Future of the Australian Electricity Market

[Bushmiller]

I can think of much worse places to be diverted to than Trondheim.

Just two of the fun things that we came across in Trondheim are its Trampe bicycle lift - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampe_bicycle_lift) and its heated seating in public places. Dare to sit down on a stone or metal tubing bench in a public place in winter and you are pleasantly surprised to find your rear end warmed...:B




Neil

Unfortunately, those delights were not available to us during the four hours spent in the airport lounge. Overall, because of the closure of Oslo airport and the missing of a connection flight in Dubai, our trip took 36 hours from getting up at 0415hrs in Mjelde to arriving at Brisbane. I thought I was back on nights for three consecutive night shifts without the days in between!

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

This a very interesting article on the place for nuclear power in Australia.

The opposition wants 'mature debate' about nuclear. This is what experts say (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-opposition-wants-mature-debate-about-nuclear-this-is-what-experts-say/ar-BB1kb3rY?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=673717e8b5c9417da3ccaa1581a2bc1c&ei=40)

Two things: I think the debate should go ahead so mis-information is de-bunked once and for all, to prevent unhelpful distraction and we can seek viable solutions. Secondly, we should lift the ban on nuclear power so that the viability can be on a level playing field.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Summary: "I Wouldn't Do That If I Were You", which also happens to be our family motto from our coat of arms (a pair of crossed thumbs on a white background, rampant and bleeding, with a nail through the middle of them) :rolleyes:

[NeilS]

Overall, because of the closure of Oslo airport and the missing of a connection flight in Dubai, our trip took 36 hours from getting up at 0415hrs in Mjelde to arriving at Brisbane. I thought I was back on nights for three consecutive night shifts without the days in between!



Ouch!

[NeilS]

As you can imagine, snow forms on house roof tops, and eventually it turns to ice. Then, at some point when thawing occurs it falls off the roof in chunks. Think 20kgs of rock at a time and contemplate the injury likely to occur if the fragile human head is immediately below.



Paul

Funny you should use that illustration, Paul. I expect you also saw the same following warning sign about this on footpaths. The image is self explanatory, the translation goes something like 'ROOF AVALANCHE Proceed at own risk'...:U



536555

[FenceFurniture]

Secondly, we should lift the ban on nuclear power so that the viability can be on a level playing field.If that happens, and Voldemort defies history* and wins the next election, he will press on with nuking us. Have the debate by all means, but keep us safe from idiots with dumb ideas.



*When a party goes from Govt to opposition after losing an election, no first-time opposition leader has ever won the next election.

[FenceFurniture]

536555I believe they used a similar sign in 16th-18th Century England, but the lumps were a different substance.




More dangerous too, mainly because of the after-effects.

[Bushmiller]

If that happens, and Voldemort defies history* and wins the next election, he will press on with nuking us. Have the debate by all means, but keep us safe from idiots with dumb ideas.



*When a party goes from Govt to opposition after losing an election, no first-time opposition leader has ever won the next election.

FF

The safeguard is that in a world of private enterprise the nukes have to be economically viable. However, that would fall apart if the government decided to subsidise. I am not sure how that would help them win another election. Willever there is a ban on nuclear, any opposition party will keep throwing that up as a reason why it can't be done despite the uneconomical reasoning. The irony here is that the ban was a liberal policy.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Willever there is a ban on nuclear, any opposition party will keep throwing that up as a reason why it can't be done despite the uneconomical reasoning. The irony here is that the ban was a liberal policy.Yairs....or we could revert to having a sensible opposition (of either flavour) with some original ideas.

I just think the whole nuclear idea will become moot within a fairly short period of time (and certainly before nuclear would be up and running), e.g. once battery storage has been sorted out, Snowy 2.0 is up and running.....no, wait...that could be 20-30 years....

[Bushmiller]

An interesting take from both opposition and government viewpoints

Coalition’s nuclear power crusade is a futile distraction (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2024/03/19/nuclear-power-coalition-richard-denniss?ahe=df367c01cfb5ffd84b418a037b7b8a99122b184b2f77914ecd0b3985af301fd5&acid=4161031&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020240320&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=)

Here is an excerpt to put the cat among the pidgeons:

"But the real benefit for Labor is not that he is right and Dutton is wrong. Rather, it is the distraction provided by a ‘debate’ about nuclear energy.
Since taking office in 2022, Tanya Plibersek has approved four new coal mines, at least 116 new gas wells and there are another 100-plus fossil fuel projects seeking approval."

Perhaps we will see Clive move to NSW where he may stand a better chance of success.

And another daunting report lending weight to why we should not wait on the fossil fuel issue.

'Red alert' to world as every major climate record busted (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2024/03/20/un-climate-warning?ahe=df367c01cfb5ffd84b418a037b7b8a99122b184b2f77914ecd0b3985af301fd5&acid=4161031&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020240320&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=)

Regards
Paul

[AlexS]

Thanks for those photos and the post. I suspect that the small hut and weir are a flow measurement station. The weir looks like a shallow V notch similar to a Crump weir, and the hut would house an instrument measuring the upstream & probably downstream water levels, from which the flow can be calculated.

[Bushmiller]

Thanks for those photos and the post. I suspect that the small hut and weir are a flow measurement station. The weir looks like a shallow V notch similar to a Crump weir, and the hut would house an instrument measuring the upstream & probably downstream water levels, from which the flow can be calculated.

Alex

I had initially thought the dilapidated hut and weir were associated with the Hydro plant, but apparently not and it was a previous enterprise for breeding up fish! I say a previous enterprise as it hadn't been used for twenty years and the hydro plant was commissioned in 2016 by Bjorn's father.

I expect that the flows are measured in some other way by modern instrumentation. I just have a slight question mark over the flow rate as appearing on the sign. It seems a little too high, but I am not a hydro person. Maybe L/s is not "litres" per second. At work our machines have a steam flow rate of 350kg/sec admittedly at 242 bar (24,200KPa). I wish now I had queried that figure.

Regards
Paul

PS: I did see some spare pipes lying around, which I assumed were suction pipes from the dam and they were about 500mm diameter. I guess we could work out the flow rate from the head pressure (140m) and the pipe diameter. My understanding is that pipework is usually designed for a flow rate between 4m and 7m per second.

[GraemeCook]

The irony here is that the ban was a liberal policy.

Are you being ironic in suggesting that they have any policies?

[Bushmiller]

Are you being ironic in suggesting that they have any policies?

Graeme

Not really sure what I am being. Trying to be polite in the face of of political stupidity.

:)

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

This article on the future of Eraring Power Station in the Lower Hunter is interesting. One aspect it highlights is the significant "assistance" afforded by the government already.

State faces huge bill for major coal-plant's lifeline (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/state-faces-huge-bill-for-major-coal-plant-s-lifeline/ar-BB1kDG2W?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=37520f8ca6e54de680ae6bfe5cc09655&ei=46)

It seems to make a nonsense of renewables being criticised for subsidies as it would appear all power sources receive some benefit. Actually, that's not true as I am fairly certain we don't at Millmerran. I fail to understand how there will be sufficient supply for the whole twenty four hours of the day should Eraring be shut down. It does not address the nighttime issue when renewables, solar in particular, are either diminished or non-existent.

Eraring has a capacity of 2880MW from the four units and, apparently, despite being purchased for only $75m in 2013 is unable to make a profit. I can only assume the coal supplies down there are very expensive, but I have no inside knowledge of this. However, it is true to say that at 42 years old for the first unit it is getting towards the end of the typical 50 year lifespan of a thermal station.

Interestingly, the station was bought from the government by Origin in 2013 after the wet Bottom Ash system had been retrofitted with a dry Magaldi conveyor (2009 - 2013). The dry conveyor uses no water, as you might imagine, and consequently is far less demanding on water resources and less polluting as well. Also, between 2011 and 2012 the units' capacity were upgraded from 660MW to 720MW. Both these improvements would have been quite an expense and it looks as though the sale price would have just about covered those retrofits. The rest was given away.

After this "gift" Origin can't make a profit!

:shrug:

I can't quite recall the original financing arrangements of Eraring, but my memory is that there was some sort of consortium. It was not owned in the same way as the other stations that formed the NSW Electricity Commision during the early eighties.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

To celebrate the return of 'shmiller from deepest darkest Norge (and my own successful return from Penrith) I purchased a 6-pack of Trost Lager at Dan Murphy's a little earlier.

