up works on an aircraft carrier?

[ian]

FF

They have done it twice already. Once, then again when it broke. As to another brand newie...probably not to Tassie.
Paul,
I'll beg to differ.
The failure [now fixed] of the existing undersea link -- plus the time it took to fix the break -- indicated that a single link to Tassie is not sufficiently reliable if Tassie is to be part of the nation's battery.

Now, as to the 2nd link's commercial viability -- perhaps there's a reason that electricity supply used to be considered a public good.

[ian]

Pffffft, have none of them ever seen how effectively that sort of get up works on an aircraft carrier?
when you only need to move the amps less than 200 metres -- from the generator to the catapult and engines -- using something like a rectangular section solid conductor is [relatively] trivial

[Bushmiller]

Paul,
I'll beg to differ.
The failure [now fixed] of the existing undersea link -- plus the time it took to fix the break -- indicated that a single link to Tassie is not sufficiently reliable if Tassie is to be part of the nation's battery.

Now, as to the 2nd link's commercial viability -- perhaps there's a reason that electricity supply used to be considered a public good.

Ian

The DC link was never envisaged as a battery storage for the mainland. It was installed to safeguard Tasmania's electricity supply should they go into a mega drought. As the majority of their power is generated by Hydro, they would be in deep excrement. That actually was demonstrated when the link broke. The Tasmanian electricity system had been supplying the mainland and taking advantage of favourable prices so their dams were significantly depleted. That experience may well be why their pricing structure is today so out of kilter with the rest of Australia: Once bitten, twice shy.

It is true that it is the only state where the electricity system is wholly state owned and for that reason alone it may be possible to have a second line, but I think it is more likely that Tasmania wants to keep all its potential electricity for itself.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Pffffft, have none of them ever seen how effectively that sort of get up works on an aircraft carrier?

FF

Those are stop arrestor lines: Not cardiac arrestor lines!

:D

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

... Just one teensy problem with the short(ish) above ground connection, and landholders are already up in arms about overhead transmission lines. ...

They are also talking about additional transmisssion lines in Tasmania for a possible pumped hydro scheme. Farmers are livid.

The proposal would involve towers 70 metres tall and a clear zone 70 m wide under the transmission lines. If I was a farmer I would also be livid about the restrictions on the use of the land in the clear zone:

All trees are felled, including trees in land slip areas, windbreaks and stock and wildlife shelters.
No permanent crops including orchards, hopfields and tree farms.
No built structures including houses, sheds, barns, pumphouses, windmills, etc.
No pivot irrigators.


Point 4 is crucial as irrigation can transform the value of land by a factor of 5, or more. Pivot irrigators can only be installed on flat land (rare in Tasssy) or on gently undulating land. The largest PI's have arms exceeding 1 km in length and the irrigated circle may be up to 300 hectares - 750 acres.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWDnoUMRssk

That gently undulating land suitable for pivot irrigators is also usually the favoured route for a transmission line. Conflict is inevitable. The farmers are building their legal fighting fund. I expect that the legal battle will be bloody and long. Transmission lines impact on three things that farmers consider holy:

Their bank accounts,
Their land, and
Their freedom of choice.


This is a google earth photo of prime farmland used for cropping and beef cattle near Cressy, just south of Launceston. Photo is about 25 kms wide; every visible circle or part-circle is a pivot irrigator - the larger ones are about 1 km across.

531996

[ian]

They are also talking about additional transmisssion lines in Tasmania for a possible pumped hydro scheme. Farmers are livid.

The proposal would involve towers 70 metres tall and a clear zone 70 m wide under the transmission lines. If I was a farmer I would also be livid about the restrictions on the use of the land in the clear zone:

All trees are felled, including trees in land slip areas, windbreaks and stock and wildlife shelters.
No permanent crops including orchards, hopfields and tree farms.
No built structures including houses, sheds, barns, pumphouses, windmills, etc.
No pivot irrigators.


Greame
These issues [about the location of transmission lines] were current in NSW in the 1980s -- which, as I recall, was the last time major transmission were constructed in NSW.

As I recall the issues then (the 1980s) were whether the overhead lines should pass across farmland or through national parks. From what I recall, the "solution" was to go through farmland rather than national park land
the farmers wanted the lines placed through national park land, whilst environmentalists wanted the overhead lines placed through farmland.



Speaking as a civil engineer, who used to do that sort of strategic planning for freeways and the like, the issue is trivial.

at the early stage of planning -- where the planning for most of these lines is currently at -- you just draw an indicative line and tell people that the easement will be 70m wide and the towers 70 metre high and that all the vegetation underneath the line clear felled.

after community consultation the easement for the overhead line can easily be zig-zagged to avoid coppices of trees, to align with property boundaries, to avoid irrigation circles, etc
If I have the optics correct, what the farmers are really after is an ongoing payment for the use of their land -- much like what wind farm operators pay them -- unlike the one-off payment offered for overhead transmission lines.


