Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

the old Munmorah Power Staion is in the background:

Attachment 534651 P.

---

ummm I'm pretty sure you'll find that's the 4x gas units of the colongra power station in the background (built at the back of the station and sold for around 230mill a hand full of years ago after costing around 500mill to build) it was basically built a huge insurance policy if the rest of the stations couldn't meet their demand

ironically that gas plant can only run for about 12 hours max (at full load) as it taps off the main gas line from newcastle to sydney. its basically has a big set of pipes underground that loop back on its self as storage... the problem is if they ever want to top it up or for some reason run longer then 12 hours they have to ask the transmission company as it would drain off the pressure in the mains causing mass gas problems in sydney.... so it actually takes around 12 hours to fill the thing back up again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

ummm I'm pretty sure you'll find that's the 4x gas units of the colongra power station in the background

---

I think this might be spot on. If you have a look at Maps aerial view, the four gas units match up, AND the picture in Graeme's post show the units in almost total broadside, so the battery must be south-west of the old PS. That means the old PS has been eliminated from that pic (or it's to be built right on top of it....possible?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I think this might be spot on. If you have a look at Maps aerial view, the four gas units match up, AND the picture in Graeme's post show the units in almost total broadside, so the battery must be south-west of the old PS. That means the old PS has been eliminated from that pic (or it's to be built right on top of it....possible?).

---

well yeah the decommission of Munmorah started in like 2012... I know this because I did 6 months there as an apprentice... decommissioning it. (mainly draining oils from things nothing overly exciting.)



https://vimeo.com/344934795

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

well yeah the decommission of Munmorah started in like 2012... I know this because I did 6 months there as an apprentice... decommissioning it. (mainly draining oils from things nothing overly exciting.)

---

HAB

Apprentices rarely get the plumb jobs!

Thanks for the demolition video. Most interesting.

Just for comparison, the video referenced the "massive" nature of the units. There were 4 x 350MW generators. I consider the two units at Millmerran small being only 425MW each. Times change. One interesting aspect of Munmorah was that the boilers were unusual. We called them "upside down" boilers.

Regards
Paul

There is a little more information on Munmorah in this article

Munmorah Power Station - Engineering Heritage Australia (engineersaustralia.org.au)

In terms of geographical size from the above:

" Not including the ash disposal and associated coalmines the Munmorah site covered approximately 570 hectares. "

So not really that small. I am sure BobL was correct when he said he thought the locals would be pleased it is gone and substituted by solar panels.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

While I was assembling that post I noticed that the price had gone negative (-34c) and then changed to -17c a few minutes ago. Apparently it will still be -38c from 19:00 to 19:30.
So I went around and turned on every light, mini-oven big oven, desk hi-fi just idling (nah, bugger it I'll play some tunes – something with heaps of bass to get the sub cracking), aircon to 25°, down to the shed, all lights on, thicknesser, dusty, all running. I am determined to claw back some of yesterday's fiasco! :D

How king ridiculous is that eh?

Footnote: From 19:00 the price was supposed to still be -ve but it changed to 53c so I had to race around and turn everything off. :B
Well that lasted for about 3 minutes and it went back to -ve again, so off I raced again. :~
I swear they must be doing this just to wear me out. That's the last I'll be doing that though – it's a dumb game.

---

In Vic, although pricing is in 5 min intervals, billing is still in 30m intervals. I now ignore negative prices unless they are really neg( eg 40c or more) and sustained. (more than 30 minutes) what I believe happens is they go neg, some generator says sod this and removes supply. So then price goes up again quite quickly.
As far as spikes go, you can set a threshold for notification in the app, i set it at 1.00
(i also now run off battery from 3pm to at least 9pm which both avoids nearly all spikes, and primarily avoids ausnet peak network charges)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

How king ridiculous is that eh?

I swear they must be doing this just to wear me out. That's the last I'll be doing that though – it's a dumb game.