536827

It's....well....it doesn't promote "Oh!" on the first sip followed by "WOW!" on the second, but it does have some interesting characteristics (maybe regional), and is not offensive. Upon closer inspection of the fine print it is brewed by Aass (!?) Bryggeri "for Pinnacle Drinks" (aka Dan Murphy), so I would guess that it's a second (or less) tier brew designed to suck in Aussies who don't read all the fine print (like me).

Lord Nelson Brewery "Three Sheets" it is not.

[Bushmiller]

This was a brief story on Sky News with presenter Chis Kenny:

Call for government to give ‘all the answers’ for a less politicised nuclear power debate (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/call-for-government-to-give-all-the-answers-for-a-less-politicised-nuclear-power-debate/ar-BB1kFVA0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=4677473a2b1c4abd805f72895d5f1c23&ei=10)

GNSP ((Global Nuclear Security Partners) is fundamentally a public relations firm, whose objective is to promote the cause of their backers.

GNSP Australia | GNSP (https://www.gnsp.global/australia)

I have no real problem with that. I believe the ban on nuclear power should be removed. It would then be up to interested parties to put forward proposals to build a station on their merits and would remove the distractions of the proponents. To my mind nuclear is, on a good day, an almost impossible task for the Australian market for these reasons:

1. Even the early proponents of SMR have backed away from what is an untried area. The development most quoted in Canada has been cancelled. The Russian Unit is located on a ship and the Chinese installation by CHG is also unknown and non commercial. There is a unit under construction in Argentina too. So we are really discussing larger units greater than 400MW. Around the world nukes tend to be large averaging around 750 - 800MW.

2. Nuclear units have a long lead time to completion.

3. Nukes are expensive to build.

4. Approvals are both lengthy and onerous.

5. The technology and expertise is "lean" in Australia, but of course new technologies have to start somewhere and there is plenty of experience overseas.

6. Agreement on where to put a reactor is going to be difficult. That is a euphemism of the first order.

7. De-commissioning costs need to be considered.

8. Any plant that can't compete with solar during the daylight hours (few plants can do that) will have to be viable only running for half the day and be capable of ramping down to zero and back to full load rapidly. This is not something that nuclear reactors have been good at in the past. That is not to say it can't be a design feature into the future.

9. A plant would have to be viable without government assistance or guarantees.

10. Waste disposal is an old bug bear.

11. Lastly, for the moment, and really this just emphasises some of the other steps, it has to be commercial, because the market is a competitive, private business arena, at least for anybody entering now.


Perhaps the largest hope for the nuclear lobby is the Aukus enterprise as it potentially opens the door for nuclear power and would provide some justification for removal of the ban: In fact, it is difficult to see how the ban can remain when the first subs appear. When will that be again?

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

This was a brief story on Sky News with presenter Chis Kenny:

Call for government to give ‘all the answers’ for a less politicised nuclear power debate (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/call-for-government-to-give-all-the-answers-for-a-less-politicised-nuclear-power-debate/ar-BB1kFVA0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=4677473a2b1c4abd805f72895d5f1c23&ei=10)

GNSP ((Global Nuclear Security Partners) is fundamentally a public relations firm, whose objective is to promote the cause of their backers.

GNSP Australia | GNSP (https://www.gnsp.global/australia)

I have no real problem with that. I believe the ban on nuclear power should be removed. It would then be up to interested parties to put forward proposals to build a station on their merits and would remove the distractions of the proponents. To my mind nuclear is, on a good day, an almost impossible task for the Australian market for these reasons:

1. Even the early proponents of SMR have backed away from what is an untried area. The development most quoted in Canada has been cancelled. The Russian Unit is located on a ship and the Chinese installation by CHG is also unknown and non commercial. There is a unit under construction in Argentina too. So we are really discussing larger units greater than 400MW. Around the world nukes tend to be large averaging around 750 - 800MW.

2. Nuclear units have a long lead time to completion.

3. Nukes are expensive to build.

4. Approvals are both lengthy and onerous.

5. The technology and expertise is "lean" in Australia, but of course new technologies have to start somewhere and there is plenty of experience overseas.

6. Agreement on where to put a reactor is going to be difficult. That is a euphemism of the first order.

7. De-commissioning costs need to be considered.

8. Any plant that can't compete with solar during the daylight hours (few plants can do that) will have to be viable only running for half the day and be capable of ramping down to zero and back to full load rapidly. This is not something that nuclear reactors have been good at in the past. That is not to say it can't be a design feature into the future.

9. A plant would have to be viable without government assistance or guarantees.

10. Waste disposal is an old bug bear.

11. Lastly, for the moment, and really this just emphasises some of the other steps, it has to be commercial, because the market is a competitive, private business arena, at least for anybody entering now.


Perhaps the largest hope for the nuclear lobby is the Aukus enterprise as it potentially opens the door for nuclear power and would provide some justification for removal of the ban: In fact, it is difficult to see how the ban can remain when the first subs appear. When will that be again?

Regards
PaulThat's well thought through with good detail Paul.
First Aukus sub around 2040 if it's been a good decade? Not sure.

There are two points that I have different thoughts on:
1. I don't believe it to be necessary to remove the current ban to have micro-detailed discussions at the highest levels required on all the points that you raise. However, as I have opined before, removing the ban first is like removing the meat from the sealed container, putting in the dog's bowl, and telling the dog it can't have it until the Govt says that kind of meat is legal to eat. The dog will find a way, pronto.

2. We have previously discussed whether the Govts selling off the power stations and other allied assets was a good idea or not. IIRC, it was largely agreed that as things turned out it probably was not a good idea, but am happy to stand corrected. Just for one thing, we wouldn't be in the position where the Govts have to hand out rebates to protect lower income earners from the crazy prices we have had imposed on us. I think we have also discussed re-nationalising the energy industry, but that Genie is way out of the bottle.

So if a Nuclear Plant is (somehow) allowed to go ahead it may be much better for it to be built by sub-contractors, but 100% Govt owned and run, and to legislated to stay that way. I know the argument about NBN, Snowy 2.0 etc, but this would be building something that has been done many times before, and there would be fierce competition amongst experienced players to win the contract.



Upon closer inspection of the fine print it is brewed by Aass (!?) Bryggeri
This was a brief story on Sky News with presenter Chis Kenny:

Call for government to give ‘all the answers’ for a less politicised nuclear power debate (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/call-for-government-to-give-all-the-answers-for-a-less-politicised-nuclear-power-debate/ar-BB1kFVA0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=4677473a2b1c4abd805f72895d5f1c23&ei=10)
As for Chis Kenny (nice typo), he can Chis my Aass! I'll even keep a can of it for him. Less politicised is exactly what he neither wants nor knows how to do.

(and beware the poster who considers clicking "Pictures please": I do have have a pic of my right buttock hours after a hip replacement :D It is NOT for those who wish to preserve their remaining mental health.)

[BobL]

c 8. Any plant that can't compete with solar during the daylight hours (few plants can do that) will have to be viable only running for half the day and be capable of ramping down to zero and back to full load rapidly. This is not something that nuclear reactors have been good at in the past. That is not to say it can't be a design feature into the future.


During a sabbatical in Japan in 1995 I worked on a small (about the size of 20ft container) nuclear (research) reactor that was turned on at 10am and shut down at 4pm every day. It was capable of about 100kW at peak but normally run at 20kW, and was dialled back to just ticking over (I think it was 1kW) when test samples were exchanged every hour or so. This was done by climbing stairs up on top of the reactor and lowering test samples into the core on lengths of string down inside a tube. Then we'd climb down and crank the power back up. Radiation monitoring was moderately well done.

This reactor was donated to Japan by a US Methodist church in the mid 1950's as part of an Atoms for Peace program. This is of course very different from say a massive 2GW steam generating reactor plant which has a huge thermal inertia and needs massive cooling. I believe gas cooled rectors are inherently safer and can react quicker to load changes but there's only one semi experimental version of these in the world (China) producing about 250MW and these are still largely in the development phase. It also uses He gas and there's doubts the world has enough He to support many of these reactors.

I'm all for nuclear power in places where there is high population density and limited renewables, which is not Australia. My primary objection to NP is that nuclear power is a highly centralised bureaucratic form of power production and my preference is to set up energy systems that give as much control to users as possible.