The real sticking point is who would be responsible for making the ongoing payments to property owners for the thousand kms of existing transmission lines which a change in payment policy would presumably trigger a liability to make back payments -- were those transmission lines sold as part of the eastern state's electricity privatization?

Regardless, triggering liability for ongoing usage payments would represent a material change to the original conditions of sale (if the HV lines were sold) meaning that State Governments would be liable in either case.

[Warb]

If I have the optics correct, what the farmers are really after is an ongoing payment for the use of their land -- much like what wind farm operators pay them -- unlike the one-off payment offered for overhead transmission lines.

There was a 120km long 330kV powerline built across the Central West of NSW, Wellington to Wollar about 15 years ago. I remember the process very well, as it went quite close to my farm. At the time it seemed to be that there were (from memory) 5 possible routes proposed, 4 of which were clearly never going to happen for various reasons. There were then "community consultation meetings" at various times, none of which seemed like anything other than paying lip service to a nominal requirement to have them. Then the route that was obviously going to be chosen was chosen (nobody was surprised!) and the line built. I have no idea of what compensation arrangements were made as my farm wasn't directly impacted, but I (and most others) came away with the overriding impression that the decisions of where and what to build were made long before the project was announced, and that everything that subsequently happened was simply following requirements and had no impact on the result.

There are many issues for farmers with powerlines, wind farms and various other things that involve "third party access" to land. The ability to use your land as you see fit (irrigation, crop selection etc.) is a big one, but there are many others. The people who maintain these systems rarely consider their actions and will happily drive through a field of crop to visit a tower (often several times, using different routes!). They will also fail to understand that driving through a patch of weeds on one poorly managed farm is likely to distribute weed seeds through the next 5 "clean" paddocks they traverse.

Having been in this position myself (ironically the weeds were spread by the road maintenance crew of the very same council that have, and use, the power to enter your land and inspect for "noxious weeds") I know that this is a very real issue. As I'm now retired from farming, I have no particular axe to grind and no knowledge of the compensation payments, but the intrusion created by powerlines, wind turbines etc. is ongoing, so I can see logic to requesting that the compensation be the same.

[FenceFurniture]

News article this morning discussing spot price sparks for the consumer market. I was interested as I have recently switched to Amber (spot price). AT first I didn't think they would mention them by name, but they do. (probably because they might be the only retailer selling spot price to consumers).

Households playing the wholesale power market potentially slashing bills — but not without risk - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-04/australian-households-tap-spot-power-market-as-prices-plunge/103058544)

[GraemeCook]

... after community consultation the easement for the overhead line can easily be zig-zagged to avoid coppices of trees, to align with property boundaries, to avoid irrigation circles, etc

I have yet to see a high voltage transmission that zig-zags for any reason.


If I have the optics correct, what the farmers are really after is an ongoing payment for the use of their land -- much like what wind farm operators pay them -- unlike the one-off payment offered for overhead transmission lines.

They really just want to continue farming their land without productivity restrictions and free of the issues raised by Warbs.

[Bushmiller]

This may be of interest for solar and wind opportunities:

Australia needs much more solar and wind power, but where are the best sites? We mapped them all - Pearls and Irritations (johnmenadue.com) (https://johnmenadue.com/australia-needs-much-more-solar-and-wind-power-but-where-are-the-best-sites-we-mapped-them-all/)

One thing, in particular, I did take was the relative cost of underground transmission lines at a factor of six times that of overhead wires.

Regards
Paul

[Boringgeoff]

I've been following this thread with great interest from day one, this is my first contribution, I hope it is of interest.
The attached map is of a part of the Pilbara mining region. The red Dampier to Tom Price powerline, built in the mid '70s, shows a dog-leg to the East in the vicinity of Millstream-Chichester Nation Park where it went around the then Millstream cattle station. The owners at the time wanted too much compensation, and it was cheaper to go around them.
https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Operations/Pilbara/Utilities/RT-Pilbara-ENSR-area-map.pdf (https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Operations/Pilbara/Utilities/RT-Pilbara-ENSR-area-map.pdf)

Cheers,
Geoff.

[Bushmiller]

There was a little doubt cast over the construction of undersea cabling in previous posts. I, too, am a little sceptical on this issue, but this was a story regarding the transmission of power from Darwin to Indonesia via, you've guessed it, an undersea cable. And, here's the irony, the cable could be manufactured in Tasmania.

