Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

You are gunna need some discipline, Warb.

First, do not switch the lights on when the sun ain't shining.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

You are gunna need some discipline, Warb.

First, do not switch the lights on when the sun ain't shining.

I've invested heavily in luminous paint............

My NASA story.
As a kid in the 1960's I was mesmerised by the space race, read all the space related books in the local public library, collect news items about space launches, listened to various rocket launches, collected and hung up space posters in my bedroom. Like many kids I dreamed of being an astronaut or astronomer or something associated with "space". My interest waned a little as pop and rock music gained precedence as a teenager but I was still interested enough to sign up for the closest uni degree possible in that area (physics) in WA.

As I progressed through my degree I became more interested in nuclear physics and ended up doing a doctorate in that area, and my first job after that was at the same uni studying pre-solar system nano-diamonds found in certain types of meteorites.

Then I went to work in the US (Scripps institution of Oceanography at UCSD in San Diego) where I researched pre-solar refractory fragments and more pre-solar nano-diamonds. Even though I worked at UCSD my position was funded by research grants from NASA. At UCSD our research group was loosely connected to a large group called "Cal-Space" and our supreme leader (who I only saw once for about 10 seconds) was Sally Ride (first US woman in space). Just across and up the road from the lab I worked in was the Cal-Space building. 11 floors full of manly astronomers. I only went once and was bitterly disappointed - rooms fully of people glued to computer screens. Being someone that liked to work with my hands I felt somewhat vindicated that I had chose a more hands on lab based career.

During my time in the USA I went to several space related conferences including 3 at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Got to see samples of those all big 1960's rockets and lunar landers etc - impressive but also sad because there were no manned launches going on while I was in the US due to the Challenger disaster. The rockets and lunar landers also all depressingly look more "thunderbirds" than the latest and greatest.

After returning to Perth I started uni teaching so my time for research was limited but I did study pre-solar mineral grains for a few years before switching to Environmental research.

Originally Posted by Warb

Well, having just got our latest bill I'm so glad we've just installed a bunch more solar!

Our peak rate has just gone from 40.3c to 55.99c, which is a 39% increase. Shoulder has gone from 32.3c to 49.7c, a 54% increase. Off peak from 25.1c to 31.1c, a 24% rise.

The daily charge has gone from 166.2c to 177.1c, a 6.5% increase.

Interestingly our feed-in for the PV hasn't changed, still at 6.7c

And here’s me complaining about paying 36cents peak. I’ve got a 13kW PV system but no battery. Negligible bill in Summer, but winter is a different story. If I had to pay the rates you’re being charged, a battery might make more economic sense. These price rises are going to hurt a lot of people.

cheers, ajw

Originally Posted by ajw

And here’s me complaining about paying 36cents peak. I’ve got a 13kW PV system but no battery. Negligible bill in Summer, but winter is a different story. If I had to pay the rates you’re being charged, a battery might make more economic sense. These price rises are going to hurt a lot of people.

cheers, ajw

Have you had a bill post July 1st? The price increases just sneaked on to the last 3 days of our new bill, they came in on 1st July.

I had a look on the government "compare power suppliers" website, and there are a couple of companies still offering prices in the thirty-something cents range. However, I'm not 100% convinced that it's not just because they haven't yet pushed their increases through. It strikes me that delaying their increases might cause many people to swap, and then get hit with the same increase next month ("prices may change")! The other interesting point is that my own supplier, on that government website, is quoting a slightly lower rate than they're actually charging us - only a cent or so, but nonetheless lower. I'm not sure why that is!

Having just upgraded my PV, and coincidentally got a bill with a massive price rise, I decided it was time to investigate options with my choice of power supplier. As often happens (at least to me!) I got sidetracked into reading about schemes where the suppliers can take control of your solar battery and discharge it to the grid at times of supply shortage. They pay you a potentially far higher rate for your export, because it reflects the high wholesale price at that time. I then realised the particular scheme I was looking at was not available to me, because I'm on the Essential network rather than Ausgrid....

So, a quick search for similar schemes on the Essential network. One of the hits on this search was this page:

Amber power

Then things got interesting. That page talks about the exporter (me!) paying THEM for power I export at certain times of the day. Whaaa? The time period in question is 10am to 3pm, which is half of the daytime "shoulder" TOU period. Now the charges aren't huge (they seem to be around 1.5c/kWh), but why?

