kgwilson Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 If we freeze the Dashboard in a non-peak day and time (8:51, 18/11/19), we can calculate the contribution of Wind and Other generation in each State. Demand Fuel-fired Generation (Coal/Gas/Oil/Bagasse) Wind/Solar Generation W/S % of Demand Qld 6165 5626 1063 17.2% NSW 7536 6320 956 12.7% Vic 4747 3676 586 12.3% Tas 1160 1260 161 13.9% SA 1147 798 311 27.1% Looking at the percentage performance of Wind and Solar Plants, you could be forgiven for believing the “Renewable” stories about their performance being competitive. A quick check tells me that there are 10,551 megawatts of renewable energy projects currently under construction creating 12,240 jobs & in 2018 generation capacity quadrupled from 382 mW to 1824 mW. There are also more than 2 million houses with rooftop solar. This is exponential growth and as it shows no signs of slowing the demand noted above of 21,000 mW will be surpassed relatively soon. Storage is an issue but that's where pumped hydro (& batteries) come in when there is an excess of supply to be used when the wind stops & it gets dark. Peak demand on a hot day means we are still a long way from covering that. The ANU study also stated that Australia could be 100% renewable by 2023 but the government as we know has done next to nothing. Private Industry and individuals are driving the renewables process. 1 1
Litespeed Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 What you are afraid I might be right? Not just my science or logic. The legions of science and even pushers of nuclear industry all agree. All the major financial markets, government bodies, and even builders of nuclear power agree. But you can choose your own reality, but not the planets. Snide remarks just reveal bias and demonstrate a inability to see others views. If my logic or science or ethics are suspect, then demonstrate. I stand by my comments, how about more than just spitting the dummy? 1
turboplanner Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 A quick check tells me that there are 10,551 megawatts of renewable energy projects currently under construction creating 12,240 jobs & in 2018 generation capacity quadrupled from 382 mW to 1824 mW. There are also more than 2 million houses with rooftop solar. This is exponential growth and as it shows no signs of slowing the demand noted above of 21,000 mW will be surpassed relatively soon. Storage is an issue but that's where pumped hydro (& batteries) come in when there is an excess of supply to be used when the wind stops & it gets dark. Peak demand on a hot day means we are still a long way from covering that. The ANU study also stated that Australia could be 100% renewable by 2023 but the government as we know has done next to nothing. Private Industry and individuals are driving the renewables process. The beauty of what I posted is that we'll be able to see the actual outputs as the demand comes on and see it live. We don't have to rely on someone's assertions. After renewables 30 years of subsidy and achieving just 1% of Australia's Peak power, I don't know how you could post the ANU BS with a straight face. Which government has done next to nothing? The States are responsible for their power grids with the exception of any arrangements they make with the Commonwealth government.
Litespeed Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Here is a new article about installed wind costs and subsidies in the UK. The subsidies are really just the level of payment for future contracts of supply. As the price installed drops so does the cost the UK will pay for power contracts. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/new-windfarms-taxpayers-subsidies-record-low "Most of the projects will receive as little as £39.65 for every megawatt hour of electricity they produce. The most expensive projects to win a subsidy contract will cost £41.61/MWh." "The sums were nearly half the £92.50/MWh awarded the year before to Britain’s first new nuclear power site in a generation, Hinkley Point C. The plummeting cost of offshore wind is attracting more interest from major energy companies." And that nuke power gets a many decade price fix at twice new power costs. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/huge-boost-renewable-power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/25/hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-to-run-29m-over-budget But you claim wind is massively subsidised? the base expected cost is a standard of $40 mwh any less and not considered a susidy. So new round power subsidy of a max One pound and 61 pence per mwh. The long term subsidy for gold plated nuclear is a 52 pounds and 50 pence per Mwh. These are the UK governments figures on contracts signed- so no possible argument on the numbers In simple terms the wind gets 3 cents in the dollar for every $1 given to nuclear for the same power- which is baseload. The wind contracts have no public liability for profitability. The nuclear is a public backed profit machine for a private group. All real costs and risks the public pays including the outsize profits- all for at least 30 years. This Nuclear project is for latest available tech and in a country that has subsidised the nuke industry for 60 years. The model is considered flawed by the builders and governement and any future Nuke power will come at substantially greater cost to ensure viability for investors not the public. the extra cost will be a even greater public subsidy. So the most expensive power on the planet long and short term is admitted to only get more expensive. This in a country which has all the advantages of small space, high population and lots of fresh water. Maths is not hard. Science is not hard. Been ethical is not hard. Been good to the planet and its people is easy if you can use the first three. It can also be a lot cheaper to do the right thing and it only gets cheaper. 1
kgwilson Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 It is only in the last couple of years that has seen a significant increase in renewable energy. The LGC subsidies were trading at about $80 a MWh and now that the target of 33 GWh renewables by 2030 will likely be exceeded the price has dropped significantly & will continue to do so as more come on stream. It may even fall to zero when the new build is completed and certificates flood the market. The Murdoch press though still talk about 45 billion in subsidies out to 2030 ignoring the market changes which are accelerating. At the moment there is huge investment mostly by foreign companies and 12,240 jobs plus the downstream benefits so the government will be getting more than it is paying out.