[Bushmiller]

During a sabbatical in Japan in 1995 I worked on a small (about the size of 20ft container) nuclear (research) reactor that was turned on at 10am and shut down at 4pm every day. It was capable of about 100kW at peak but normally run at 20kW, and was dialled back to just ticking over (I think it was 1kW) when test samples were exchanged every hour or so. This was done by climbing stairs up on top of the reactor and lowering test samples into the core on lengths of string down inside a tube. Then we'd climb down and crank the power back up. Radiation monitoring was moderately well done.

This reactor was donated to Japan by a US Methodist church in the mid 1950's as part of an Atoms for Peace program. This is of course very different from say a massive 2GW steam generating reactor plant which has a huge thermal inertia and needs massive cooling. I believe gas cooled rectors are inherently safer and can react quicker to load changes but there's only one semi experimental version of these in the world (China) producing about 250MW and these are still largely in the development phase. It also uses He gas and there's doubts the world has enough He to support many of these reactors.

I'm all for nuclear power in places where there is high population density and limited renewables, which is not Australia. My primary objection to NP is that nuclear power is a highly centralised bureaucratic form of power production and my preference is to set up energy systems that give as much control to users as possible.

Thanks Bob

I was hoping you would weigh in on this subject with your practical knowledge.

Problems can often be overcome and necessity breeds invention. The problem I have is with people proposing solutions, without having a grasp on the realities, as if it were done and dusted. This is the current issue with nuclear in Australia. The big hurdle is the combination of privatiseation and the need for profitability. The proponents of nuclear would say they are cheap to run, requiring only relatively small amounts of fuel, but that does not take into account the huge upfront cost, which has to be repaid to the financier, and the considerable requirements of "safe" running amd maintenance, which are focused around cooling and containment.

Nuclear, as it exists, is not a commodity to be trifled with. When something goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. Consequently, stringent safeguards have to be in place to minimise such an occurrence. They are all additional costs. There should not be any budget reactors built!

This is a little information (and we all know a little information is dangerous) on fast breeder reactors and their place in the nuclear world.

Breeder reactor - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor)

and I dug up a little information on the Chinese SMR:

"ACP100 small modular reactor[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power_in_China&action=edit&section=19)]

In July 2019, China National Nuclear Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Nuclear_Corporation) announced it would start building a demonstration ACP100 small modular reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor) (SMR) on the north-west side of the existing Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changjiang_Nuclear_Power_Plant) by the end of the year.[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#cite_note-wnn-20190722-64) Design of the ACP100 started in 2010 and it was the first SMR project to pass an independent safety assessment by International Atomic Energy Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) in 2016. It is also referred to as Linglong One and is a fully integrated reactor module with an internal coolant system, with a 2-year refuelling interval, producing 385 MWt and about 125 MWe, and incorporates passive safety (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety) features, and can be installed underground."

What is MWt compared to MWe?

Megawatts thermal - Energy Education (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Megawatts_thermal)

Easy really :rolleyes:

It is in fact a joint project in conjunction with CHNG (http://ACP100 small modular reactor In July 2019, China National Nuclear Corporation announced it would start building a demonstration ACP100 small modular reactor (SMR) on the north-west side of the existing Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant by the end of the year.[64] Design of the ACP100 started in 2010 and it was the first SMR project to pass an independent safety assessment by International Atomic Energy Agency in 2016. It is also referred to as Linglong One and is a fully integrated reactor module with an internal coolant system, with a 2-year refuelling interval, producing 385 MWt and about 125 MWe, and incorporates passive safety features, and can be installed underground.), who have an interest in the Millmerran Power Station. My take on CHNG (we just call them CHG, but that does not bring up the desired result in searches) is that they are receptive to alternative methods of power generation and their huge portfolio covers almost every type of generation currently available.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

It doesn't say when manufacturing will commence (I'd guess around 3 years from now) but certainly appears to be a very good step:

Anthony Albanese announces Solar SunShot manufacturing program to boost Australian production - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-28/anthony-albanese-announces-solar-sunshot-manufacturing-program/103639924)

"One in three Australian households have solar panels, the highest rate in the world, but only 1 per cent of them are manufactured locally."



The alternative idea from
536836
is to put a Nuclear reactor on these old sites by maybe 2040??? (about 6-8 years after we have excellent battery storage happening?). 2040 will also be 12 years after we have lost around half of our Eastern Seaboard base load production that remains now (I posted supposedly accurate figures for that some months ago).

[Bushmiller]

Thanks FF

A Cannon-Brooks initiative.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Re. making more solar panels here, I'm not sure how they propose to overcome the massive difference in labour costs between here and China? Possibly through massive automation/robotics, but that won't look good on the jobs creation front.

I'm sure we have superior panel technology, and can make a better quality, better performing product, but that still won't cut it if it comes out at twice the price of Chinese offerings. Tariffs on imported panels would only result in retaliation from China, and we're still unravelling the last lot of tariff hostilities caused by Scomo.

[FenceFurniture]

... I'm not sure how they propose to overcome the massive difference in labour costs between here and China? Possibly through massive automation/robotics, but that won't look good on the jobs creation front.Yebbutt we HAVE to start making a stand to get some manufacturing happening here again. We can no longer afford to wait it out until Chinese wages force the labour costs up towards the rest of the world, hence making the field more level. It is an inevitable fact that that will happen, just as it has in Japan, just as it will also happen in Vietnam, followed by India, and eventually followed by Africa.

I say that because the power struggle between the USA and China will only increase, and we are going to be the shight in the shight sandwich. China will try to crush us economically (we've already seen them try and partially succeed) and eventually militarily if we don't take their side, and the USA will try to crush us diplomatically if we don't take their military side. China patrols our shores already, and knows all of the USA military sites here that are the eyes into China – they will be the very first targets because they are soft but crucial – too easy. It would only take a weak, discombobulated USA leader to do something dumb to set it all off (and yes, I do have someone in mind)

[Bushmiller]

Yebbutt we HAVE to start making a stand to get some manufacturing happening here again. We can no longer afford to wait it out until Chinese wages force the labour costs up towards the rest of the world, hence making the field more level. It is an inevitable fact that that will happen, just as it has in Japan, just as it will also happen in Vietnam, followed by India, and eventually followed by Africa.



FF

I call that the inexorable rise followed by the inevitable fall.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

This article highlights the leaders in the various forms of Electricity generation:

Low-carbon electricity: which countries are leading the world? | Spectra (mhi.com) (https://spectra.mhi.com/low-carbon-electricity-which-countries-are-leading-the-world?utm_source=nativeocean&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=CNW&utm_term=z1160673312b1_outbrainrtb__www%2Emsn%2Ecom1z&_z1_adgid=49237137&_z1_caid=160673312&_z1_msid=b1_outbrainrtb&_z1_pub=www%2Emsn%2Ecom&cid=z1160673312b1_outbrainrtb__www%2Emsn%2Ecom1z&zpbid=31540_53cf5dd4-ee39-11ee-b04b-2d63373ec364)

Needless to say the article doesn't feel necessary to highlight the leaders in fossil fuels, which to be fair are not exactly low carbon. :)

However it does not highlight what proportion of the countries' power is renewable. Consequently, the likes of Norway does not feature. I was also disappointed that good old Oz didn't feature anywhere either. I guess we are a small fish in a big pond. which has been a fallacious argument by some as to why we should do nothing.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Japan is 377,973 km² (1.36x Victoria)
It has about 2000 hours of sunshine per year.
Call it 756 million km²hours of sunshine per year (377,976 * 2000)
They produced 83GW of solar power in 2022.

Australia is 7,688,000 km² (20.34x Japan)
It has 2,200 hours (Melbourne) to 3,200 hours (Perth) sunshine per year
Call it 20,757 million km²hours of sunshine per year (7,688,000 * 2,700) which is 27½ times Japan's potential.
We currently produce about 34GW of solar energy per year (40% of Japanese production 2 years ago)

So we produce 40% with 27½ times the potential production. That means Japan is running at 68.6x of us

:ranting2: ¿QUE? :ranting2:

[Bushmiller]

FF

Thanks for those stats. Interesting. We may fare a little better if the figures were adjusted for per capita and/or we reduced the available land mass to habitated Kms² . I don't know how the hell we do that unless we said that there has to be a minimum of, say, two people per Km² to be classified as inhabited. Effectively that would probably rule out 80% - 90% of Oz. The remote areas suffer the problem of transmission coupled with the expense and who pays. A larger population (Japan is nudging 123million compared to our 26million; 5:1 ratio approximately) should have more energy and indeed demands more energy.

