What sticks with me is that apparently they knew this situation was approaching some 10-15 years ago. But now, their solution is to penalise the "generator". I wonder how those big solar companies will work around the penalties.
Printable View
What sticks with me is that apparently they knew this situation was approaching some 10-15 years ago. But now, their solution is to penalise the "generator". I wonder how those big solar companies will work around the penalties.
The really interesting part of all this is recent announcements concerning massive roof top solar installations on commercial building roof tops by a company recently....Move to build grid-scale solar on industrial rooftops across Australia
This most probably follows on by a NSW Government decision in 2020.....NSW amends laws to pave the way for rooftop solar and big batteries – pv magazine Australia
Would I be cynical in noting that one of the principals in the company is an ex Liberal Premier of NSW and the plan was facilitated by a change of legislation by the current Liberal Government in NSW. I suspect if solar feeds back into the grid became a really big problem in NSW then it would be the residential systems that get turned off and not the large systems proposed in the first link.
I am more inclined to think that smaller multiple batteries installed at various places might be an idea that will fly. For instance every small town could have one and for some it would ensure a more reliable supply in times of fire, flood etc or simply that the grid supplying the town is old and things get broken. Smaller batteries are more easily transported and installed than one large one and if the one large battery has problems then the whole grid suffers but that is not an issue with multiple small batteries.
I quite like Redflow – Sustainable Energy Storage zinc bromine flow battery. 10kwh storage, 100% depth of discharge.
Getting a lot of business for remote area power, eg telecoms, wilderness etc.
Weren't the distribution systems sold off to private consortiums. Instead of restricting the use of domestic solar, why not fix the systems to cope. We're supposed to be the clever country after all. Our climate lends nicely to solar.
Why not embrace that and design new developments to be capable of supporting solar. Maybe suburban storage of excess capacity.
Simplistic I know. But that'd make more sense to me than trying to screw more money out of those with domestic solar.
Those without solar would also benefit and not be left behind.
There must be other solutions.
Under government ownership there were the generators and the distributors, who owned the transmission lines, substations etc. For years the government had reaped huge revenues and when they decided to privatise the entities looked extremely attractive from a revenue point of view. The government received a huge (one-off) windfall and the buyers inherited a system that had not been maintained sufficiently and was desperately in need of upgrades.
It is probably true to say that the system was never designed to cope with rooftop solar, but the problems are exacerbated by having an antiquated system in the first place. The distribution companies are blaming solar, but that is actually only part of the story and to a large extent a convenient excuse.
While I think that the next stage of domestic solar may well be the inclusion of batteries, that will only happen when the batteries drop to an economic price point, which has yet to be determined, and we householders have the ability to switch off their solar through the day thus enabling them to charge their batteries and the facility to release their stored energy to the grid at night at a higher rate.
There are two aspects of solar generation I have to check. The first is that when solar generation statistics are quoted they often don't include rooftop power supplied to the grid at any one moment in time. It is difficult to monitor this for the moment. There is information, of course, about how much rooftop solar is installed, but at any one time it will supply varying amounts of power. This is because some is being consumed in the household, the day is cloudy or the system is dirty and not generating to it's full potential. There is clearly a means of working out for revenue purposes how much a system has supplied, but this does appear to translate into a minute by minute figure.
The second aspect is that i have been told that the commercial installation have a price guarantee. The figure that has been indicated to me is $80/MWhr. That figure, if it is true, is nearly twice the average wholesale price at the time of writing. I stress that i need to verufy this, but if true debunks the statement that solar is now cheaper than the traditional mainstream supplies. I should also point out that the original incentives for rooftop solar are still in place and these vary between 44c/KWhr and 52c/KWhr. That equates to $440 & $520/MWhr!!!. I think those subsidies are due to run out within the next five years. The protagonists of solar power, including myself, tend to forget this.
Regards
Paul
Fascinating isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
Coal is the only solution for a COALition government. Capitalism is the only solution the Liberals preach. Greenies are bad. Solar/wind/etc cannot ever work they preach...
Interestingly, ALL Liberals seem to instantly turn into green-loving devotees once leaving office. Their tune instantly changes "wE wErE mIsUnDeRsToOd"... After fleecing the public purse for permanent pensions.... personal investments that benefit by public legislation changes... and Coal is suddenly evil and Solar/wind/whatever becomes an existential necessity.