---

Just a thought.... I believe Amber has an API to access their current price (and historical, forecast etc.). If the prices are now regularly going -ve, could you not leverage that API, using Home Assistant or some other automation system, and just switch on an old electric heater or three at any time it becomes profitable to burn power?

Obviously the ideal solution would be to have a battery/charger/inverter and be paid to store the power, then use it when the price goes +ve again, but that would require capital to set up. Home Assistant (free, last I checked) running on a Raspberry Pi (cheap) with a cheap switch (like a TP-Link Tapo, as long as Home Assistant supports it!) would enable automated "unnecessary power usage"...

For the common good, we need people like you to use the excess power, make the generators profitable and thus encourage the building of more renewable power plants. Err... I think....

The problem is, that as Russ points out, the pricing is in 5 minute intervals and then averaged for a 30 min billing block. Within that 30min block it can be +ve, -ve, etc. On the day in question it was -ve then 53c, then -ve again snaking back towards +ve, then 2c.

TBH, I think any capital investment in a Pi or anything else would take a fair while to break even, and that was the first time in 5 months that I've seen it -ve. No doubt it has been before but I must have been doing something other than staring at the Amber page! (I only happened to see it the other day because that page just happened to be the selected tab).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

While I was assembling that post I noticed that the price had gone negative (-34c) and then changed to -17c a few minutes ago. Apparently it will still be -38c from 19:00 to 19:30.
So I went around and turned on every light, mini-oven big oven, desk hi-fi just idling (nah, bugger it I'll play some tunes – something with heaps of bass to get the sub cracking), aircon to 25°, down to the shed, all lights on, thicknesser, dusty, all running. I am determined to claw back some of yesterday's fiasco! :D

How king ridiculous is that eh?

Footnote: From 19:00 the price was supposed to still be -ve but it changed to 53c so I had to race around and turn everything off. :B
Well that lasted for about 3 minutes and it went back to -ve again, so off I raced again. :~
I swear they must be doing this just to wear me out. That's the last I'll be doing that though – it's a dumb game.

---

FF

Welcome to the antics of the wholesale market. :)

In fact you are better off than us in so far as you can switch off and turn on a device at 186,000 miles/sec. Well, you yourself might not be quite as quick as that, but the switch is (once activated). We ramp at speeds a lot less than that. It might take us half an hour or an hour to change significant load.

You may need to invest in a few more of those point and click on/off devices I seem to remember you had.

Having said all that, AEMO quoted yesterday how prices for Q4 in 2023 had almost halved compared to Q4 2022.

Attachment 534754

That sounds fairly encouraging, but don't go out and buy your Ferrari just yet. I did a quick calculation on the spot market averages this year so far.

The Spot price has averaged $155/MWhr for the 25 days of January despite negative prices at some point on most (but not all) days. The spot price became noticeably elevated around 8 January. Up until then the average was $53. The next 18 days averaged $195/MW hr.

I should point out that AEMO were quoting national figures while I have quoted QLD prices. However, QLD tends to have the lowest prices of the Eastern states so probably not too far off the money. It remains to be seen how prices this quarter compare to Q1 2023. Averages for the Q1 in 2022 and 2023 were about $80 and $75 respectively (interpreted from AEMO's graph). On that basis we have a way to go even to only be twice as expensive as previous quarters. We should also remember that any change in pricing tends to have a long period before it filters down to the consumer. Retail prices might not increase, but whether they reduce is something on which I am not prepared to wager body parts. I feel that retailers will be hedging their bets for some time yet. Price reductions will only eventuate by changing providers.

I have the impression that AEMO are not reckoning on the great unwashed looking closely at the figures.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I presume that the market for this stored electricity is largely in Sydney which is about 100 kms away, with inherent transmission losses. If the battery farm is commercially viable, would it not be even more viable if located closer to its market?

---

Have you studied Sydney land prices recently?

Almost all land south of Munmorah is either national park (i.e. don't event think of developing a battery farm on it) or residential (existing or potential).
The cost of transmitting power from Munmorah to Sydney is less then trivial compared to actually trying to get approval -- let alone purchase the land required -- to locate the battery closer to it's market.