onetrack Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 After renewables 30 years of subsidy and achieving just 1% of Australia's Peak power, I don't know how you could post the ANU BS with a straight face. "1% of Australia's Peak power" is just cherry-picking facts. The important fact is that renewable energy production in total, produces 35% of Australia's power requirements during the daytime. The missing factor is simply a storage method. S.A. has overcome that problem with the Neoen/Tesla battery, but there is still a need for the missing storage ability to be built. Look up Sun Cable and see what the potential is, for our vast amount of harvestable "free" solar energy. 1
jetjr Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 SA has not overcome anything much but a very expensive political stunt, in the scale of nation wide power generation, the Tesla battery is miniscule Provides ~ 10 minutes of power , it does help regulate but thats not what it was sold as to South Australians Networks are increasingly having trouble regulating voltages. Even residential solar is a developing headache. Larger Solar installations are being isolated as they cant keep output regulated to spec. Many are driven by investors strongly focussed on Govt rebates and being turned off is a nasty shock...….. no income until fixed The concept of moving power from one state to another creates problems with inefficiencies and energy losses. Forecasts say Victoria is in for a hard summer as presently their suppliers might need to provide for their own states needs first
facthunter Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Yes because a couple of Coal generators are off line in Victoria.. One planned the other not. We carry on as if coal is the answer to a maidens prayer. It Fails and usually when it's working on a very hot day. Heavy metals from the ash of the Vales Point Power Station are polluting Lake Macquarie right now. Open cut mines using extra water at Boggabri. Unauthorised. extra to operating permit. Nev
planedriver Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 I have worked with Choppers fighting fires with the CFA. They have changed the way we fight fires. Many times when we think we have lost control of a fire front they will hit a rough patch of country that we can't get access too, getting it back in control. We have a permanent Heli fire chopper based at Bendigo 40 ks from us and most times it is operating at the fire front before local trucks get there. I agree with Bex, People have to learn that they are responsible for their own safety. If we attend a fire we need access and a clear space to operate around houses. I (as a driver ) will not put my crew in danger trying to reach a burning residence surrounded by trees, long grass with only a narrow access no through road. As the saying goes " you make your own luck ". Thank you for your contribution and those of all your mates. Very much appreciated. Rgds Planey 1
turboplanner Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 "1% of Australia's Peak power" is just cherry-picking facts. The important fact is that renewable energy production in total, produces 35% of Australia's power requirements during the daytime. The missing factor is simply a storage method. S.A. has overcome that problem with the Neoen/Tesla battery, but there is still a need for the missing storage ability to be built. Look up Sun Cable and see what the potential is, for our vast amount of harvestable "free" solar energy. I should have said 1% of Australia's (less WA) Peak Power, but otherwise there is no cherry picking of facts in what I said. Right now we're not at Peak Power demand on the East Coast grid, but these were the total figures as at 17:30 this afternoon. Total Demand: 26075 MW, Wind/Solar 1910 MW wind/solar % = 7.3% Nowhere near the 35% you quoted and we are nowhere near peak demand. Have you checked the link I provided?
jetjr Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 The Boggabri claim is being investigated, Water licencing is a complicated thing often misunderstood or misrepresented by media and vested interests. Some 250 ?? claims of illegal take nearby earlier this year were all discounted in just a few days afterwards. Im not saying the mine is innocent but claims to NRAR are easy to make and ABC loves to broadcast them.