It seems to me that all ex-politicians should be permanently banned from investing in ANYTHING that had anything to with their former portfolios - forever.
Liberals catch a sudden case of greenie-communism on leaving office, dont they!
BTW.... I LOVE batteries, solar, wind, geo, recycling, trees..... drove back to Canberra on Friday and coming down to Lake George was the most beautiful sight of hundreds of windmills leisurely spinning in the far distance... those things must be utterly stupendous.... magnificent.
So where do we stand with reducing greenhouse emissions with our current state of play?
In summary as I understand it, we currently have a situation where we have renewables somewhat supplying / supplementing our power requirements during the day but still require coal fired stations to run at their normal capacity to take up the slack during peak loads and at night but are heavily discounting or giving away their excess power when the sun is shining
Does that in effect mean we haven’t actually reduced our energy producing carbon footprint or have I got it wrong?
Ironically, with prices going down our electricity monopolist has decided to INCREASE prices....
Electricity prices are falling. So why are Canberrans''' household power bills about to rise? - ABC News
I can see quite a bit of this corporate double-speak occurring soon.
BeardyQuote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
You are correct that for the moment solar only replaces during the sunlight hours and wind only replaces when the wind blows, but any time this is taking place carbon emissions are being reduced as it takes the place of fossil fuel generation. The issue is that it is not enough as for about three quarters of the day only fossil powered generators have the ability to supply the grid with electricity. Solar, for example and to take one renewable is fast approaching 100% of it's ability unless a viable storage technique is devised.
If you like, stage one is pretty much completed, but there is no real vision for stage two other than something needs to be done yesterday.
Regards
Paul
Regards
Paul
Paul what I am basically asking is are we burning less coal with this solar and wind energy available now or does it consume the same amount of coal just keeping it running to meet peak load periods ?
BeardyQuote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
We are burning less coal. Electricity is only generated to the level of demand. The major difference is that fossil fueled generators will keep their units running at a reduced load but even that load is below what would ordinarily be considered economic. This translates to a reduced cost to the consumer , if it is passed on, as well as reduced revenue for the generator and an overall reduction in emissions. Certainly as time goes on the thermal generators will have to devise strategies to drop their minimum loads to well below levels of the past. It won't be easy for everyone. Some will pack up their bags and leave the market.
Regards
Paul
Thanks for the clarification on that and good to know there is a reduction in emissionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
While not exactly pertinent to the thread I found this interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZBaDle5NbU
News today is the building of a new natural gas and hydrogen (small percentage to start with) fuelled 300MW power station at Tallawarra in NSW.
Being in the industry Paul, what are your thoughts on this unit re size as it’s supposed to take up the slack after Liddell is decommissioned.
Is it large enough?
LappaQuote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
I had heard something like this was proposed and frankly I think it is laughable on at least two counts. Firstly, gas, natural or otherwise, is a fossil fuel. It produces carbon emissions. What part of greenhouse gas does the government not understand?
Secondly Liddell, where I once worked, has four 500MW units, although I don't know how many are still functioning today. I have it my mind that one may have been de-commissioned following a disaster, but certainly don't know that for certain. So even those people with a poor understanding of maths will see that 300MW is not going to replace 2000MW or even 1500MW.
Who is going to build this station and who is going to provide the finance? Is it likely that a private investor is going to put up the hand and with whose money? My understanding today is that no financial institutions in Australia are willing to finance fossil fuelled power. I am presuming Tallawarra is being touted as it is the site of a very old station and may have some infrastructure still in place. I am also cynically going to suggest that it is a crucial electoral seat, but again I will leave that to the political experts to investigate.
I have said so many times, look into the agenda behind all this statements. So little happens for the greater good and so much for individual gain.
Regards
Paul
Heres a link to an ABC article. I read it in the Daily Telegraph but I can’t link that as you need to be a subscriber.
Australia'''s first net-zero hybrid power station gets the green light - ABC News
Thanks for that link Lappa.
It looks to me as though they plan to run it on gas until a hydrogen supply is available. Hydrogen is OK provided it is produced by electricity and in turn that electricity is from renewables. If not you have gone around in a circle and lost efficiency in the process (all processes have some degree of loss).
