mulben

Herald-Sun posted it all I did was repeat it.

As an ex farmer I know you never use back sight for a straight fence.

WA was on the money !

GarryP

Elon Musk has turned Australia's energy debate on its head : Renew Economy

A more positive reading of Trunbull and why he rushed to announce the Snowy Hydro stuff. Looks like they think he might be trying to get ahead of the regressive parts of his party - jump to forward looking rather than backward energy policy before they can understand the shift.

Wish him luck, but they are still pushing coal, rather than easing out of it.

Amazulu

Some HV electrical engineering basics for you (seeing as you are obviously lacking in this topic) - battery storage is part of the solution for renewable capacity - but not the total answer. It helps to fill a niche and smooth out the peaks and troughs but cannot provide any meaningful baseload capability for a modern western economy. Big scale thermal is the only way to provide this now and for the foreseeable future

Whether this Snowy mountain upgrade is the right way to go (I haven't seen the details) is yet to be decided but batteries are not the answer

Hope this helps

GarryP

"Base load” power: a myth used to defend the fossil fuel industry : Renew Economy

The potential for renewable energy to provide baseload power in Australia – Parliament of Australia

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ren...load-power.htm

It's not coal vs wind - it's gas vs batteries | Infradebt

For those who understand less about the issue of baseload power and the role of inertia in frequency regulation than they think they do.

Oh, and Centralised to decentralised energy: What does it mean? : Renew Economy for the direction this is heading in.

mulben

The Australian Energy Market Operator says that the exit of “base load” coal generation in South Australia should not impact reliability or security of supply. It does mean that supply it is dependent on other factors, including a connector to the main grid, but also a “different way of doing things.” Culture, not technology, is the biggest challenge here.


The study conducted on behalf of South Australia transmission network operator ElectraNet, and released in December, illustrated a range of scenarios that suggested there was no room for “base load” generation.
And it wasn’t needed. The gaps would be filled by flexible plant such as solar towers, or battery storage, or from gas – as long as it can compete with the new technologies.


Its a pity they didnt take time to read their own study and have the network "gas ready" as it was a bit late to say - oh! we should have thought of that - after the wind hit the fan .

Amazulu

I didn't even read that article as it is obviously bullshit - we have to have a base-load capability or the lights will go out. Simple

Gas can provide it no question if the plant is built with enough capacity. Solar maybe if a collector is used. Wind no way. Here's a basic fact - you cannot run an aluminium smelter or steel plant from a wind mill

GarryP

Oh I agree totally - the issue was with management. However a good part of the problem is the national electricity market, which was supposed to deliver a coherent national supply regime, but which is controlled by federal, who have been failing to deliver that strategic foresight and governance oversight.

Hence you get a situation where the market fails - both to build the new capacity, and even to deliver from the existing capacity (Pelican Point didn't provide power during the brownout, because it was more lucrative not to).

And that's why South Australia is taking back control of their state electricity, both building new plant, and being able to instruct generators what to do.

And THAT is why Frydenberg howled when they did it - it shows up the failure of the coalition, the failure of 'the market', and their focus on coal. They haven't made the necessary changes because they want a coal baseload and because they don't want to admit that the 'market' doesn't work properly.

mulben

SA own study said < Culture, not technology, is the biggest challenge here.>
And really providing power is a State Government essential , off loading your responsibility to other States and the Commonwealth is tripe (IMO) Jesus even Tas. had generators ready to supply power when there hydro ran out of water when they deliberately ran them out to max. the income.

If a big winter storm hits and all SA wind power is shut down coupled with the decommission of Hazelwood (20% of Vic. Power) .Whose fault is it if SA has another black out.

The whole SA energy set up is a mess ( a mix of highly subsidized carpet bagging wind providers who built the cheapest possible links they could get away with) Decentralizing power when it is 95% used in one spot -Adelaide _ has only created a massive structural problem for the SA Government.
Thats why it has the most expensive power in Australia and seemingly will keep increasing the cost to pay for their "new" policy of taking control.

Having an inept leader Federally and State wise is not helping the tax payer.
And yes even the av. Australian punter will pay for SA stuff ups as SA is the most subsidized State in Australia

GarryP

Thing is, the Pelican Point issue is emblematic of the real problem (rather than the coalition blame game).

• SA has a need for more power on a hot day, and because of the 'market' mechanisms the price spikes to the maximum allowed $10,000 level.
• The Pelican Point power station has one generator working, and one offline. If they startup the second generator the rate they get for the power, because of the market mechanisms, drops to $300.
• So they keep it run down, because to start it means less profit (shades of Enron).
• SA can't force them to start, the only ones that can are at the national level, and that would mean guaranteeing higher rates and covering startup costs, and they don't want to do that for SA.
• SA suffers power blackouts as a result, because PP isn't forced to startup the second generator until it's too late to avoid blackouts.

And the coalition blames SA because they want to bolster the idea that it's the fault of all their renewable generation, so that coal stations will persist, and their voters in the mining constituencies, together with the sweet bribes from the coal lobby, will continue.

The reality is this is a federal issue, and the result of forcing a 'market led' approach that actually creates the problem via perverse incentives - whilst not doing the forward facing work they should have been on moving to a structure that works for a renewable heavy grid. SA has generation capacity, but levers of control have been outside their domain. They've now announced that they are taking back control, at least in part - and THAT is why the coalition are screaming and rushing to suggest that they have it in hand. They don't want Victoria doing the same (which they might) and forming a chain reaction where federal gets locked out (they want that coal cash remember).

Beoz

I blame the Greens and Labor for having a dark ages view of Nuclear energy.

cresta57

Or it could be the "She'll be right mate" attitude to general workplace health & safety that frightens the electorate.

Beoz

Or maybe its the ALP and Greens spinning their gullible supports a lie again. If only their supporters would look to the rest of the world.

Amazulu

That may be the case in your industry but in mine (HV power, mining, O&G) it certainly isn't. H&S is implemented and monitored to the nth degree - so much so that it is now significantly affecting productivity

Beoz

I went to a mine in WA a few years back to do some work. Inside the cordon was H&S insane. There was 2 office blocks next to each other with a 3 metre gap between the buildings. To get from one block to another you had to walk in the open air for 3 metres and it was compulsory to wear the eye protectors for that 3 step walk. We were no where near any industrial activity.

Beoz

Left wing hypocrisy. Its all falling apart.

Labor ad fail: Bill Shorten admits campaign needs more diversity