A 200 metre tower could be part of SunCable proposal for $2 billion manufacturing plant in Tasmania | Watch (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/a-200-metre-tower-could-be-part-of-suncable-proposal-for-2-billion-manufacturing-plant-in-tasmania/vi-AA1jqHCm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=084dc55a7b20426980cc7d1e2be23819&ei=24)

I was a little confused that earth moving machines were depicted and men shoveling dirt, but the project may only receive approval in 2025. Was there a little bit of visual license happening here as such activities may be premature?

Regards
Paul

[ian]

There was a little doubt cast over the construction of undersea cabling in previous posts. I, too, am a little sceptical on this issue, but this was a story regarding the transmission of power from Darwin to Indonesia via, you've guessed it, an undersea cable. And, here's the irony, the cable could be manufactured in Tasmania.

A 200 metre tower could be part of SunCable proposal for $2 billion manufacturing plant in Tasmania | Watch (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/a-200-metre-tower-could-be-part-of-suncable-proposal-for-2-billion-manufacturing-plant-in-tasmania/vi-AA1jqHCm?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=084dc55a7b20426980cc7d1e2be23819&ei=24)

I was a little confused that earth moving machines were depicted and men shoveling dirt, but the project may only receive approval in 2025. Was there a little bit of visual license happening here as such activities may be premature?
It was my understanding that the company behind the project -- Sun Cable -- went into voluntary administration in January after a falling out between billionaires Andrew "Twiggy" Forest and Mike Cannon-Brooks.
If I recall correctly "Twiggy" Forest wanted to use the project to produce green hydrogen, while Mike Cannon-Brooks wanted Sun Cable to supply electricity to Singapore.

Cannon-Brooks acquired the company's shell and his stated aim is to continue with the Singapore undersea DC link. I'm not sure of the viability of the overall project as the NT is about an hour ahead of Singapore, and presumably the peak Singapore electricity demand will be after the sun has set in the NT. To my mind a 20GW solar farm in India would make more sense in terms of supplying electricity after the sun sets in the NT than a 20GW one in the NT that will "shut down" before the demand peak in Singapore.

In terms of where the subsea cable might be constructed, Cannon-Brooks would prefer to use renewable energy -- a tick for Tasmania, but Norway is also almost 100% renewable too. And perhaps Norway is a more central location, raw material wise, for the manufacture of the undersea cable.
Remember that in world terms, Australia is a high wage cost country, and Tasmania might be described as beyond the ass end of the earth.

Time will tell.

[Bushmiller]

Ian

Thanks for the additional information on the company make up. The whole thing sounds a little airy fairy to me, but I am trying to keep an open mind.

The time differential could be an issue, but I think their idea is to have significant battery storage so they could buy cheaply when solar supply was plentiful or, in the case of their own arrays, use their supply to charge up their batteries when there is nowhere for the power to go.

I am afraid that if Australia is at the high end of the wage spectrum, Norway is king, emperor and despot all rolled into one. Son lives in Norway and commented how cheap common items were in Australia compared to where he lives. Actually, he lives in a spot (Tromso) that amazingly is more expensive than Oslo, but overall Norway is not cheap.

Regards
Paul

[ian]

A bit more info on SunCable

Image sourced from SunCable in January 2023
https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/d5b496afc189e5e5c419c5fa6e4082b7?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=737&cropW=1105&xPos=0&yPos=15&width=862&height=575

I think GWp stands for peak GW.


Image sourced from SunCable November 2023 website
https://assets-global.website-files.com/64cd9e5894461659b9c36d0d/64f86a0b7660b5df5cf5818f_SunCable%20Energy%20Map%20Full.png

Note the lesser detail re battery storage in the later project image.


but the company's website speaks in terms of "delivering 1.75GW of 24/7 renewable electricity to Singapore".
If I can do the sums properly, 1.75GW, 24/7 would translate to around 5 to 6GW of generation in the NT.

SunCable also talks about delivering "up to 4GW of 24/7 renewable electricity" to Darwin -- again this would translate to around 12GW of generation 800km south of Darwin.

All up a solar array generating up to 18GW. I'm not sure how much area that size of generation would cover.

[ian]

oh, and the proposed SunCable battery (at around 40GWh) seems rather small, around half the size of SA's "big battery"

[NeilS]

Cannon-Brooks acquired the company's shell and his stated aim is to continue with the Singapore undersea DC link. I'm not sure of the viability of the overall project as the NT is about an hour ahead of Singapore, and presumably the peak Singapore electricity demand will be after the sun has set in the NT. To my mind a 20GW solar farm in India would make more sense in terms of supplying electricity after the sun sets in the NT than a 20GW one in the NT that will "shut down" before the demand peak in Singapore.