A little further reading shows that the units at Liddell have been de-rated to 420MW each which makes 1680MW by my count and not 500MW as stated in the article:
"The project will be fast-tracked to be operational by 2023-24 in a bid to help ensure reliable electricity supplies to the grid once the Liddell coal-fired 500-megawatt plant in the Hunter Valley closes."
I do get very agitated with the mis quoting of facts that are there for everybody to see.
I also note that the plant is an open cycle project. That is inefficient and in fact it is only marginally less polluting that the best coal fired stations. The best coal fired station carbon intensity is 9 (reflects 9 tonnes of CO2 per MW/hr), while an open cycle gas plant intensity is 8 (8 tonnes of CO2 per MW/hr).
A closed cycle gas unit with an HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) situated in the exhaust gases will have an intensity of around 6 (6 tonnes of CO2 perMW/hr).
It is a pity the government cannot see it's way to channelling their extensive efforts to maintain carbon producing power into non carbon producing technology. Perhaps they should not have progressively defunded the CSIRO.
Regards
Paul
Unfortunately politicians are short sighted individuals who are centred on one thing and that is staying in power and ignore the consequences of that altogether. They are a curious bunch of people as most of them have little or a very limited skill set or qualifications for the job but usually no qualification at all. One qualification they all have is how to avoid taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong from their decision making or lack of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Chris,Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
The perfect description of a muppet !!!!
Cheers,
Yvan
Well, while Bushmiller talks about power plant outputs in the mega's, we are attempting to improve the output of our 20-pannel PV system by having mini-inverters installed as we have 2 trees shading some of the panels during part of the day. Time will tell if this was a good decision!
As a general observation, I am more than miffed, being polite, to be told that our PV system creates a problem rather than solves one...
There we was, in our innocence, dreaming of making a contribution to improving the current health of our planet no less when the Tasmanian government introduced a power feed-back incentive scheme to encourage the locals to go solar, right at the time we were extending our modest abode.
This is the same government who then decided to reduce the buy-back incentive from 28c to 6c/kW. This of course went down like a lead balloon, to the extent that the original decision was reviewed so that, for current beneficiaries, the reduction was stepped from 28c to 13c to 6c over a period of time.
Sorry but I don't get it: one minute there is this attractive offer to install PV systems but now they are creating a problem...go figure!!!
The price of energy is becoming a political football with allowances being distributed to pensioners etc. Sooner or later the crunch will come when true power charges will have to be passed as the cost of such allowances becomes prohibitive.
I'm off me soap box!
Cheers,
Yvan
Well, while Bushmiller talks about power plant outputs in the mega's, we are attempting to improve the output of our 20-pannel PV system by having mini-inverters installed as we have 2 trees shading some of the panels during part of the day. Time will tell if this was a good decision!
As a general observation, I am more than miffed, being polite, to be told that our PV system creates a problem rather than solves one...
There we was, in our innocence, dreaming of making a contribution to improving the current health of our planet no less when the Tasmanian government introduced a power feed-back incentive scheme to encourage the locals to go solar, right at the time we were extending our modest abode.
This is the same government who then decided to reduce the buy-back incentive from 28c to 6c/kW. This of course went down like a lead balloon, to the extent that the original decision was reviewed so that, for current beneficiaries, the reduction was stepped from 28c to 13c to 6c over a period of time.
Sorry but I don't get it: one minute there is this attractive offer to install PV systems but now they are creating a problem...go figure!!!
The price of energy is becoming a political football with allowances being distributed to pensioners etc. Sooner or later the crunch will come when true power charges will have to be passed as the cost of such allowances becomes prohibitive.
I'm off me soap box!
Cheers,
Yvan
Until governments and the electrical suppliers and generation companies get of their collective backsides and integrate storage into the grid then things won't change. It is a classic example of short term thinking and because the grid was developed as an instantaneous supplier unlike the water supply for instance which uses storage to supply demand.
Yvan, I see that Tesla in the USA will only sell bundled PV's with a battery system now.
Selling to the utilities for 6 cents a Kwh seems a bit pissy, so consuming your own photons will be the answer for the future.
