Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

That was the way I was trained, and I fully agree with the sentiment. Sadly, at the present time, when "you can't argue with the science" seems actually to mean "if you disagree you'll be ridiculed and your career ended" and the media are interested solely in a good headline

---

I share your concerns but source the problem to the multitude of journalism schools which are producing "journalists" who do not have basic numeracy and have a very shallow appreciation of the scientific principle.

For example. Who is to say that one person's opinion is weightier than another's? If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.

---

Yes, but further analysis will most likely show that the 10 flat earthers are all just repeating information they all got from the one source. They were most likely not conducting their own research. Let's suppose the three scientists did theor own research, the actual ratio is three to one that the world is a globe but the one flat earther has more facebook followers. :rolleyes:

BOM long term NSW weather statistics are here, and you can pick a station number. At the top of the page you can go to a list that is sorted by site name if you don't know the number you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Yes, but further analysis will most likely show ...

---

Irrelevant, the opinions of FB posters are paramount and infallible.

Next you will be saying that Galileo was right and that PopeUrban VIII was fallible.

More seriously, Doug, the point I was trying to make is that too many journalists lack the scientific training to make the distinction that you just instinctively made. They do not differentiate between gossip and sciebtific fact.

The problem with all the various groups mentioned by so many of you is that as far as viability is concerned they are just not in the real world. I am including journalists, other commentators, politicians and to some extent even the so-called experts. They all either forget or ignore ( some from ignorance, some from self interest and some for malicious or other nefarious reasons) that in Oz we have a competitive, commercial market. If you can't make a reasonable commercial profit, it is not going to fly.

Talk of shutting down power stations or building another type of station is all irrelevant hyperbole if it does not stack up as a commercial proposition. The fossil fueled stations will shut down when they can no longer make money. The danger is not that they will shut down, but that they will shut down before there is something to replace them. That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more. That value has to be for all hours of the day and not just the sunny hours.

The biggest flaw in the nuclear philosophy is not the ban on nukes in Oz, although I don't agree with a ban as such, but more to do with their commercial viability. In other countries, they may be more viable, but it doesn't look that way here.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more.

---

It definitely has to be more to cope with the transition away from gas home heating and gas hot water, just for a start. Then there is population growth, followed by the industrial dependence on gas to account for (bearing nett zero in mind, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

but more to do with their (nuclear) commercial viability. In other countries, they may be more viable, but it doesn't look that way here.

---

I wonder how viable they are in those countries (with existing nuclear power) going forward from here though? Perhaps many of them are going to find out the real cost of decommissioning them.

Apart from the nuclear power plants that have effectively "blown up", which no doubt causes far more decomm costs, how many have been decommissioned on schedule so far? Are there any at all yet? Did the costs come in around the forecast cost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

A WA EV aficionado has bought the first Hyundai "Mighty" EV light truck in Australia

MIGHTY Electric Truck | Hyundai Electrified Commercial Australia
Range claimed is 200 km with a full load (7 tons) at 100 kph.
Not cheap - about twice the price of a similar diesel variant.
5year 200k km vehicle warranty, 400k km battery warranty.

---

doing some "simple" maths ...

5 years or 200,000 km warranty equates to 40,000 km per annum.
As a guide, my BMW X3 travels that far every 6 months or so.
But given that the EV truck only has a range of 200km, many operators would require 2 trucks -- one to do the morning deliveries, the other the afternoon ones -- so a 5 year warranty might be reasonable.

For comparison, an ICE semi working the Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane routes would do in excess of 200,000 km per annum, and would carry a warranty of around 400,000 km

Very well stated Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The danger is not that they will shut down, but that they will shut down before there is something to replace them. That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more. That value has to be for all hours of the day and not just the sunny hours.

---

I think that the sistualion is even more insidious than yo say, Paul.

We lack the topography of Norway to invest massively in hydro power, natural or pump assisted. But the rapid growth of other renewables means that we have heaps of power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. This is reflected in very low and even negative wholesale prices in times of abundant supply.

A hydro plant is ideally situated to exploit this situation. Switch off the turbines when the prices are low; wait for high prices.

But coal fired plants cannot ramp up and down quickly. They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market.

As more and more alternative energy comes onto the market the price volatility will increase. It may become so volatile that one (or more) of the coal fired generators do not survive - they go bankrupt! This would leave a catastrophic hole in the electricity supply. And before there is a viable alternative source. The economic and social impact would be horrendous.

Ironically, the government may be forced to assist coal fired plants!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

For example. Who is to say that one person's opinion is weightier than another's? If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.