Jim McDowall Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Building a nationalised nuclear grid would take at least 30 years minimum There is no basis for your assertion. Nuclear power was on the grid in other places a decade after the two bombs and we know a lot more now. The time element is governed by the antics of the naysayers who really need something to do that CREATES something. If the political will existed a nuclear powered grid could be up and running within a decade. But the thousands of holes we have are far in excess of any practical use And I suppose the steel that is in your vehicles, is your fences and whether you like it or not allows you to turn the lights on anytime you like comes from some other place. Even UK are finding they can't build one economically But in other places nuclear power are privately operated at a profit and would be even more economic if they got the same financial leg up that the renewables sector has received we do not have the water to either cool them nor for the steam to power conversion Australia is surrounded by sea. what say we used the excess power (ie when not demanded by the grid) to desal water. And BTW it is no accident that many nuclear power stations are located near the sea. We can overcome the Fukashima situation by pumping sea water to Roxby Downs. inedible produce like cotton should be discouraged It may surprise you to learn that cottonseed meal is a valuable stock feed that is helping keep our nations breeding stock fed in these trying times. Or did you mean the most subsidised industry like mining and coal power, who get govt money, trash the joint, suck up all the water and leave a big hole in the ground and economy? Time you did a little research on the facts instead of swallowing the drivel that the Greens hand out.
Butch Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Thank you for your contribution and those of all your mates. Very much appreciated. Rgds Planey No thanks needed mate! I've been doing it for 45 years and have been more than rewarded. Knowing you helped to save somebody's home, crops ,livestock or even their life is payment enough. Who knows one day I might need the favour returned ? 1
Litespeed Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 I will give Jim some time to think about his post and others can reply for now. But that is just plain drivel. 1
Litespeed Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 SA has not overcome anything much but a very expensive political stunt, in the scale of nation wide power generation, the Tesla battery is miniscule Provides ~ 10 minutes of power , it does help regulate but thats not what it was sold as to South Australians Networks are increasingly having trouble regulating voltages. Even residential solar is a developing headache. Larger Solar installations are being isolated as they cant keep output regulated to spec. Many are driven by investors strongly focussed on Govt rebates and being turned off is a nasty shock...….. no income until fixed The concept of moving power from one state to another creates problems with inefficiencies and energy losses. Forecasts say Victoria is in for a hard summer as presently their suppliers might need to provide for their own states needs first https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-19/sa-big-battery-set-to-get-even-bigger/11716784 1
Methusala Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 The States are responsible for their power grids with the exception of any arrangements they make with the Commonwealth government. Snowy Hydro which we who lived through its construction fondly remember as the Snowy Scheme, was purchased outright by the Commonwealth from NSW and Vic. last year. This was just before they committed around $1.3b in govt subsidy to the boondoggle known as Snowy2.0. This was an attempt by Turnbull to shore up his hold on power. He claimed at the time : 1. No govt subsidy, 2. A cost of $2bn, and 3. Completion within 4 years. All of these have been proven false (hence my branding as "boondoggle"). As others have stated, pumped hydro is able to be placed at many locations nearer to demand than the remote Snowy. Extra transmission capacity requires another huge lump of money to distribute this power to centers of demand. Undoubtedly, this incompetent government finds little difficulty in spending from the treasury to finance window dressing. No mention over the last 6 years of the "Debt and deficit disaster" that they crowed about when they were in opposition. The states are now crying out for federal money to attempt to patch together an energy plan criminally lacking because the LNP DO NOT govern for the good of the country. 1 1
kgwilson Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 The UK was the first county in the world to have a Nuclear energy policy & the first Nuclear power station was opened at Calder Hall in 1956. At its peak in 1997 Nuclear provided 26% of the UKs energy needs falling to 19% by 2012 & now to 18% about the same as wind with most Coal plants closed. In May they ran for 2 weeks with no coal power & coal now produces only 5% of their electricity, down from 40% in 2012 & is to be phased out altogether by 2025. A number of old nuclear plants have closed & the plans for new plants may not happen as renewables come on stream in a fraction of the time and cost with no waste disposal problems. In 2018 wind & solar accounted for 28% of the countries electricity generation. Gas which accounts for about 40% will also decline. On 14 May 2019 the UK produced 25% of its electricity needs from the sun. This is what can be done when there are aggressive targets and supportive government in a country a twentieth the size of Australia with 60 million people. 2 1
Marty_d Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 This is what can be done when there are aggressive targets and supportive government in a country a twentieth the size of Australia with 60 million people. Not to mention bipartisan support. Maggie Thatcher apparently recognised the need for renewables. How bloody refreshing to see a conservative government with a policy based on science - wish it happened here! 1