If, after all, the government sees citizens and customers as its enemies, its time to lower the portcullis and provide ones own services! :)
Tesla Powerwall 2: A complete 2021 buyers guide | Solar Choice
YvanQuote:
Originally Posted by yvan
I don't believe you have done the wrong thing for one moment. On the contrary you have made a positive commitment to going down the renewable path. Let me attempt to explain how the whole thing has developed and what have been the pros and cons of the arrangement.
I am not sure when solar started to be commonly adopted, but for arguments sake, we will call it the "early" days. Installation of a domestic or rooftop solar system was expensive and nobody was putting up their hand. There had to be an incentive and various schemes were introduced by the individual states and heavily subsidised both for the installation and the feedback price. This was to kick start the adoption of solar power. Prices offered for feeding back into the grid varied from 44c up to 53c/KWhr. Those states offering 53c/KWhr were fairly quickly subscribed up to their budgeted target. At the time, the large generators such as the power station where I work were getting paid around 8c/Kwhr which puts into perspective just how attractive the scheme was.
Overall these schemes had a finish date and I mention this because the downside of any subsidy is that the price of the goods does not remain down during the currency of the subsidy. It too goes up.
I purchased a 5KW system just before the subsidies were due to cease and paid in round figures $14,000 for which I took out a loan. A year or so earlier I had looked into getting solar and a similar system was going to cost $23,000.I did not do it at that time: Too much even with the subsidy. A colleague at work had put his name down for solar but did not take it up until after the subsidies had ceased. However because he had got his name down he was still entitled to the same scheme as me and with an identical system he paid $11,000, which shows how the subsidy was affecting the market. The subsidy did bolster the demand and reduce the price of panels and inverters, but it was not passed on. The drop in price was $3000 in two weeks.
So we come to solar today and the feedback price reflects the commercial market spot price more or less. There are still some subsidies available for the installation incidentally. We put in a second system the same size and I think the installation was down to $4000!
I am not familiar with the Tasmanian pricing structure and the terms offered, but much will depend on whether it was a firm contract. From what you have said the price is either back to 6c/KWhr or it is ramping back to that price point via 13c/KWhr. Even when you get to 6c just spare a thought for us poor Queenslanders where the spot market for the commercial generators has averaged just below 4½c so far this year! You are actually doing 33% better than we are! Of course if the Tassie government has reneged on a deal, that is an entirely different matter and I will expect to see you at the head of a street parade ranting and raving about the broken promises.
:cool:
I appreciate this may not be exactly what you were hoping to hear, but I hope it may go some way to explaining what has happened particularly with pricing
Just leading on from that, sufficient provision has not been put into place to cope with the final uptake (it may not be final) of solar and that without storage capability it will never be able to provide more than a quarter, actually make that a fifth, of our electricity needs. An additional problem, as I have mentioned elsewhere before, is that solar does not have the ability to control voltage. Eventually a combination of wind and storage technology will resolve the issues, but for the moment the fossil fired stations, including gas because it is not a green source of power, will provide continuity of supply during the sunless and windless hours. We have also got to the point in South Australia where the solar supply can on occasion exceed the demand. Somebody has to stop generating: Problem. Once storage is available it won't be a problem, but that point is not just around the corner so until then, who knows?
Again I will mention that some of the problems of feeding back into the grid are not so much caused by the reverse flow of power, but by a distinct lack of maintenance and antiquated systems that were not pro actively maintained because of greed and profit
There is also some talk of rooftop generators having to pay to use the transmission lines to feed into the grid. This would be a real kick in the erogenous zone as there is already a service charge borne by every customer and will have people jumping up and down big time!
Regards
Paul
I would suggest it is a good decision, we have two different types of micro inverters, our first lot of 18 panels (4.5kW) are running ABB micro inverters, our second lot of 10 larger panels (3.2kW) have Enphase micro inverters. We also have trees, plus our panels are on four hipped rooftops and one flat rooftop, so micro inverters were really the only solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvan
Our neighbours directly opposite us have micro inverters supplied by the South Australian manufacturer of their panels. They have had issues and the issues were so bad all of their micro inverters were replaced.