---

who actually gives a toss? and why should flat-earthers be treated as anything other than the marginal cranks?

At least two and probably several millennia earlier, it was known that the only 3-D shape that could cast a circular shadow whatever the object's orientation in space was a sphere. Eratosthenes (the Greek philosopher) may have determined the earth's circumference with a high degree of accuracy in around 200 BC, but the basic concept -- that a sphere is the only shape that casts a circular shadow -- would have been known to the Sumerians, and probably even earlier civilisations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

who actually gives a toss? and why should flat-earthers be treated as anything other than the marginal cranks?

---

I think that you should address that question to Mr Trump or Mr Musk or Mr Johnson or Mr Dutton or Mr Jones.

In Katoomba:
For 2023 to be no more than the equal hottest year on record since 1907 (which was 1957 with a monthly mean of 18.9°), the remaining 16 days have to average no more than 17.5° (which is 0.2° less than the coolest ever Dec mean).

It's already ~28° today. :D

If the current daily mean persists (28.8°) then this year will be 0.5° hotter than 1957, which is a pretty substantial increase on the mean monthly temp. (some would say "SMASHED!" :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

The [temperature] issue is far less about current day readings and more about the reliability of the old readings. Stevenson Screens were invented in the 1880 but not in widespread use especially in remote locations for many years after that. Screens were not always well maintained and spurious results were often found to be associated with damaged or incorrectly installed screens.

---

given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I think that the situation is even more insidious than you say, Paul.

We lack the topography of Norway to invest massively in hydro power, natural or pump assisted. But the rapid growth of other renewables means that we have heaps of power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. This is reflected in very low and even negative wholesale prices in times of abundant supply.

A hydro plant is ideally situated to exploit this situation. Switch off the turbines when the prices are low; wait for high prices.

But coal fired plants cannot ramp up and down quickly. They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market.

As more and more alternative energy comes onto the market the price volatility will increase. It may become so volatile that one (or more) of the coal fired generators do not survive - they go bankrupt! This would leave a catastrophic hole in the electricity supply. And before there is a viable alternative source. The economic and social impact would be horrendous.

Ironically, the government may be forced to assist coal fired plants!

---

Graeme

Insidious indeed! very much so.

Hydro has always had a superb response time for frequency control, which really is the grid way of expressing supply and demand. However, the big "potential" of hydro is as a storage facility, but that requires two dams instead of one and consequential extra investment and expense. As you say we don't enjoy the Norwegian topography so our ability (despite that document that "identified" thousands of sites) to utilise this technology is quite limited particularly if you factor in our incompetence in building these projects (Snowy 2.0).

While it is true to say the coal fired plants ramp rates are on the slow side I would not completely agree with

"They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market."

All generators are constrained by AEMO's rules, but there is some wiggle room there. I concede that at some point the "price taking" will become an unacceptable reality.

I am afraid that at some point a generator will shut down and there will be a hole, unless your last sentence finally comes to roost and the Government of the day does come to the party. I have to say that neither party has shown much inclination in this regard so far and is just another reason why the nukes are not going to get off the ground any time soon. Most nuclear stations around the world apparently have some form of subsidy/assistence from the government.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.

---

Ian

I think comparison between early 20th century stats and today are likely to be inaccurate, but it is difficult to say in which direction they were inaccurate. I think we should agree between us that the figures have some reservations, but do point towards a warming trend. This is borne out by the ice caps melting and the seal level rising. Both these events are happening.

When I was at school the record for the 100 yards was 10.0 secs. It was set back in about 1900 (I don't recall the exact year and no, I wasn't there :wink:). The closest I ever saw anybody get (during the 1960s) was 10.2secs. It was generally accepted that the "record" time was made with a pocket watch and not a stop watch, which conveniently explained why that with people getting bigger and stronger that record was still unbeatable.

It could be a similar issue with early weather records.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.

---

Tongue firmly in cheek.....

Another way of saying that, is that on a planet that is 4.5billion years old, we've taken measurements for 40 years and decided to panic......

It's not that I don't think we have a problem (actually any number of problems!), it's simply that sometimes we appear very keen to make definitive statements based on minimal (in the context of the planet) data. Sometimes I think we would be better to stop quoting such numbers and simply spend our efforts trying to make the required changes. Anyone who doesn't think we have an issue isn't going to be swayed by another dubious claim, so why bother?

How many gigawatt-hours of fossil fuel generated power were spent figuring out that it's warmer now than it was first thing this morning? If all the scientists involved in working out how much the temperature has risen over the last 15 minutes were told to put down their thermometers and go and plant trees, don't you think we'd all be better off?