Toyota is pushing hydrogen cars but will they ever be as cheap to run as EVs? - ABC News

FF

Interesting article and emphasizes horses for courses. Up until now H2 has been seen as more suitable for a truck of other large vehicle application. What is does not discuss is the cost of hydrogen fuel. I was pleased to note that the Melbourne facility used solar for their electrolytic process.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Having said all that, AEMO quoted yesterday how prices for Q4 in 2023 had almost halved compared to Q4 2022.

Attachment 534754


The Spot price has averaged $155/MWhr for the 25 days of January despite negative prices at some point on most (but not all) days. The spot price became noticeably elevated around 8 January. Up until then the average was $53. The next 18 days averaged $195/MW hr.

I should point out that AEMO were quoting national figures while I have quoted QLD prices. However, QLD tends to have the lowest prices of the Eastern states so probably not too far off the money. It remains to be seen how prices this quarter compare to Q1 2023. Averages for the Q1 in 2022 and 2023 were about $80 and $75 respectively (interpreted from AEMO's graph). On that basis we have a way to go even to only be twice as expensive as previous quarters. We should also remember that any change in pricing tends to have a long period before it filters down to the consumer. Retail prices might not increase, but whether they reduce is something on which I am not prepared to wager body parts. I feel that retailers will be hedging their bets for some time yet. Price reductions will only eventuate by changing providers.

I have the impression that AEMO are not reckoning on the great unwashed looking closely at the figures.

Regards
Paul

---

Uh.Oh.... Not looking good....

Attachment 534836

Note that huge spot prices do not exclude negative prices at some point. However, the average is the crucial figure. My take is that these figures are significantly elevated for a weekendperiod.

Regards
Paul

PS: Note again that the averages are for QLD and not the NEM as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Toyota is pushing hydrogen cars but will they ever be as cheap to run as EVs? - ABC News

---

Sabine Hossenfelder has a video on Youtube about hydrogen. If I remember correctly she wasn't massively hopeful, though it was a while ago that I watched it.

Warb

The video is about a year old so not too far out of date.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it will be horses for courses. I think trains could be the easiest application for H2 power. I have been "involved" with H2 for over forty years as power stations use hydrogen as the cooling medium in their generators because of the thermal properties and minimal windage compared to air. At Millmerran we buy the gas in from an outside supplier, but at Bayswater we made our own and also supplied Liddell, which was just across the road, literally.

The weight of Hydrogen, even when compressed is minimal compared to the weight of the tanks in which the gas is stored. One of our supplier's drivers told me the difference between his semi-trailer full and empty is only about five tons! The pressure, however, in the "torpedoes" is 16MPa! They are thick walled to combat initially the pressure and, down the track, hydrogen embrittlement.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I have been "involved" with H2 for over forty years as power stations use hydrogen as the cooling medium in their generators because of the thermal properties and minimal windage compared to air.

---

Could you please expand on this, Paul. To a lay person like me it is the last place that I would expect hydrogen to be used. Simply the risk of a bang.

Quote:

---

At Millmerran we buy the gas (hydrogen) in from an outside supplier, but at Bayswater we made our own and also supplied Liddell

---

Could that be a solution to negative/low spot prices? Make some hydrogen?

Deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

My only commercial encounter with hydrogen revealed it was extremely expensive.

In the very early 1970's I did a pro-diving course. Normal air contains 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and most of the diving used this combination in both tanks and hookah. We also did some mixed gas diving:

• Ten dives on nitrox - 40% oxygen, 60% nitrogen - which extends bottom time, reduces risk of bends but limits maximum depth to 30 m.
• One dive on heliox - 20% oxygen, 80% helium - which extends bottom time, extends depth limits and eliminates risk of nitrogen narcosis.

The tank of medical grade helium was so mind blowingly expensive that I almost withdrew from that part of the course. Then about $200 (1970's $$$'s), about a week's salary or a Landcruiser load of beer!