The difference between our ABB system and our Enphase system is not that great, they both are doing an excellent job, but the Enphase software is the bees knees by comparison to the ABB software.
The people who installed our second lot of solar panels won't install micro inverters unless they are Enphase; virtually no problems with any of their installations once they switched to Enphase micro inverters.
Something for future reference, if you run micro inverters then you have AC coming directly from the roof, which you can use straight away, and if allowed, send excess to the grid. If in the future you wish for a battery or batteries, then in all probability you will have to convert the AC to DC to send to the battery for storage. When you draw from the battery, you will need to convert the DC from the battery to AC for the house. This is what our system does, yes it is slightly wasteful, but it works and works very well.
Mick.
Paul,
Thank you for your explanation taken from another perspective.
As an aside, I am not exactly sure if I understand how the energy market works either: I recall your map showing the spot price of power in the various states of the country. I appreciate the price is a spot price which, by definition, will fluctuate in time but, when I see a negative price, my immediate thought is that the supplier would pay the consumer to consume! Exactly the same as negative interest rates when the depositor pays the bank for the privilege to have the same bank keep his money!!!
Could your figure of 4.5c/kWh indicate that this energy is produced at a loss and, if so, how can it be sustained?
The storage of renewable energy seems to be the key to the management of its use and I would have thought that, instead of building more plants, instrumentalities should consider using the funds to offer owners of PV systems loans at break-even interest rates to install battery banks. No subsidy, sufficiently high interest rates to "cover costs". I would have thought that the cost of a single power plant would buy a fair few battery banks!
Ramblings over!
Cheers,
Yvan
Paul may correct me here but I think there is going to have to be large mass storage in the grid as well as domestic storage. I also think that the grid will be broken up into smaller localised units in some parts such as for country towns.
We also have an Enphase system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimark
With conventional PV systems up to 600V DC is running across a roof to the inverter, compared to the the 240V AC coming out of micro inverters. 240V AC which is much safer (eg fires and electrocution), not just the lower V but the fact that it's AC. Even 100V DC is able to kill or serious injure. A colleagues husband was killed by a the DC coming out of just 4 panels. Interesting it didn't kill him directly - it threw him off the roof. :oo:
RE: convert the AC to DC to send to the battery for storage.
Modern inverters are incredibly efficient so the energy loss is less than the efficiency gain from using the micro inverters. VFDs convert a fixed frequency AC to DC back to variable frequency AC for a variety of reasons - the gains in efficiency from driving machinery at variable speeds far outweighs the loss of energy involved in the double conversion process.
YvanQuote:
Originally Posted by yvan
The price at times was negative and at times very positive. Overall it 4.5c was the average price for the first five months of this year in Qld. It would have been similar, but not the same in each of the other Eastern states. So we are not making a loss, but precious little that could be considered profit.
I think you are right that the government could direct their efforts and money in a much better direction. My personal belief is that the next stage of solar electricity will revolve around storage. I don't see how else, without the introduction of a new technology, that we will be able to approach 100% renewables. I stress "approach" because I can't see us realising this goal completely for the moment: In time I hope I will be able to change my mind on that.
Regards
Paul
ChrisQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
I think you are on the right track, but I have to point out that the "large" batteries proposed are a pittance compared to the demand and way too few. Also battery storage is for the moment uneconomic. To put that into perspective, the much touted Tesla battery produces 100MW for one hour only.
The smallest state demand in Australia, which is our dearly beloved Tassie, is about 1000MW. To supply that state for 24 hours would require 240 batteries of that Tesla size and the solar power to charge them, which is about 4000MW as the solar will only operate for about a quarter of the day at best. This assumes the sun shone through the day. These figures are only a rough guide, but if anything are conservative.
The other states have demand up to eight times that of Tasmania.
That is a lot of batteries. I am still interested to see what happens with that Ambri battery you linked to before.
Regards
Paul
YvanQuote:
Originally Posted by yvan
Just to address that concern specifically, the price is totted up over a period of time and the average hopefully is in the black. Should it ever get to a negative overall, we, the generators will be out of business, and more than likely, you and I will be without power. Fortunately that is unlikely to happen so don't rush off to buy your portable gen set yet.
Regards
Paul
Recycling an old power station, making good out of bad seems like a worthy idea.