Having said that you make good points and Australia is guilty of self-congratulation and complacency. For years we did nothing and now we approach 100% renewables through the day. Actually, that is at least two to three years away and maybe longer if storage does not keep pace, so the statement is on the generous side. As I have said so many times before, we really need to address the issue of nighttime power and exactly where that will come from.

Regards
Paul

[BobL]

Some other considerations that make us look even worse
Japan has
- a much greater proportion of its land surface as mountains where it's not commercially viable to locate panels.
- to import virtually all its fossil fuels (quiet a bit from us) so has a much greater incentive to use renewables
- lower car ownership with an much smaller engine capacities and fewer km/y - means they wont need as much energy to electrify their motor vehicle fleet
On our plus side we have a much larger physical distribution footprint so poles and wires cost more

[Bushmiller]

- lower car ownership with an much smaller engine capacities and fewer km/y - means they wont need as much energy to electrify their motor vehicle fleet


Yes, the "Kei" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car) category. I am not sure, but they may be the only country officially with this classification. However, there may not be much room for batteries, but they may not need much room.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

Yes, the "Kei" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car) category. I am not sure, but they may be the only country officially with this classification. However, there may not be much room for batteries, but they may not need much room.

Regards
Paul

I first went to Japan in 1968 and K's were certainly dominant, especially as commercial vehicles, as Japan then had relatively low private vehicle ownership.

We were last in Japan in 2019, not long before lockdown, and the proportion of K's was much lower, especially as commercial vehicles and those nimble 3-wheel mini-trucks seemed to have disappeared.

[BobL]

Yes, the "Kei" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car) category. I am not sure, but they may be the only country officially with this classification. However, there may not be much room for batteries, but they may not need much room.

There are a number of Key EVs available. The best perfroming ones typically uses a 20kWh battery for a range of 180km - that which is about 110 Wh/km without making much of an effort at improving aerodynamics (ie retaining their ICE boxy shapes) so if they did something about that that should be able to get <100 Wh/km.

Can't imagine them being that safe in a bingle with a larger vehicle.

[Bushmiller]

The issue of rental housing and apartment blocks being unable to access solar panels has long been a negative aspect of solar energy. This article attempts to address this with ways around the issue.

‘Money and energy to be saved’: how to get Australia’s body corporates to go green (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/money-and-energy-to-be-saved-how-to-get-australia-s-body-corporates-to-go-green/ar-BB1jyOQP?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=c8c73f2444f3488faa870f193cb6c3cf&ei=21)

It also mentions the other aspect of reducing emissions: Use less.

It is unlikely to be a solution in itself, but does provide matter to tackle ways around the subject. Also, just because a house is a rental does not automatically mean it can't have solar panels. The addition of panels by the landlord can be as much of a plus for a tenant as having a garage or a super-duper kitchen or a pool etc.etc..

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

At last:

‘Come on and tell us your policy’: Chris Bowen issues nuclear challenge to Coalition (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/come-on-and-tell-us-your-policy-chris-bowen-issues-nuclear-challenge-to-coalition/ar-BB1kVhkK?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=8f209f4539b941aca1a42ad2e84615db&ei=16)

Is nuclear a fantasy? Maybe now we will iron it out one way or another.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Could this be the electrical grail of generation?

Limitless clean energy? Nuclear fusion reactor breaks record (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/limitless-clean-energy-nuclear-fusion-reactor-breaks-record/ss-BB1kWyhB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=8ae8b6f769ef4baa98f6e984c9381ec2&ei=29#image=11)

It could be only twenty years away as it has been for about the last sixty years.

:rolleyes:

I still can't get my head around the astronomical temperatures involved and how we could contain such temperatures.

Regards
Paul

[mic-d]

Just came across this podcast on heat pumps in Australia. 403 Forbidden (https://reneweconomy.com.au/switchedon-podcast-australia-has-a-heat-pump-problem/) (this link looks weird but works for me)

From units that have a back up heating element, to uncertainty about controls over end of life capture of high potency green house gas refrigerants.

Our old immersion unit recently died and we had a look at going to a heat pump, but decided to stay with the old fashioned one again and moved it to a central location in the house rather than way at the opposite end from the main hot water usage rooms. We also had it connected to the tariff 11 supply rather than off peak tariff 33 and installed a timer and a contact so it only draws from 9am-3pm, the peak solar times. The unit also has only a small element that only draws 1.8kW, so on a sunny day (and even with some overcast) will be completely supplied by solar. The unit has been in a couple of weeks now and we see it heat from 9-10 only, which corresponds to us using about 35l of raw (not tempered) hot water a day.

So the win win for us is 1) we have a more efficient location for the unit, 2)we heat mostly on solar now, not fossil fuel electricity, 3)we eliminated tariff 33 and the ongoing fees for having that service and 4) we don't have to worry about the destiny of the refrigerant at end of life.

[FenceFurniture]

So the win win for us is 1) we have a more efficient location for the unit, 2)we heat mostly on solar now, not fossil fuel electricity, 3)we eliminated tariff 33 and the ongoing fees for having that service and 4) we don't have to worry about the destiny of the refrigerant at end of life.Good job mic. My calculations on eliminating the CL1 circuit from here:
Cost for electrician to remove the circuit and tag (or whatever they have to do for officialdom) $300
Cost per day to keep the circuit is about $0.10 depending on the supplier
Days to break even on $300 cost: 300/0.10 = 3000 or 8.2 years.

The circuit will stay, and not be used...

[mic-d]

Good job mic. My calculations on eliminating the CL1 circuit from here:
Cost for electrician to remove the circuit and tag (or whatever they have to do for officialdom) $300
Cost per day to keep the circuit is about $0.10 depending on the supplier
Days to break even on $300 cost: 300/0.10 = 3000 or 8.2 years.

The circuit will stay, and not be used...
Yes I did wonder about the wisdom of removing the circuit once I found out Energex would charge me $180 to collect the meter. I don’t know that there was much in it for the sparky, it didn’t take long in top of the installation work. If I was in the situation again I wouldn’t have it disconnected I guess. Good thing to flag.


the other thing I forgot to suggest was go and have a look at the manufacture date on your HWS. If it’s more than 10 years old start thinking of a new one and if it’s more than 14 years old really consider doing a preemptive swap. They can make quite a mess when they go and the inconvenience of not hot water for a couple of days can be avoided. Better to do it on your terms than have to call an emergency plumber.

[Bushmiller]

the other thing I forgot to suggest was go and have a look at the manufacture date on your HWS. If it’s more than 10 years old start thinking of a new one and if it’s more than 14 years old really consider doing a preemptive swap. They can make quite a mess when they go and the inconvenience of not hot water for a couple of days can be avoided. Better to do it on your terms than have to call an emergency plumber.

Mic

I think one of the reasons they can fail (but not the only reason) is that the sacrificial anode does not get changed out and the water, particularly in hard water areas, begins to attack the element or other parts instead. When changing out an anode that is almost worn away, it is worth syphoning out or otherwise draining some water off the heater (about 600ml) or the new anode, which now has significantly more volume to it, will overflow the heater (Archimedes Principle?) and soak the insulation as it is inserted.

They are not difficult to change out once the water is turned off: Just a suitable spanner. Fitting the new anode will require some thread tape and maybe sealant too..

Regards
Paul

[mic-d]

Mic

I think one of the reasons they can fail (but not the only reason) is that the sacrificial anode does not get changed out and the water, particularly in hard water areas, begins to attack the element or other parts instead. When changing out an anode that is almost worn away, it is worth syphoning out or otherwise draining some water off the heater (about 600ml) or the new anode, which now has significantly more volume to it, will overflow the heater (Archimedes Principle?) and soak the insulation as it is inserted.

They are not difficult to change out once the water is turned off: Just a suitable spanner. Fitting the new anode will require some thread tape and maybe sealant too..

Regards
Paul

In my case the vessel sprung a leak, likely corroded through, lucky it was in the garage. The stop cock was frozen and could not be turned off. So I turned the water off and called my plumber mate, lucky he could be here in a short time to isolate the HWS so we could at least have water. I prefer to leave plumbing and electrical to a licensed tradie.

[FenceFurniture]

if it’s more than 14 years old really consider doing a preemptive swap.Yup, it's a 2009, and has already required a new thermostat in around 2014...