---

Greame, you are confusing He (the Nobel gas Helium) with H2 (Hydrogen).

The cost of Hydrogen is at least an order of magnitude less than that of Helium and possibly as much as two orders of magnitude (i.e. 100 times)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Greame, you are confusing He (the Nobel gas Helium) with H2 (Hydrogen).

The cost of Hydrogen is at least an order of magnitude less than that of Helium and possibly as much as two orders of magnitude (i.e. 100 times)

---

I am. Silly me. Very silly me! Thanks, Ian. I have deleted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Could you please expand on this, Paul. To a lay person like me it is the last place that I would expect hydrogen to be used. Simply the risk of a bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmillerhttps://www.woodworkforums.com/image...post-right.pngI have been "involved" with H2 for over forty years as power stations use hydrogen as the cooling medium in their generators because of the thermal properties and minimal windage compared to air.

---

---

Hi Greame, I'm not Paul but I think I can respond on this.

Hydrogen (H2) has a molecular weight of 2, compared to the molecular weight of air which as around 31. Air is a mixture of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) and argon (about 1%).
It's the lower molecular weight of Hydrogen (2 vs 31) that contributes to the low windage within the generator itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Could that be a solution to negative/low spot prices? Make some hydrogen?

---

I doubt it.
The negative spot price is what the generating company gets for supplying electricity to the grid. Even if you switch the electricity's usage to manufacturing hydrogen, you still have all the other costs of running a coal fired power station.
It would be much cheaper to diver the output of wind or solar farms to making hydrogen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Could you please expand on this, Paul. To a lay person like me it is the last place that I would expect hydrogen to be used. Simply the risk of a bang.




Could that be a solution to negative/low spot prices? Make some hydrogen?

---

Graeme

To take your second question first, the production of hydrogen as part of the de-carbonisation process is only a sound proposition if it is made from renewables. There is no process that is 100% efficient and if you are using fossil fueled electricity to make the hydrogen you would be better off simply burning the coal directly for power.

On the first question, the generator in a power station is basically just an enlarged version of that you might find in an old car, but it creates a large amount of heat that has to be removed. The generator has two main components: The rotor and the stator. The rotor spins in a casing of hydrogen. Early generators and smaller units spin in air, but hydrogen has superior cooling properties and is, you may recall, only 1/16th the weight of air. All large generators since the 1970s have used H2. Attached to the rotor is a fan blade which circulates the H2 and this is where, coupled with the rotational speed (3000rpm in a 50Hz system) the windage issue comes into play.

It is of course important to prevent significant leakage of H2 through the generator shaft seals and there is a dedicated seal oil system, kept at a higher pressure than the H2, to ensure leakage is at a minimum. The hydrogen itself also undergoes cooling and this is achieved by separate water coolers. At Millmerran we use demineralised water direct and that water is cooled by large fans in cooling towers. At other stations I have seen a three stage cooling system that used initially demineralised water, which is then cooled by distilled water and finally the DW is cooled by straight dam or river water.

This leads me on to the stator, which also has to be cooled. It too is cooled by demineralised water and this is achieved by the stator having hollow conductors with water running through them. That probably sounds like another last thing you would expect. Water is in fact a very poor conductor of electricity. It is the impurities in water that are the good conductors. Once you remove the impurities, the water is a good insulator.

There is a little more information here if you scroll down to 9.1.3. Although it is for the American 60Hz system where the generators run at 3600rpm, it is exactly the same principle:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1125/ML11258A357.pdf

Hydrogen and demineralised water have to be managed well to prevent disasters occurring.

This is a diagrammatic video of the hydrogen system:

Bing Videos

I couldn't quickly find one of the stator system that was reasonable.

I hope that helps.

Regards
Paul

Thanks, Paul, that all makes a lot of sense.

Being mindful of the Hindenburg I just never thought of hydrogen being used that way.

In the text (para 9.1.3.1.1) it says that the hydrogen must be 90% pure. This implies that impurities up to 10% are tolerable. Am I right in guessing that the main contaminant would be air and that the resultant 2% oxygen is safely below the flash point given the 60 psi pressure and likely temperatures?