skippydiesel Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Some points that I do not think can not be argued with: We are polluting our living space at an astonishing rate. We are consuming our planet's resources at an unsustainable rate All fossil fuels will run out - dont know when but it's inevitable - to suggest otherwise is a faith based argument that has no foundation in logic. The economics of continual growth/wealth is without foundation and ultimately unsustainable - another faith based argument. War, pestilence, starvation are the likely outcome/control on our out of control breeding/consumption - did someone mention lemmings? 3
Litespeed Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 There is no basis for your assertion. Nuclear power was on the grid in other places a decade after the two bombs and we know a lot more now. The time element is governed by the antics of the naysayers who really need something to do that CREATES something. If the political will existed a nuclear powered grid could be up and running within a decade. Firstly, the UK, for example got there in a decade because incredible amounts were spent of public funds and it had the goal of making nuclear weapons materials as well. It had the massive military spending on bombs to back it. No country has developed a nuclear industry of a national scale in a decade, and no amount of public/private money and political will can afford to. Even in twenty years. The US never came close in 40 years of building them. And had a incredible need to build enough bombs to kill the planet a 1000 times. They had dreams of nuclear powered everything and were backing a massive % of gdp in the worlds biggest and powerful economy and military. All in a economy that was going gangbusters and a devil may care attitude and needing massive amounts of new power to grow for decades. Yes we have politically been all over the place but in this case, its a blessing. We did not go down the nuclear route. Even now it still does not stack up on dollars. And I suppose the steel that is in your vehicles, is your fences and whether you like it or not allows you to turn the lights on anytime you like comes from some other place. That's tangential to leaving massive holes and waste heaps, polluted water etc of mining. If they did it and cleanly and then rehabilitated like they always promise, I would be amazed. Just because I use steel or power does not negate the needs of the environment and science in your argument. But in other places nuclear power are privately operated at a profit and would be even more economic if they got the same financial leg up that the renewables sector has received That depends on your idea of privately operated and profit. They are always, without exception globally a non private power system even if its a stand alone one. They are completely indemnified from any potential environmental liability beyond tiny amounts. Same for economic loss or death or ......in the community. They are in a guaranteed supply price that is rock solid for its life, it can only go up. They will always be given complete security from government and backup no matter what happens to the company running it. No costs of disposal and storage are fully paid by the operator, that ends up a government problem and still to be effectively solved and used properly. If it goes bang, the company is very limited in its ability to do anything but run to their jets. They are traditionally the cheapest possible finance against anything else- thats getting the money. Why? all completely gov covered, it is literally to big to fail in bankers terms, and will be milked for profit till the end. No matter what happens the bankers/ privateers get paid. Or the governments have just paid for it and get their state power to operate it. OR the massively subsidised version ala UK where you get to force a massive price and not only get the user to pay but the gov helps pay at every stage of building. A private run nuclear plant has never had to incorporate the actual expenses of finance, building, operation and disposal of waste, water use and decommissioning anywhere in the world. They also have always a captive market which every force of government protects them from competition. If they scream they cant make a buck and stay safe, they get given a higher price. The level of real subsidy they get is so great that a fully private one, with only private money and private risk and liability can not exist. No such unicorn has ever or likely will ever exist. It can by nature only exist in a special world of all the actual risk and cost goes to the public and any profit goes to the operator. It can not exist in a market economy on fair terms. In simple terms it always get to bring a machine gun to a knife fight. None of the above includes the non accounted for opportunity cost of alternative energy investment instead and its benefit in real terms to the end user and the environment. That is orders of magnitude different. The small and decreasing rapidly subsidy that renewables get is purely a financial incentive to get a industry going. It has had to have a small leg up to compete in a power sector that survives on inherent subsidy in its model economically for the fossil fuel sector. Australia is surrounded by sea. what say we used the excess power (ie when not demanded by the grid) to desal water. And BTW it is no accident that many nuclear power stations are located near the sea. We can overcome the Fukashima situation by pumping sea water to Roxby Downs. Why of all places Roxby Downs? It is far away from the type of power it generates is needed, huge amounts of power are the only type that make sense. It is a long way from its use, so that means a big power loss to get to market for most of it, plus huge powerline infrastructure at considerable expense. Desalination of seawater is a extremely wasteful energy system to gain water to cool a energy generation plant. The returns on energy expended for that gained as a system is very poor, then to have to pipe a huge distance to a far flung nuclear plant as well plus the cost of piping etc. It is generally only used to get water to drink not generate power. The costs are huge alone and all that piping costs the environment as well just to make. Desalination plants are damaging to the environment as well in the high concentrations of salt they produce as a huge