[Bushmiller]

It looks as though the curtain has finally come down on nukes for Oz:

Political battle over nuclear power moves to the states (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2024/04/05/nuclear-states?ahe=df367c01cfb5ffd84b418a037b7b8a99122b184b2f77914ecd0b3985af301fd5&acid=4161031&utm_campaign=Saturday%20News%20-%2020240406&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=#google_vignette)

A former energy minister in the NSW government was just one dissenter:

"Liberal dissent

Matt Kean, a former energy minister and treasurer in Dominic Perrottet’s NSW government, has resigned from a Liberal and National Party member-run renewable energy advocacy group because it supported nuclear energy over wind and solar.
“The reality is there is no feasible pathway [for nuclear energy] to play any material role in helping Australia replace our coal-fired power stations in line with the climate science,” Kean said."

and this in particular:

“Large-scale nuclear reactors have proven costly and slow to deliver and [I] would refer you to the UK experience with the Hinkley Point C power station, and the fact that small modular nuclear reactors are not currently commercial anywhere in the world.”

Of course this has been known for some time, but those with an agenda were attempting to give it life like Frankenstein's monster. It remains to be seen how one prominent Liberal stalwart will save face or even accept this decision.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Of course this has been known for some time, but those with an agenda were attempting to give it life like Frankenstein's monster. It remains to be seen how one prominent Liberal stalwart will save face or even accept this decision.



Maybe that'll teach him not to nail his colours to a mast that was already underwater??

[havabeer69]

This article on the future of Eraring Power Station in the Lower Hunter is interesting. One aspect it highlights is the significant "assistance" afforded by the government already.

State faces huge bill for major coal-plant's lifeline (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/state-faces-huge-bill-for-major-coal-plant-s-lifeline/ar-BB1kDG2W?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=37520f8ca6e54de680ae6bfe5cc09655&ei=46)

It seems to make a nonsense of renewables being criticised for subsidies as it would appear all power sources receive some benefit. Actually, that's not true as I am fairly certain we don't at Millmerran. I fail to understand how there will be sufficient supply for the whole twenty four hours of the day should Eraring be shut down. It does not address the nighttime issue when renewables, solar in particular, are either diminished or non-existent.

Eraring has a capacity of 2880MW from the four units and, apparently, despite being purchased for only $75m in 2013 is unable to make a profit. I can only assume the coal supplies down there are very expensive, but I have no inside knowledge of this. However, it is true to say that at 42 years old for the first unit it is getting towards the end of the typical 50 year lifespan of a thermal station.

Interestingly, the station was bought from the government by Origin in 2013 after the wet Bottom Ash system had been retrofitted with a dry Magaldi conveyor (2009 - 2013). The dry conveyor uses no water, as you might imagine, and consequently is far less demanding on water resources and less polluting as well. Also, between 2011 and 2012 the units' capacity were upgraded from 660MW to 720MW. Both these improvements would have been quite an expense and it looks as though the sale price would have just about covered those retrofits. The rest was given away.

After this "gift" Origin can't make a profit!

:shrug:

I can't quite recall the original financing arrangements of Eraring, but my memory is that there was some sort of consortium. It was not owned in the same way as the other stations that formed the NSW Electricity Commision during the early eighties.

Regards
Paul


this is a few days old for a reply bush miller


but just remember origin energy mainly deal with gas supply, Imagine what might happen if you take 2800MW out of the grid from coal. It's almost like the Gas plants may need to run harder to cover the gap in the production. I wonder what might happen to gas prices if there was a sudden demand for it...



most of the people you talk to at Eraring are basically saying the company is just holding out to get a big cash grab from the government to stay open.

[mic-d]

Whether the pro-nuclear lobby will let the facts get in the way remains to be seen.

[BobL]

I read recently that Bill Gates is getting into liquid sodium reactor nuclear power. Apparently he started his fund raising (via a company know as TerraPower) back in 2008 and the first reactor will be up and running by 2030 (hah hah). Given the way bill's foundation has managed to botch pretty well everything they touch (human health, agriculture, media, science etc) I don't rate the chances that this will get anywhere significant. It also needs to be born in mind that this is taking place in a country that already has a nuclear energy regulatory system and industry, and we have none of this

[Bushmiller]

this is a few days old for a reply bush miller


but just remember origin energy mainly deal with gas supply, Imagine what might happen if you take 2800MW out of the grid from coal. It's almost like the Gas plants may need to run harder to cover the gap in the production. I wonder what might happen to gas prices if there was a sudden demand for it...



most of the people you talk to at Eraring are basically saying the company is just holding out to get a big cash grab from the government to stay open.

HAB

No need to apologise for late replies. Life has to go on and the Forum is probably way down the list of priorities for most.

Yes, Origin's other interests are a good point and I can see that the demand for gas could rise dramatically without Erarings contribution. This would inevitably mean that electricity prices would rise too. Possibly this is the scenario Origin is putting to the government (State gov I am assuming in the first instance, although it could become federal too). Unfortunately, maintenance of aging stations becomes expensive as maintenance morphs into replacement and Eraring's owners have a very good case for their proposal to shut it down. The galling aspect is how cheaply they were "gifted" the station in the first place and their attitude today.

It rather sounds as if either way Origin comes out with a win.

Just as a small aside our Unit 1 at Millmerran was taken offline yesterday for a major, planned outage. One of the jobs is to replace some attemperators. These pieces of equipment are called "superheater de-superheaters" in the NSW systems and are a method of controlling the steam temperatures at different points in the steam flow path (information for the non-power station readers). Ours are situated on the top level of the boiler. The largest of them weights about 8.5T. The only way they can be moved into place is by crane and removal of a section of the roof. This was done a few days ago in readiness for the "shut."

A crane was hired for this purpose: A big bastad. 350T, which is for the reach required more than the weight. Some pix:

This is without the top boom raised:

537051537052537054

The top boom extension has it's own trailer to assist mobility. Aside from the mobile crane itself, I was told the components came on five separate trailers.

537060

The attemperator being lifted by a 20T Franna.. quite easily.

537055

Some idea of the reach required:
537056537057 537059


All this comes at quite a price even though the crane was only there for three days. If it had been too windy or even wet, it might have been four or five days! Just showing this to provide some pictorial relief and to demonstrate the sort of costs that can be encountered as time goes on. We, at Millmerran, are only twenty two years old!

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

We, at Millmerran, are only twenty two years old!There is no way that everybody there could be the same age.

[Bushmiller]

There is no way that everybody there could be the same age.

FF

Agreed and 22 years old is not even a memory any more :(.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Now I am not really advocating that the "Mini Grid" is any sort of solution to Australia's electrical future, but it does highlight the variety of options out there:

What are mini-grids, and why are they important? (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/what-are-mini-grids-and-why-are-they-important/ss-BB1ln4UZ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=31dad6dbdf924d618d6f02e669ef57c5&ei=23#image=12)

Having said that I believe there are a number of new housing developments and other locations that have been set up to be self-sufficient as far as electricity needs are concerned.

People power: everyday Australians are building their own renewables projects, and you can too (theconversation.com) (https://theconversation.com/people-power-everyday-australians-are-building-their-own-renewables-projects-and-you-can-too-146885)

Regards
Paul

[BobL]

Not sure if mini grids differ from Micro Grids but there are at least 4 micro grids operating in WA and a bunch more in the pipeline.

Recently a couple of new micro grids in Nullagine and Carnarvon using 100/400kWh ZnBr flow and 250/1450 kWh NaS long term batteries have been announced.
See
https://arena.gov.au/assets/2024/03/ARENA-Media-Release_Horizon-microgrid_25032024.pdf

[Lappa]

Luckily Dutton's pro-nookular arguments are likely to blow up in his face long before we ever build anything than can blow up more seriously. He clearly subscribes to the Trump model of ignoring any inconvenient facts that get in the way of his agenda. I'm glad to see that the CSIRO guys scampered into the net and volleyed his idiotic comments straight back at him.

Before seeing Dutton spouting his crap on TV, I used to think that builders were the only people who would tell a lie to your face even in the sure and certain knowledge that they'd be called out on it inside 10 minutes... "Yeah, mate, it's supposed to be like that. Nothing we can do about it now." :rolleyes:
If the information now surfacing is true, the CSIROs data is 5 years out of date and a recent interview with the head of the CSIRO had him saying “ we will look into nuclear generation later” .