On the issue of hydrogen production I was trying to restrict my question to those periods when the price was negative. You cannot switch off a coal fired plant instantly, could you divert the power to a hydrogen generator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Warb

The video is about a year old so not too far out of date.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it will be horses for courses. I think trains could be the easiest application for H2 power.

---

I think most trains and eventually most trucks will eventually become electric
Rio Tinto hopes electric trains will help company halve emissions - ABC News

In case you haven't see this interesting development
https://www.tesla.com/semi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Thanks, Paul, that all makes a lot of sense.

Being mindful of the Hindenburg I just never thought of hydrogen being used that way.

In the text (para 9.1.3.1.1) it says that the hydrogen must be 90% pure. This implies that impurities up to 10% are tolerable. Am I right in guessing that the main contaminant would be air and that the resultant 2% oxygen is safely below the flash point given the 60 psi pressure and likely temperatures?

On the issue of hydrogen production I was trying to restrict my question to those periods when the price was negative. You cannot switch off a coal fired plant instantly, could you divert the power to a hydrogen generator?

---

Graeme

The H2 purity is in fact maintained at a higher level. Greater than 97%. The introduction of air is the scenario we try to avoid. There is both an UEL (Upper Explosive Limit) and an LEL (lower Explosive limit). The former is around that 90% mark while the latter is about 4%. Any mixture in between is a potential bomb should an ignition source be introduced. When we need to empty the generator, for maintenance or an emergency de-gas, it is first purged with CO2 and only when down to that 4% mark is the CO2 purged with air and it gets tested all along the way.

Yes, we could divert the power making negative prices to H2, but the efficiency has just gone out the door, plus we have now made more CO2 than if we just ploughed the electricity straight into the grid. It's a pity, but that's the reality.

Regards
Paul

Edit: .....maintenance or an emergency de-gas...." ( "of" was a confusing typo)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Yes, we could divert the power making negative prices to H2, but the efficiency has just gone out the door, plus we have now made more CO2 than if we just ploughed the electricity straight into the grid. It's a pity, but that's the reality.

---

I'm confused by this. The problem is that a coal fired plant can't be switched off, so in times of oversupply it remains running. During that time, it's releasing the same amount of CO2 whether its power goes to the grid, into a battery, or is used to make H2. On the surface it would seem that the only difference between those three scenarios is that the owners have to pay to send the power to the grid, whereas if they charge a battery they can sell the power later, or if they make H2 they can sell that (or convert it to electricity and sell that).

I don't see why efficiency of the power station is impacted*, or why extra CO2 is released. All that is happening is that the financial loss (paying to dispose of unwanted power) is removed, and a useful product is created (or stored). I can understand that the cost of installing a battery or an H2 manufacturing plant might outweigh any punitive cost for overproduction (negative pricing), although the "Warratah Big Battery" discussed earlier would suggest that the storage concept at least has some merit?

*Yes, it's less efficient than an optimised H2 generation system, but the driver here would be to save/recoup the -ve pricing, not to create H2 in the best possible way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I'm confused by this. The problem is that a coal fired plant can't be switched off, so in times of oversupply it remains running. During that time, it's releasing the same amount of CO2 whether its power goes to the grid, into a battery, or is used to make H2. On the surface it would seem that the only difference between those three scenarios is that the owners have to pay to send the power to the grid, whereas if they charge a battery they can sell the power later, or if they make H2 they can sell that (or convert it to electricity and sell that).

I don't see why efficiency of the power station is impacted*, or why extra CO2 is released. All that is happening is that the financial loss (paying to dispose of unwanted power) is removed, and a useful product is created (or stored). I can understand that the cost of installing a battery or an H2 manufacturing plant might outweigh any punitive cost for overproduction (negative pricing), although the "Warratah Big Battery" discussed earlier would suggest that the storage concept at least has some merit?