If it would be more viable to green power Singapore from India because of the peak time usage offset it would do the same for a WA to eastern Australia interconnector. The longitude difference is about the same.

Not sure of the relative cost of undersea cable costs compared to overland, but expect it is a lot less. Part of an east -west link could be undersea across the Bight and pick up some wind generation along the way. Couldn't cost any more than Snowy 2.0!

[Bushmiller]

Fatal flaws plague every form of power generation that currently exists. Unfortunately.

Nuclear power is no exception to that and in fact it has more than most. The first hurdle is initial cost. Much hyperbole has been spruicked over Small Modular Reactors despite none having been built so far. It is all pie in the sky. I have to agree that if the fatal flaws associated with nukes could be resolved, they would be a wonderful solution. However, for the moment it appears such a reality is unlikely.

The example of a SMR that the Coalition has been referencing has been cancelled due to rising costs:

Small modular nuclear reactor that was hailed by Coalition as future cancelled due to rising costs (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-that-was-hailed-by-coalition-as-future-cancelled-due-to-rising-costs/ar-AA1jDxuK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=57dc923576924805a765f96986007be3&ei=15)

This is the company behind the project and it seems that, while the Idaho project has been ditched, they still hope to work something out in other regions. Not a good or encouraging look for the moment:

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) and NuScale Power Agree to Terminate the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) | NuScale Power (https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/news/press-releases/2023/uamps-and-nuscale-power-agree-to-terminate-the-carbon-free-power-project)

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Not at all surprising. Dutton never lets facts get in the way of playing politics. Meanewhile, in the earth's atmosphere.......:(

[ian]

Not sure of the relative cost of undersea cable costs compared to overland, but expect it is a lot less. Part of an east -west link could be undersea across the Bight and pick up some wind generation along the way. Couldn't cost any more than Snowy 2.0!Elsewhere in this thread I've suggested -- only slightly tonge-in-cheek -- that Snowy 2.0 should really be referred to as Snowy 20 (Billion).

As to relative costs, my expectation is that there's at least an order of magnitude cost differential between an undersea DV cable and an overland DV line.
As well as ample insulation, the former requires lead sheathing so that the cable will remain well anchored to the ocean floor.
The latter "just" requires that one string an uninsulated aluminium conductor between steel towers across the Nullarbor.

For adequate redundancy both options would require two, or perhaps three, separate transmission lines.

[Bushmiller]

Elsewhere in this thread I've suggested -- only slightly tonge-in-cheek -- that Snowy 2.0 should really be referred to as Snowy 20 (Billion).

As to relative costs, my expectation is that there's at least an order of magnitude cost differential between an undersea DV cable and an overland DV line.
As well as ample insulation, the former requires lead sheathing so that the cable will remain well anchored to the ocean floor.
The latter "just" requires that one string an uninsulated aluminium conductor between steel towers across the Nullarbor.

For adequate redundancy both options would require two, or perhaps three, separate transmission lines.

Ian

I don't pretend to be really well up on the technical aspects of transmission lines other than they are expensive and incur problematical placement as soon as they emerge from desert regions into populated areas. However, a line for each phase is required. Often when viewing transmission lines some idea of the voltage can be deduced by the spacing of the wires, which is necessary to prevent a phase to phase fault developing between the bare wires.

Aluminium is an excellent conductor, but not terribly strong. It is used for rigid busbars in switchyards, but for long transmission lines it is sheathed in steel for strength. Spans between towers usually depend on the topography to maintain the safety clearances. Spans across a valley can be very long. The spacing of towers is more dependent on clearance than strength.

I don't think economics permit redundancy. The consequences of failure rest with repairing it asap. The insurance people would call it accepting liability.

Regards
Paul

[Lyle]

Hi all. A little off topic.... but.
We are on a driving holiday and are exploring the Eyre Peninsula in SA. I'm wondering why the Iberdrolba wind turbines not turning today (13No2023). They were last week when we went past, but today all of them seem to be "parked".
Tried googling but couldn't find out.
Lyle

[Bushmiller]

Hi all. A little off topic.... but.
We are on a driving holiday and are exploring the Eyre Peninsula in SA. I'm wondering why the Iberdrolba wind turbines not turning today (13No2023). They were last week when we went past, but today all of them seem to be "parked".
Tried googling but couldn't find out.
Lyle

Lyle

I expect that they were "parked" because the wholesale price was negative. It is not so obvious with no moving parts, but it is most likely many solar farms were switched off too. The wholesale price goes into the negative region because of oversupply. The wind farms and solar farms can switch off their machines. The coal fired generators have to pay out money.

Regards
Paul