[FenceFurniture]

If the information now surfacing is true, the CSIROs data is 5 years out of date and a recent interview with the head of the CSIRO had him saying “ we will look into nuclear generation later” .That doesn't necessarily mean that 5 year old data has changed much, if any. We know that it's still extremely expensive to set up, with a very long lead time, and with eye-watering de-commissioning costs to be passed on to 2 to 3 generations down the track.

I still think that whether or not it can be made viable will be a moot point because renewables, and storage in particular, will have matured well before nuclear would be ready, and probably before the argument has finished (because it WILL be a very long argument).

[Lappa]

I don’t believe the average time of 6 to 8 years to build a large scale nuclear reactor is all that long when you look at Snowy 2 and the estimated time to wire the grid from the renewables and have enough renewables in place to replace current coal or gas fired generators.
In regards to the CSIRO - they should be advising the Govt with reliable and up-to- date information.
Currently it appears the Govt is sdvising the CSIRO.
Here’s an interesting opinion
More misinformation from CSIRO on Nuclear - YouTube (https://youtu.be/CDLH-qEFfCY?si=TdhOx0RW9xHC-dfK)

[Bushmiller]

There are, to my mind, two big advantages of nuclear power. Firstly, in this modern era, it is not an emitter of CO2. Secondly, the fuel itself is relatively cheap, primarily because it does not use much fuel in terms of volume.

However, neither of these advantages come into play without a huge amount of initial expense as the setup costs and regulation, which in this country would still have to be established (another minefield), are mindboggling.

As to contamination, admittedly there is not much in the way of CO2, but there will be an abundance of radiated material that cannot just be exploded or otherwise recycled when the use by date is up and the plant is de-commissioned.

In a practical context we have to ask ourselves if nuclear can compete with renewables during the day on the one hand and through the night on the other. Right now, nothing competes with renewables during the day. The coal fired stations back off to their minimum practical loads and pay to stay online. The gas units (years ago we used to call them "wizzers") stop completely, hence their peaking capabilities. The nukes would be in the same position as the coal fired units. So, although the nuke's fuel costs are relatively low, the owners or investors are hugely in debt to the financiers (banks and others). This is a debt that is likely to be in place for at least two thirds of the station's life, if not longer. The question now is whether a nuke could make enough money through the night to make up for the loss through the day.

Unlikely.

Furthermore, this means that any prospective investor would be looking at the situation in Australia as to whether they could make money, bearing in mind that the cost of setting up a nuke is around twice, or maybe more, than a fossil fired station. The answer: Nah!

End of story. Look for another solution to the nighttime supply problem and find it sooner rather than later. Wake up Australia.

Regards
Paul

[BobL]

The question now is whether a nuke could make enough money through the night to make up for the loss through the day.

Unlikely.
l

Paul I think this pretty well sums it up.

The only way they can make it pay is by subsidies and then we are back to paying more than we should.

The other thing to look at is time.
Just look at how long Snowy 2 is taking - unless Chinese style dictatorial regulations are implemented Nuclear will take significantly longer to set up.
In the meantime night time renewables like wind, and all forms of storage will become even cheaper- so even more subsidies will be needed for boat anchor supplies like nuclear.

[Warb]

The coal fired stations back off to their minimum practical loads and pay to stay online.

I don't really understand why this is the case. I realise that during the day there is an abundance of energy, but the concept of having to pay to stay online seems like an artificial construct - how is it that the solar power is still being sold when other forms have to pay? Or are all the energy providers, including renewables, paying to supply power at these times?

[Lappa]

What is the cost of running all new grid lines to the solar and wind farms vs. building nukes at existing power station sites with the grid already in place?

[GraemeCook]

Paul, if I may, can I rephrase what you have said and then pose a couple of questions?

First the cost accounting:

Nothing competes with solar during the day, and
Only solar competes with wind when the wind is blowing.
Both renewables have variable output - overcast days and high/low wind periods.


Thus when the renewable gods are aligned we have very cheap power, interspersed with periods of zero power.



In a practical context we have to ask ourselves if nuclear can compete with renewables during the day on the one hand and through the night on the other. Right now, nothing competes with renewables during the day.


I think the alternative question is whether nuclear can be ramped up quickly to fill those intermittent supply breaks.

This implies that the concept of base load supply is now superceded. Renewables will supply cheap power but there will be regular and irregular periods when it does not supply. The role of "manufactured electricity" will be to fill those voids.

At present, only hydro and gas fired plants can fill this need. But one cannot be expanded much because we are running out of suitable rivers and the other has pollution issues. Batteries are still a pipe dream.

In the future, will we have a world where peak renewables generate 200% of power needs and the excess is used to pump hydro or make hydrogen to power the gaps?

[BobL]

I don't really understand why this is the case. I realise that during the day there is an abundance of energy, but the concept of having to pay to stay online seems like an artificial construct - how is it that the solar power is still being sold when other forms have to pay? Or are all the energy providers, including renewables, paying to supply power at these times?

I'll let Paul supply a detailed answer but my take is as follows
Solar can nominally be switched off immediately so they're only paying in the sense that they are not getting paid but they are not shelling out $$.
Thermal coal can do this so there's serious amount of ongoing operating cost and energy balancing needed in short medium and even longer term so they are always shelling our $$
I know there's a bit more to it that this but I'll let Paul do that..



What is the cost of running all new grid lines to the solar and wind farms vs. building nukes at existing power station sites with the grid already in place?

a) People who live where current coal power stations are currently located are unlikely to stand for nuclear plants being located there so will need to be located remotely so there's just as much cost involved in running lines to remote locations. Old power sites make good places for storage to be located
b) the existing power line infrastructure is so badly degraded it needs replacing/upgrading anyway so why not do it to where there is power generated
c) Energy distribution futures should seriously consider interconnected solar/storgae micro/mini grids - especially for regional situations. This improves reliability and reduces the cost of interconnection. This is increasingly happening in WA. In remote and regional in WA it's proving cheaper in the long run to install a bank of solar collectors and storage than upgrade and maintain expensive interconnects.

[Bushmiller]

Thanks Graeme and Bob.

You are both on the money (sorry. poor phraseology ) with your comments, but as we know, life is just not simple or easy.

Perhaps I can expand a little further and try to answer Warb's questions. Let's take a hypothetical thermal fired power station of, say, 500MW. It will have a ramp rate of something between 3MW/min and 5MW/min under normal circumstances. Hypothetically let's suppose we are generating at maximum load at 0600hrs and then the sun rises and solar power leaps into action. The price goes from $150/MWhr down to $50/MWhr and then within the next hour it goes to $20 and within another hour it is at -$-20 (negative money). The unit starts to deload at the $50 price point because the operators and their traders can see what is about to happen. At 5MW/min it would take 100 minutes and at 3MW/min it would take close to three hours to reach zero. It is only viable to generate when the spot market price is above the cost of the fuel. The cost of fuel varies hugely dependent on the geographical location. There was a time when power stations were located in the middle of cities such as Pyrmont and Bunnerong in Sydney and Tennyson in Brisbane, but that soon changed to placing them as close to the coal source as possible and moving them away from densly populated areas. I would hazzard a guess (and this is a really wide one) that coal could be in the range of $50/tonne to $90/tonne

Efficiencies vary, but assume that it takes 500Kg of coal to generate 1MW/hr. For power plants their minimum price will now range between $25 and $45. This is not the point at which they make money, but the point at which they lose less. It minimises the losses of your fixed costs which are still present even if you sit there not generating. Whilever the money coming in is more than the cost of fuel, you minimise the losses until such time as you make a profit.

This scenario assumes that zero is a minimum load. It is not, unless you are planning to come off line. A unit of this size may be relatively unstable at those lower loads or there may be other constraints that limit how low it is "reasonably" possible to go. On the way down this unit incurred several costs. We had six mills in service with each one nominally capable of 100MW. However, they each have a minimum throughput and before that is reached they have to have oil support for stability. The oil guns (it is typically diesel similar to that used in road going vehicles) is costly. For the purposes of this exercise we are going to come down in load to 150MW. At that load we are only going to have two mills left in service. The other four mills came out of service as load was reduced and cost $5000 for each mill ($20,000 so far).

As we approach our target of 150MW, the price drops further to -$40. What do we do? If we come to zero we go offline. Now, it is possible to disconnect from the grid and keep the boiler ticking over by using the Bypass, but not all units have a Bypass. The Bypass takes the steam generated by the boiler and dumps it straight back into the condenser via the HP and LP bypasses. The steam is just going round in a circle generating nothing but costing quite a bit. Additionally, it may still take a couple of hours to come back on line when the price looks as though it is going in the right direction.