*Yes, it's less efficient than an optimised H2 generation system, but the driver here would be to save/recoup the -ve pricing, not to create H2 in the best possible way.

---

Warb

There is some mileage in what you say, but unfortunately it is not quite as simple as that. How can I explain? Say we are generating at full load and the spot price starts to reduce, the generator will begin to reduce load towards the practical minimum. This will be a different value for each individual plant. Remember that we are only talking about the spot price. There are extensive contracts in place at each station. In fact, it is possible to make money during the negative price periods. How is that done? Reduce load to less than the contract price and then buy back in from the spot market at considerably less than the contract price and without having to burn fuel to do this! :) Unfortunately this is not always possible. :(

The other issue is that the infrastructure to produce the H2 is not there. It is another step that has to be undertaken and of course there is the issue that you need a market to sell that hydrogen into, which is a different scenario to putting your excess energy into a battery. The market issue is the biggest bugbear for the moment. There are two elements to producing H2. Firstly, it has to be made in by an electrolysis method and secondly it has to be compressed for storage purposes and both these processes require very specialised equipment.

I think that lastly there is a mind-set issue. Generators want to keep doing what they have always done without change. It is not an easy task to budge them off that pedestal.

Regards
Paul

So Paul, we have a problem for the generator companies when the price is either very low or -ve, and they would like to be able to do something with that power rather than sell it at a compelled loss.
OTOH, we consumers (who use the wholesale system) have a problem when prices spike, as I saw yesterday for 90 minutes (18:00 to 19:30 I think it was).

Both of those events are fairly short term, but fairly painful for different parties. What is to stop a generator from having (say) a salt water battery or 10 that they can dump excess power into when prices are lousy for them, and then sell back to the grid when prices are better and demand is higher? They wouldn't necessarily need to run the generator at full whack depending upon how good the price is at the time. Wouldn't that help to smooth out the bumps a bit?

In anticipation of your answer being "they make more in price spikes than they lose in the troughs" I would suggest that it would then be very prudent for a Govt mandate to employ such a sca scheme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So Paul, we have a problem for the generator companies when the price is either very low or -ve, and they would like to be able to do something with that power rather than sell it at a compelled loss.
OTOH, we consumers (who use the wholesale system) have a problem when prices spike, as I saw yesterday for 90 minutes (18:00 to 19:30 I think it was).

Both of those events are fairly short term, but fairly painful for different parties. What is to stop a generator from having (say) a salt water battery or 10 that they can dump excess power into when prices are lousy for them, and then sell back to the grid when prices are better and demand is higher? They wouldn't necessarily need to run the generator at full whack depending upon how good the price is at the time. Wouldn't that help to smooth out the bumps a bit?

In anticipation of your answer being "they make more in price spikes than they lose in the troughs" I would suggest that it would then be very prudent for a Govt mandate to employ such a sca scheme.

---

FF

Ideally a generator stops generating when he runs at a loss: Just common sense. BUT: It really isn't that simple in the coal fired stations combined with their contracts. I noticed our Traders at Millmerran commented that yesterday they saw ten price spikes in excess of $10,000/MWh. Admittedly that was in QLD. If the same happened in NSW, I hope you ran around switching everything off! Jeez, you are going to be so fit!

The general strategy in thermal stations is to reduce load as much as possible down to fixed contract levels when prices are low or negative and to go hell for leather when prices are high, during the even peak especially, and the night in general. This is a complete turnaround from the way it used to be.

There is still a reluctance to embrace renewable technologies and much of this comes down to viability.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

There is still a reluctance to embrace renewable technologies and much of this comes down to viability.

---

Is this denial of the way the world is going, or some hope/belief that there will be a U turn, or have they simply made a decision to "take the money and then walk away"? Or something else entirely? Perhaps a hope that the government will step in and (effectively) buy everything? I have to assume that they have put some thought into the future, even if it's just an escape plan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Is this denial of the way the world is going, or some hope/belief that there will be a U turn, or have they simply made a decision to "take the money and then walk away"? Or something else entirely? Perhaps a hope that the government will step in and (effectively) buy everything? I have to assume that they have put some thought into the future, even if it's just an escape plan!