plume that would make parts of the Spencer Gulf long term a low life zone certainly within the life of the nuclear plant. If the desal was for people dying of thirst sure but to make power never. It may surprise you to learn that cottonseed meal is a valuable stock feed that is helping keep our nations breeding stock fed in these trying times. Does not surprise me at all, a seed is full of goodness, some better than others. But it is a byproduct of low value compared to the crop of cotton it comes from. No one grows cotton for the seed. Cotton as a crop is a gross water user and produces very little in terms of nutrition per litre or megalitre of water irrigated for the food value. Not including its high use of chemicals and energy for harvesting, transport etc. If a mere fraction of the resources and water was spent on growing other types of food for humans or stock we would be way ahead. In a water restricted world on the driest continent to grow cotton does not make sense. This is just on economic terms forgetting the downstream effects. And what do we do with the cotton? send it overseas, process it into a shirt, wear it a few times and buy another. Every part consuming resources, energy and making greenhouse gases. A sensible government would see the cotton industry as a waste of precious resources for limited short term economic gain and long term pain on social, health, environmental and economic grounds. These are big picture themes and not considered criticism of a individual farmer but system wide issues. We only have so much capacity to use resources and must chose very wisely be it water, land, air, people or environmental resilience. Everything has resource limits, everything is connected and has a energy budget and environmental budget. Time you did a little research on the facts instead of swallowing the drivel that the Greens hand out. I have always been a critical reader and don't swallow anyones political message as gospel. I am a Atheist. Be it religious or technology, I am not indoctrinated in anything, if you can make gold from lead show me. Nor do I believe a lot of the crap those with vested interest peddle. But I do declare my own vested interest that all sane lifeforms have- continued sustainable life on earth. Our ability to see beyond our next root also sees us with fundamental power over our environment and ability to destroy it. I think my research stands to speak for itself above, but many years of study and working as a researcher at uni and life long interest in this very topic area helps. These were obvious issues of critical importance back in 1990 when I first started. We did not just think up shite for research money and subsidy- that's the marketing or geology department. But hey the Daily Telegraph might know better? I am happy to be shown otherwise, be delighted in fact. Then I could just relax, drink cold fossil fueled chilled beer, throw the tinnies out the boats window and burn some diesel instead of using its sails with a clean conscience. Cheers I need a beer 2
Litespeed Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Not to mention bipartisan support. Maggie Thatcher apparently recognised the need for renewables. How bloody refreshing to see a conservative government with a policy based on science - wish it happened here! See if we ever needed proof, the evil Thatcher had a small conscience and respect for facts, it is there. Come on fellas if she can do it, anyone can. Or at least see the oncoming bus blinking its lights, slamming its horns and get out of the bloody way. Even John Howard could do that.
turboplanner Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 This is what can be done when there are aggressive targets and supportive government in a country a twentieth the size of Australia with 60 million people. .....and no hot Australian summers.
Jim McDowall Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Even now it still does not stack up on dollars. If that was the case why then does the International Energy Agency (a UN body) report in its latest World Energy Report observe that "Construction starts for new nuclear power plants rose by 50% in 2018 , none of which were in China " and shows that final investment decisions for nuclear power plants increased in 2018 over 2017 (the highest since 2015). It also said " Nuclear power investment edged up as new grid-connected plants in 2018 grew threefold, 80% of them in China. Construction starts rose to 6 GW none of which were in China, but were much lower than capacity additions" These investments are not solely funded by central governments. It is also clear from the report that without government support and policies worldwide renewable would not be such a large part of the energy generation sector. Which begs the question "If governments should not pick winners, why favour subsidies for one industry sector over another" 1
jetjr Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-19/sa-big-battery-set-to-get-even-bigger/11716784 Interesting, increasing 50% in size can now provide from 10 minutes now up to 60 minutes
Jim McDowall Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 They are always, without exception globally a non private power system even if its a stand alone one Bruce Power is Canada's first private nuclear generator, providing 30% of Ontario's power.On Jan. 1, 2016, Bruce Power began receiving a single price for all output from the site of $65.73 per megawatt hour (MW/h), which is about 30% less than the average price the province paid in 2015 of $98.90 MW/h. Bruce Power, as a private sector operator, will continue to meet all investment requirements for the site. In the short-term, between 2016 and 2020, the company will be investing approximately $2.3 billion ($2014) as part of this plan. In South Australia, the average wholesale electricity price ranges from $85-180 so the price Bruce Power receives would probably sustain a nuclear investment in Australia given that the Australian and Canadian economies are similar. It is also worth noting that the civil liability requirement in Canada rises to $1 billion from 2020 up from $75 million which Bruce Power clearly takes up in its calculations. The claim that private investment in nuclear is not feasible cannot be sustained.
Recommended Posts