In our scenario, we also have some contracts to fulfill so we probably do need to keep the unit at some load as the spot market is only part of the mix. Suppose we have 200MW of contracts. We may be able to come to 150MW and buy 50MW from the market at -$40 and supply under our contract price which was $70! That turns things around a little.

A small phenomenon occurs at -$40. The solar shuts down! Why did it not shut down immediately $zero ticked over? After all, they only have to flick a switch. The answer is there is a guaranteed price: But only for the moment. Without knowing exactly what it is, it seems that $40 or just under is likely as -$40 is when solar switches off.

Back to the scenario and around 1800hrs, the market price starts to pick up as the sun disappears and people arrive home, start their evening meal and, increasingly, charge up their EV. As we come back up in load we have to put the mills back into service. This operation is not quite as expensive as taking them out (we don't have to grind out the mills to clear them), but still costs as again we burn oil to support the combustion.

I hasten to add that I know of no unit like the one I have described above and it is a mix of places I have been (Millmerran is my fourth station). I could describe the constraints of the Millmerran units but that would definitely be divulging confidential information, which is why I have done a Geoffrey Robertson Hypothetical. Also, the above de-load and load assumes everything went smoothly. It certainly does not always happen that way. It would be great if we could just take the foot off the accelerator, but it is not like that. If it was we would run the stations from an app on our phone and I would not have a job.

So Warb, the above is the long answer. The short answer is that the cost of coming offline, coming back online and the lack of security is more than the cost of paying to stay online. Remember that the spot market is only part of the market. I don't know what proportion is under contract. It could be as much as three quarters. I just don't know. You may recall that when prices went ballistic, opportunistic players in the retail section got caught out badly as they had no contracts in place and were having to buy wholesale at more than they were charging retail.

Having said all that, there will come a point when the cost of staying online is too much to bear and the fossil stations will become fossils themselves. This is the crux of the discussion regarding proposed station closures, which frequently coincide with the reasonable life expectancy of those same stations. Most of the NSW and Victorian units are between forty and fifty years old compared to the six QLD units that are a mere twenty to twenty five years old, although there are older units too.

I hope this may put things into perspective, but looking back on what I have written, I can see that I may have created more questions than answers.

Please feel free to ask and perhaps others can weigh in too where they have industry knowledge. I am not precious about this.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

An interesting discussion on the fossil fuel industry and PR:

How to spot five of the fossil fuel industry’s biggest disinformation tactics (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/how-to-spot-five-of-the-fossil-fuel-industry-s-biggest-disinformation-tactics/ar-BB1lAJb7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=c8c0ee16e5174e9e86f41ad8004cd860&ei=27)

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Centre for Independent Studies - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Independent_Studies)

"Independent". Hmmm...

[Warb]

The price goes from $150/MWhr down to $50/MWhr and then within the next hour it goes to $20 and within another hour it is at -$-20 (negative money).


But why does the price go negative? Oversupply reduces the price, but in no other market that I can think of does the price go negative. The answer, I suspect, is twofold. Firstly, unlike any other market, the producers cannot stockpile their excess power - they must, as you say, shut down the system and stop producing power. This opens them up to a "blackmail" pricing system, wherein the buyers know full well that they have no choice but to pay. The second part of the problem is explained in the following statement:



A small phenomenon occurs at -$40. The solar shuts down! Why did it not shut down immediately $zero ticked over? After all, they only have to flick a switch. The answer is there is a guaranteed price: But only for the moment. Without knowing exactly what it is, it seems that $40 or just under is likely as -$40 is when solar switches off.

A guaranteed price for renewables, put in place in order to make them a better investment, means that they get preferential treatment when it comes to selling their power. What is more interesting is that the guarantee must go deeper than simply the price, it must also guarantee the sale. If the price alone was guaranteed, the buyer would simply buy from other suppliers when the market price dropped too low. The fact that they don't would indicate that they are mandated to buy whatever the renewables can produce in preference to buying from fossil fuel sources. This is what I meant when I said the negative pricing was the result of an artificial construct.

It's an interesting situation. Having a system driven by profit alone means that renewables have to be artificially made into a profitable system. It's not that they're not inherently profitable, it's just that to increase their rate of construction "we" have had to make then even more profitable (and, let's be honest, if "they" can extort a few more $ from the government to get paid more to do what they were going to do anyway, then why wouldn't they?). The result, of course, is that coal fired generators get hit with the artificial negative pricing during the day. But that is, of course, not all bad news. Coal fired generators know full well that their race is run, but at this stage they are still needed overnight and in times of unfavourable conditions. They can leverage the negative pricing to force yet more "tax dollars" to be spent on subsidies for their plants, to keep them going for a few more years until the renewables are able to take over full time. Perhaps they can also factor in some losses in order to declare bankruptcy before they have to pay to dismantle their old fossil fuel plants? I'm sure they have it all planned out!

[Warb]

Centre for Independent Studies - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Independent_Studies)

"Independent". Hmmm...

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

[Mobyturns]

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

Cynical, but on the balance of probabilities more than likely true.

[BobL]

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

I seriously doubt there ever was. I'm reading a book about the strange philosopher Nietzsche. He proposed somewhere in 1880 that just about every conversation/dialog/reporting/book etc has unknowingly or otherwise at its basis "power", or more specifically trying to gain power over other people. He would undoubtedly include stuff on the internet (ie this post as well) :D

[Bushmiller]

The price goes from $150/MWhr down to $50/MWhr and then within the next hour it goes to $20 and within another hour it is at -$-20 (negative money).

But why does the price go negative? Oversupply reduces the price, but in no other market that I can think of does the price go negative. The answer, I suspect, is twofold. Firstly, unlike any other market, the producers cannot stockpile their excess power - they must, as you say, shut down the system and stop producing power. This opens them up to a "blackmail" pricing system, wherein the buyers know full well that they have no choice but to pay. The second part of the problem is explained in the following statement:


A small phenomenon occurs at -$40. The solar shuts down! Why did it not shut down immediately $zero ticked over? After all, they only have to flick a switch. The answer is there is a guaranteed price: But only for the moment. Without knowing exactly what it is, it seems that $40 or just under is likely as -$40 is when solar switches off.

A guaranteed price for renewables, put in place in order to make them a better investment, means that they get preferential treatment when it comes to selling their power. What is more interesting is that the guarantee must go deeper than simply the price, it must also guarantee the sale. If the price alone was guaranteed, the buyer would simply buy from other suppliers when the market price dropped too low. The fact that they don't would indicate that they are mandated to buy whatever the renewables can produce in preference to buying from fossil fuel sources. This is what I meant when I said the negative pricing was the result of an artificial construct.

It's an interesting situation. Having a system driven by profit alone means that renewables have to be artificially made into a profitable system. It's not that they're not inherently profitable, it's just that to increase their rate of construction "we" have had to make then even more profitable (and, let's be honest, if "they" can extort a few more $ from the government to get paid more to do what they were going to do anyway, then why wouldn't they?). The result, of course, is that coal fired generators get hit with the artificial negative pricing during the day. But that is, of course, not all bad news. Coal fired generators know full well that their race is run, but at this stage they are still needed overnight and in times of unfavourable conditions. They can leverage the negative pricing to force yet more "tax dollars" to be spent on subsidies for their plants, to keep them going for a few more years until the renewables are able to take over full time. Perhaps they can also factor in some losses in order to declare bankruptcy before they have to pay to dismantle their old fossil fuel plants? I'm sure they have it all planned out!

Warb

Your precis pretty much nails the situation.

The only additional comments I would make is that human nature being what it is, a company is going to make the best of any opportunity it sees even if that was not the original intention of the framework. Look at the job keeper travesties during Covid for companies that profited outside of the intended scope.

The negative pricing, actually it starts a long way before the money goes negative for most generators, is the first line in frequency control. To explain that we have to remember, as you have pointed out, that in the main electricity is not stored. An oversupply, if allowed to continue, would increase the frequency beyond 50Hz. The philosophy is "we are not paying you so you might as well de-load." Of course there are other methods of reducing load too, of which the main one is PFC (primary frequency control) whereby a generators output can be decreased or increased by up to 18MW almost instantaneously. Today, this is pre-requisite for a thermal station to be in the market. I may have mentioned before that the renewables generally do not have this feature, but in the future they will have to have that.