---

Warb

My own view, and I have to emphasise that it is purely a personal standpoint, is that all this is a result of commercial decisions. In a way I can understand that as companies have to answer to their shareholders or owners. Even if senior executives want to go off on an environmental tangent, they can't. It is the reason why major utilities should be state or government owned. There was an occasion when some state owned electricity entities did generate as much as possible and against commercial considerations, but that didn't last for long as it was in contravention of the market rules. Also, while I would like to say it was the result of altruistic intentions, I have to say it was political. Nothing comes for nothing in this modern environment.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

....companies have to answer to their shareholders or owners. Even if senior executives want to go off on an environmental tangent, they can't.

---

This is not strictly true. The Directors of a company can do pretty much whatever they like, if it's "in the best interests of the company". They can be removed by the shareholders, but that requires more than 50% of the shareholders to vote for the removal. The point to consider here is whether doing nothing (which seems, to the outsider, to be what the Directors are doing), is actually in the best interests of the company.

Whilst I have had dealing with a good many company directors of smaller companies who are brain dead, and only in their roles because they had (often inherited) enough money to buy their way in, the directors and senior executives of large companies are normally a bit more on the ball these days - most of the old "family" companies have gone by the wayside, largely because of incompetent family directors who buried their heads in the sand. I would have expected them to have spent some considerable time and effort investigating the path forward and coming up with an optimum approach. If that involved a paradigm shift in operations, that would, from experience, normally be "sold" to the shareholders in glossy brochures and with great fanfare. I find it hard to believe they have no plan whatsoever, given that the world in general is clearly on a crusade to be "carbon neutral", or at the very least to profit from marketing itself in such a manner. That in turn leads me to suspect that they do indeed have a plan, but that the plan is not an adaption of business methods, rather (as I hinted at earlier) a financial "cut and run" escape plan based on public money being used to cover the fairly obvious need for unprofitable coal-fired base load generation during the transition. Interestingly, if that is indeed "the plan", then any attempt by them to improve the situation by installing batteries or any other green/storage capability is (for them) counterproductive as it lessens the need for public money to be spent propping them up. If they do nothing, then someone else will eventually have to step in and pay, either to buy the whole thing and run it at a loss, or give them the money to fix the issues!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

The Directors of a company can do pretty much whatever they like, if it's "in the best interests of the company". They can be removed by the shareholders, but that requires more than 50% of the shareholders to vote for the removal. The point to consider here is whether doing nothing (which seems, to the outsider, to be what the Directors are doing), is actually in the best interests of the company.

---

Warb

I probably should have not been so general with my comment, but I would suggest that any decision made by the senior executives has to be commercially viable. The ubiquitous bottom line. The problem for the moment is that entry into the renewable sector is a minefield. If it were not for the subsidies for both rooftop and commercial farms, solar would not be anywhere near the stage it is at now as an example of this. The Australian market in particular is dogged by a very conservative approach at best and a sceptical tending towards scathing attitude at worst.

On your second point I did distinguish between shareholders and owners, but I would agree not well enough. Shareholders require majorities while owners have only themselves. However, I am approaching the boundary of discrete information here and it is not my perogative to share that information.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

....but I would suggest that any decision made by the senior executives has to be commercially viable. The ubiquitous bottom line.

---

Absolutely, but the "bottom line" is ongoing - a short term loss is often a required and acceptable penalty to ensure future profitability. At present I'm struggling to see any effort being put into ensuring that ongoing profit, and given the increasing calls for the shutdown of coal fired generators, I find that interesting....... and possibly a signal that the plan is indeed "cut and run", or an assumption of future public funding. I strongly suspect the latter.

Here is a question for everybody. How many industries are there with a price range for a particular good as extreme as that for electricity? The price for 1MW can range from -$1000 to $16600.

Effectively, the price is the first level in the frequency control and the effect of supply and demand.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

How many industries are there with a price range for a particular good as extreme as that for electricity? The price for 1MW can range from -$1000 to $16600.