Another link from that page:

Amber power


This contains a section on why FiT's turn negative. And I can understand that. Except, "renewable energy" isn't inherently identifiable as "renewable". It's not like a can of "organic" beans on a supermarket shelf, the customer doesn't know that it's "renewable energy" running his/her fridge at that time, it's just power. And we're being told that the 54% increase in the shoulder tariff is because power is in short supply and costs a lot to generate. Yet here is a scheme that is charging people to export power, because there's "too much of it". This doesn't seem to compute...

How can it be that the daily charge, and the poles and wires portion of each kWh, has risen massively over the last few years, justified as "gold plating" the network, yet we are having our exports limited because "the grid can't cope". And now, when the cost of power is increasing massively because of "shortages" and "cost of generation" we are also being charged to export power because "there's too much". Call me cynical....!

It is my intention to continue to tune my lifestyle and PV to be self-supplying, rather than to export power, so it doesn't directly impact me. But still, are we all just being taken for a ride?

This post exploded on Reddit ¹ overnight: The World’s Largest Wind Turbine Has Been Switched On | IFLScience

These big kahunas have blades that are 123 metres each.... and generate 16-megawatts

Nice!

Imagine having a few thousand of these pumping power 24x7

I was also reading up on General Electric (GE). They can't keep up, I believe they've just shipped their 40,000th turbine: GE Wind Energy - Wikipedia



1 -https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/15csjqh/the_worlds_largest_wind_turbine_has_been_switched/

Imagine, during the costs of supporting the epidemic, rather than spending 300 billion dollars (?) we had put a bit of that towards something like this: The World’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm - Dogger Bank Wind Farm

Dogger Banks cost GBP 3 billion and feeds power enough for 6 million homes.


Lets call that AUD 6 billion.... and build 3 such things.

Thats ~ $1000 per person for a system that can pump endless power for everyone.

Seems cheap.

Originally Posted by Warb

Then things got interesting. That page talks about the exporter (me!) paying THEM for power I export at certain times of the day. Whaaa? The time period in question is 10am to 3pm, which is half of the daytime "shoulder" TOU period. Now the charges aren't huge (they seem to be around 1.5c/kWh), but why?

Another link from that page:

Warb

Welcome to the wholesale market pricing structure. The pricing structure in the whole sale market is the first step (of at least four) that controls the stability of the grid (frequency to be exact) and is the basic supply and demand model.

My understanding of Amber is that it is there for those who already have a battery storage system (only some batteries are compatible, but they are listed) and become linked to the smart technology (two different products available) supplied by Amber. Amber itself is a collaboration and at least partially experimental as far as the retail market is concerned.

This is their reasoning behind the feed in tarrif during the 10-3 period.


"The reality is that the wholesale price of energy dipping below zero on occasion is a curious symptom of the success Australia has had in adopting rooftop solar. While in most of the world, the energy transition is at a point where the market will take as much renewable power as you can give it, we are reaching the next stage of the transition - where the problem is often not the supply of renewables, but demand at the times when they’re being generated. "

The charge is to encourage solar owners to use their power at low periods and conserve power during the high periods. The customer receives a bonus price during the periods of high demand. If a rooftop/battery supplier can use all the energy generated during that off peak period, either by consuming in the house or charging batteries including an EV, no FIT charge would be incurred. The Amber software is designed to facilitate that apparently.

It is an interesting option, but you would have to examine it closely to see if it suits your particular setup. I envy the multitude of choices you have.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by woodPixel

This post exploded on Reddit ¹ overnight: The World’s Largest Wind Turbine Has Been Switched On | IFLScience

These big kahunas have blades that are 123 metres each.... and generate 16-megawatts

/

Evan

I think it is rather appropriate that the world's largest generating station (potentially as opposed to in reality) should also have the largest wind turbine. Quite a renewable installation!

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Warb

How can it be that the daily charge, and the poles and wires portion of each kWh, has risen massively over the last few years, justified as "gold plating" the network, yet we are having our exports limited because "the grid can't cope". And now, when the cost of power is increasing massively because of "shortages" and "cost of generation" we are also being charged to export power because "there's too much". Call me cynical....!