The result of this is that solar and wind generate as much as they can, subject to sun and wind conditions, until the spot price dips negatively below their guaranteed price. Then they pull the plug. It is a luxury not enjoyed by the thermal stations.

The guaranteed price for renewables was necessary to kick the process away. I don't know at what point those guarantees will be phased out. It is not a level playing field at the moment. I would assume that subsidies in the future will be more for storage than generation as that will be the only way batteries or indeed any other method of storage will develop sufficiently.

I can see a time in the future where thermal stations will seek assistence to remain operating as in earlier periods they would be shutting down, being at the end of their life span and too expensive to keep maintaining and repairing. For example, perhaps Eraring is close to that point as it approaches 45 years old for the first of the four units there.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

I seriously doubt there ever was. I'm reading a book about the strange philosopher Nietzsche. He proposed somewhere in 1880 that just about every conversation/dialog/reporting/book etc has unknowingly or otherwise at its basis "power", or more specifically trying to gain power over other people. He would undoubtedly include stuff on the internet (ie this post as well) :D

Bob

It looks like we are stuck with bias as an integral part of communication as the alternative is never to talk or write about anything whatsoever!

:)

I have in the past on this thread mentioned bias and agendas in the context of where a view comes from. It is time for me to reiterate my own prejudice (for newcomers to the thread) and that I work in a coal fired power station, although my bias is now arguably less than what it once was, seeing as how I job share with a colleague. I am literally semi-retired, working exactly half the hours.

:wink:

Regards
Paul

[MartinCH]

Hi All

I haven't followed read though this thread much only the last though posts. As for coal fired power station well cannot say I involved much but design/ or more exactly redesigned some aspects of a coal fired power station back in the day when such things where built. And one of my close friends was pretty senior in snowy scheme, well senior for a local, as the place is built by Italians.

None of this experience makes me an expert in the grid by any means.

As for the future of the grid, I do some suspect that path is written. The bigger Chinese battery suppliers are starting/expecting to supply batteries to MF at manufactures at 0.3 RMB watt/hour. These would be lithium phosphate style. Assuming say 5000 cycle at 80% DOD and the support electronics are recycled the cost of these without margins (don't stress me with details of this, pointing only to underlying costs if delivery, by some miracle, was efficient) of these units is approx $5 megawatt hour. So given this there is plenty of room a couple of fat margins from greedy corporations, particularly if they get the chance to recharge for negative dollars.

Assuming batteries to reach the projected price level the increase in battery installations will possibly to an oversupply position with some interesting effects on competing technologies.

If you don't believe me that fine, but the dynamics that cause the RMB 0.3 watt/hour LFP batteries are the same dynamics that cause the lithium carbonate to dive in price, embryonic but developing market - unstable dynamics.

This will be slow moving adaption, there is alot of red tape in electrical market and the supply of solar power far too small to dominate all thermal power, as yet, but the drivers /possibilities are identifiable

[Bushmiller]

No, FPV is not a hot Ford. It is about Floating Photo Voltaic panels. Matt Ferrell goes into the pros and cons :

1010413 (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CMk7Sp831Q&t=861s)

Regards
Paul

[doug3030]

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

.537364.

[FenceFurniture]

Just going back to the Jervis Bay NPP thought bubble for a moment: yer wouldn't believe it, but I've just been made aware that the father of one of my old school mates was the Chief Engineer (not Physicist) for that site. This came up in a Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/david.carr.9212/posts/pfbid0jXCPzLUsvaSpXoF1RkvUisoTqDnK3PRmfEwR4J2GFst31NMp8d2sM66f75QFjgH4l) he put up a day or two ago. He has some interesting observations to make about nuclear power. I made the comment that his Dad inadvertently made the world's most indestructible car park, which is probably at least ten times thicker than required.

[FenceFurniture]

Centre for Independent Studies - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Independent_Studies) "Independent". Hmmm...They don't actually say they are the Independent Centre for studies.
That means their name could just imply that each study they do is independent of any other studies that they do. Pardon me for being a cynic.

[BobL]

There is no such thing as an independent anything anymore (if there ever was!). All reporting, all research, and everything else is driven by some person or group with an axe to grind. It takes a very brave (and financially suicidal) person to come to a conclusion that is at odds with that of their major sponsor!

In terms of influencing of outcomes by sponsors it depends what sort of research and who's funding it.

When I did research on natural nuclear reactors in the 1980's funded by the Uni and the ARC (Australian Research Council) there was zero influence to "toe any sort of prescribed line" and I was able to publish whatever conclusions I deemed appropriate.

From 1988 to 1990 my USA boss was funded by NASA so that I could to undertake research on the isotope patterns of Mg, Ca, Ti, Cr, Ni, Fe and Zn in small grains found in meteorites that predated the formation of the solar system. The results had implications in the formation of these elements during early stage supernovae events. NASA didn't give two hoots what the results were. Over the years my USA boss obtained millions of $$ from NASA again with no assumptions on what the results were. Apart from something like SETI which can have religious implications, most astronomical and fundamental particle research is usually untethered.

During my 30 odd years in research I never felt under any pressure to meet the expectations of the Funding agencies that supported my research. There still are lots of other "forces" involved like the desire to "being first", or scientists looking for support for pre-existing positions etc but these are rarely forces pushed by fundamental science funding agencies.

Even today the ARC does not apply this sort of pressure in the fundamental research space. They do exert subtle pressure by favouring funding towards more of some kinds research that others but what is done with results is up to the researcher and I have yet to hear of anyone that lost out on subsequent ARC finding because they came out with a certain result.

For many years I was on an International Science Panel to "vet" research related to the claimed discoveries of new elements (atomic numbers 111 - 118) which was extremely interesting. This type of research has a major "to be the first" force component because this then dictates "the right to propose new element names". This turned out to be as much of an exercise in international relations as science. But just like the Russians at the space station all decisions were arrived at quite amicably and as fairly as possible.

I'm not saying bias doesn't happen and I know of a some very interesting cases but it a bit of a stretch to say that it applies to all research.

[doug3030]

I'm not saying bias doesn't happen and I know of a some very interesting cases but it a bit of a stretch to say that it applies to all research.

Of course not all research is impacted, but my take on it is that the possibility of a bias being injected into the result is in direct proportion to how much money someone stands to make from a favourable outcome.

I was giving an intelligence briefing to Prime Minister and Cabinet once when the Prime Minister asked a very pertinent question to which I could have taken hours to respond, or give him the short answer. "In short, Prime Minister, the answer is 'money'. The answer is always 'money'. If you ever think the answer isn't 'money', you didn't really understand the question." My bosses were trying to crawl away out of sight thinking I had overstepped my mark and were obviously trying to disassociate themselves from me, until the Prime Minister told me that was possibly the best answer he ever got to a question. Always follow the money trail.

[Warb]

I'm not saying bias doesn't happen and I know of a some very interesting cases but it a bit of a stretch to say that it applies to all research.

I have no doubt that there is indeed esoteric research that has few external influences, though I'd be tempted to suggest that even that is changing - it is no doubt far easier to get sponsorship or publicity for research (or most other things) if you link it, for example, to climate change.

Your statement
In terms of influencing of outcomes by sponsors it depends what sort of research and who's funding it. is entirely correct. Esoteric research solely for the sake of knowledge is likely to be relatively unbiased, as long as nobody stands to gain or lose money, standing, reputation or anything else!

Since the concept that "you can't argue with the science" has been forced upon us, the ability of scientists to profit by declaring the desired results has increased greatly. This also means that the temptation to declare such results has also increased!

[doug3030]

Since the concept that "you can't argue with the science" has been forced upon us, the ability of scientists to profit by declaring the desired results has increased greatly. This also means that the temptation to declare such results has also increased!

I wonder how the statement "You can't argue with the science" ever got legs.

Arguing with the science is exactly how you DO science.

[GraemeCook]

[QUOTE=MartinCH;2332467Assuming batteries to reach the projected price level the increase in battery installations will possibly to an oversupply position with some interesting effects on competing technologies. [/QUOTE]

Interesting analysis and supposition, Martin.

The price of lithium batteries has dropped by over 80% in real terms over the past ten years.

https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/fig1battery-300x169.png

And the price of lithium metal has returned to its "normal range" after spiking in 2022-2023 (Chinese prices).
Source: Trading Economicshttps://carboncredits.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/lithium-carbonate-stock-price-trend-2023-2024-Trading-Economics.png



Who knows how well focused is your crystal ball?