---

Economists have some jargon for that, Paul.

It is what happens when an inelastic supply curve meets an inelastic demand curve.

Pity is did not apply to breweries!

Another article on the future of hydrogen as propulsion for vehicles:

Will hydrogen overtake batteries in the race for zero-emission cars? (msn.com)

It acknowledges problems, particularly around refueling, but there I think back to the early days of the ICE. I think I read that fuel was obtained from the local pharmacy until fuel stations abounded. It also concludes that H2 will not be for every application even if it is adopted, but seems more likely for heavier goods vehicles and coincidentally that seems an application which tests the limits of batteries.

Regards
Paul

“Future of Victoria electricity market”
Wow I thought this thread would have been like a lightbulb on steroids yesterday an today, well apart from the members in Victoria with out power.

Cheers Matt.

I am far less sanguine than you, Paul, on the future of hydrogen other than in very small niche markets. The reason is contained in the first paragraph of your articles.
"When (hydrogen) reacts with oxygen it produces only water and releases abundant energy. "
The laws of conservation of energy say that to create that you need an equal amount of energy; in practice you need more energy because nothing is 100% efficient. Energy costs money, abundant costs lots. Then there are problems of storage, safety, transport, etc.

The costs seem insurmountable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I think back to the early days of the ICE. I think I read that fuel was obtained from the local pharmacy until fuel stations abounded.l

---

I think that was true for a short period. Then petrol was supplied in square 4 gallon tins, packed in 4-tin pine crates, sold by general stores. Then in the twenties hand pumped petrol bowsers were installed on the kerbside outside those general stores. Some of them were still existant in the fifties and disappeared in the sixties.

More recently, in the fifties and sixties, you could only buy olive oil at pharmacies, in quite small bottles. No mention as to whether it was extra virgin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

"When (hydrogen) reacts with oxygen it produces only water and releases abundant energy. "
The laws of conservation of energy say that to create that you need an equal amount of energy; in practice you need more energy because nothing is 100% efficient. Energy costs money, abundant costs lots. Then there are problems of storage, safety, transport, etc.

The costs seem insurmountable.

---

For commercial transport, you require abundant energy to drag a 55tonne B-double hundreds of kilometres across the country, and you can't sit around waiting for it to recharge. You also need to consider the weight of the power source, as each tonne of battery, hydrogen+tank (or diesel for that matter) takes a tonne off your load capacity. In the case of a battery, it also removes the option to increase your load capacity by only half-fuelling for a short trip. I don't know how the weights of these renewable power sources compare, but a friend tells me that a B-Double drinks about 80l/100km - at 0.83k/L that's about 66kg of fuel per 100km travelled - and has a range of around 2000km.

Tesla is quite shifty about how much its Semi weighs, but they say it has a range of 500miles (800km). Without knowing how much it weighs (tare weight, including batteries), it's not really possible to compare with a diesel truck because the load capacity is "GVM - tare", so we don't know what load could be carried, but Melbourne to Sydney (880km-ish) in a single hit looks very doubtful*.

*Because truck drivers are regulated in respect of working hours and rest hours, "unnecessary" refuelling stops are unpopular (at least with the owners/drivers that I know!).


Trains have similar requirements for massive amounts of stored energy, I'd assume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Trains have similar requirements for massive amounts of stored energy, I'd assume.

---

Warb

Trains, as BobL pointed out, are a good candidate for overhead direct electrical power, so apart from "shunting" there may not be much takeup on the railways for hydrogen.

Something that occurs to me surrounds all the hype, both positive and negative, over electric private vehicles. It seems to me that large vehicles and other forms of bulk transport (ships and aeroplanes?) are far more problematical.

The hype around an electric vehicle not making a pleasant sound, the lack of charging stations, the time taken to charge etc. are all either ludicrous or surmountable and are largely thrown into the debate because of prejudice, self interest or, mostly, reluctance to change.

Regards
Paul