‘All about evolution’: Here’s what to do with a dead power station
Chris
The hyperbolic shape of cooling towers I always think are architecturally pleasing. I hope the new owners can do something with it, but I have no idea of the acoustics. Often more than 100m high (I think those at Bayswater were 121m) they are very imposing structures with an area approximating a football field at the base. Cheap seating could be available outside the structure with more expensive balcony or boxes higher on the walls. I am imaging the possibilities.....:cool:
Regards
Paul
Turn them into Mega-art projects :)
Big picture: How artists including Rone paint enormous silo murals and city art - ABC News
Attachment 494495
This is the pipeline that was shut down in the USA last week for a few days.... Colonial Pipeline - Wikipedia
People there were filling plastic bags and shooting each other at petrol stations over it, like scenes from Mad Max....
Colonial's pipeline carries about 100 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
This is one pipeline by one company in one part of one country.
100 million gallons a DAY.... 378.5 million Litres.....
The world is doomed. We have no hope.
like Paul I also work at a power station, ours is coal fired.
the only way we will get proper sized grid "storage" will be with large scale pumped hydro. let the water out during the day when the demand is there and pump it back up at night using cheap electricity.
the problem with ALOT of projects is that the government will not subsidise the grid connection, its why there are so many approved solar farms, hydro dams etc but bugger all actually being built. its because the cost of the getting connected to the grid is insanely high. 900k's of new grid interconnection between S.A and N.S.W is going to cost us (the tax payers and elect users) 2.6 billion. Further blowout for vital NSW-SA grid interconnector
that's 2.8million per kilometre of wires and its not even finished. once you start asking private companies to pay huge connection fee's like that it just becomes unrealistic unless you are very close to the grid. which most of the times all these area's aren't. The government has actually just made some chunk of NSW a green energy zone where I believe they are actually going to contribute funding to help connect some of these renewable projects with in that zone.
Also don't always worry about spot prices TOO much, larger stations will also contract out part of there generating capacity. I'm at a 2 unit coal fired power station and I believe we've basically contracted out 1 units worth of capacity. So we're constantly being paid for that generation. but if the spot market prices go high and we have 1 unit out of service we obviously can't make the bulk of our actual profits, which means maintenance gets cut as we don't have the money to spend.
really the 3 big killers for coal fired power stations will be:
Ash Dam storage - The old addage of "you can't you die" rings true. if you have nowhere to store your ash you can't burn coal
Profitability - Market conditions means you won't make any money so just turn the thing off and walk away, this is both profit from generating or coal becoming to expensive to buy etc.
Plant Failure - Aging plant breaks and becomes to costly to fix
My view of the situation (in NSW) will be:
one or two of the older coal fired stations will close around the 2023 - 2025 mark (about when snowy 2.0 will come in). this will provide a small price increase which will be enough for the remaining stations to stay open until 2029 - 2032 which by then either a new base load gas or stored hydro will be in a much better place to take over.
Matt put a solar power battery on his bike shop. But there'''s a reason he won'''t put one on his home
Generally people say they want to go green and save the planet but it appears that it needs to be financially rewarding to do so first
A lot of people with existing solar in NSW may not be aware of a scheme to provide interest free loans in a trial currently available. It seems strange that none of the areas listed are in the south eastern area of the state but we won't go into that. I would be into it like a rat up a drain pipe but we are not in it.
assume you're talking about the solar battery offer:
Empowering Homes solar battery loan offer | NSW Government
turns out i'm eligible but really its $900 a year for a battery ($9000 interest free loan) as I already have a 6.6kw solar. so I would need to be saving over $900 a year on electricity to make this viable for my self to meet at least a 10 year pay off.
its also hard with rental property's.... there is zero incentive for me to put panels on my rental property. Doesn't really make the place any more "desirable" in terms of getting tenants in. Other then trying to do my bit to "go green" a lot of existing rental properties will probably never get solar. As it gets mentioned most people don't want to go green unless they benefit from it.
As I mentioned above in a previous post I think that community batteries and micro grids will evolve in the future. I can't see house standalone batteries ever being truly viable like solar panels have become over the last few decades. I did not look at the terms as not being eligible so I will now withdraw my enthusiasm for the idea.