It is my intention to continue to tune my lifestyle and PV to be self-supplying, rather than to export power, so it doesn't directly impact me. But still, are we all just being taken for a ride?

Warb

I meant to comment on this too, but I got distracted.

In regard to the service charge, it does appear there is an anomaly, a bit like bank fees. Unfortunately, the distributors, who look after the transmission lines, have been creaming off the top for years and are now whingeing like a stuck pig when they have to part with some maintenance money.

Are we being taken for a ride? Highly likely.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The charge is to encourage solar owners to use their power at low periods and conserve power during the high periods. The customer receives a bonus price during the periods of high demand. If a rooftop/battery supplier can use all the energy generated during that off peak period, either by consuming in the house or charging batteries including an EV, no FIT charge would be incurred. The Amber software is designed to facilitate that apparently.

I understand the logic, what I don't understand is why, if there is too much power available between10am and 3pm, the shoulder TOU tariff has just gone up by 54% because "there's not enough power available"...

Actually I do understand it, but I'm surprised they don't have a better solution. If we continue down the path of renewable energy, this situation will only get worse (more solar at lunchtime than people can use). If they punish us for exporting power, it leaves us with the option of buying more batteries or wasting potential power (limiting exports). Surely neither is great for the environment or the power companies? If I buy another battery, and at present that's what I'm planning, I entirely remove my need to buy power, except on the worst days. I may choose to let them use some of that in an "Amber" style system, but whilst that satisfies my desire for "community" it doesn't really help the major power generators stay in business - if everyone did it would we still need all of them?

It seems to me that a better option would be to either have an additional new TOU tariff, or even another controlled load system, where water heaters etc. would be run in the middle of the day. The rollout of either system could be staged, perhaps giving those claiming support for their power bills first go, such that new customers would only be taken on board as excess power became available (i.e. more solar installations came online). This would shunt the load from overnight, where most water heating etc. is currently done, to peak solar hours to match the changing supply arrangements.

The logic behind off-peak and controlled loads was, as far as I understand it, to encourage people to use the nighttime generation of base load generators that couldn't be switched off, at a time when the demand for power was otherwise low due to everybody sleeping. If that model of generation is changing, surely the model of charging must also change to encourage usage in the new peak generation periods?

The software controlling my inverters and batteries has the ability to allow secure access to an API from which I, or anyone I choose to allow, can see and control what the system is doing. I believe that is how Amber's software can control people's batteries, but I don't know for certain.

Originally Posted by Warb

The logic behind off-peak and controlled loads was, as far as I understand it, to encourage people to use the nighttime generation of base load generators that couldn't be switched off, at a time when the demand for power was otherwise low due to everybody sleeping. If that model of generation is changing, surely the model of charging must also change to encourage usage in the new peak generation periods?

The software controlling my inverters and batteries has the ability to allow secure access to an API from which I, or anyone I choose to allow, can see and control what the system is doing. I believe that is how Amber's software can control people's batteries, but I don't know for certain.

Warb

Much of what you say is true and logical. Unfortunately the electricity market is dynamic for the moment and it is struggling desperately to find it's feet. In fact, it is stumbling most of the way. We have something of a paradox and the "off peak" system has not yet caught up.

There is this anomaly: The period of low demand is still nighttime and the two morning and evening peaks, but in today's environment it is also, paradoxically, the period of highest prices. Until renewables can supply 100% of the market on a reliable basis, this situation will continue. What has not happened is for the off peak segment to move to those hours between 10am and 3pm. This will come, but is being hampered by the commercial market that by necessity needs to make a profit (the electricity market is a utility that should never have been privatised, but we are well and truly stuck with that). So, for the moment the pricing structure has to ensure viability for the fossil fueled generators (coal and gas) so they can economically survive: It is true to say that if the fossil fired generators pulled the plug (sorry about that one) and said "We're outa here. Can't make money," the country would be in dire straits and life as we know it would change dramatically.

As it is the old traditional stations are being phased out with timelines being brought forward all the time. As that occurs, it will alter how renewables function with an increasing emphasis on storage. The variable rates, including negative pricing, are very likely to find a firm place in the price structure. However, like the station I work at now the positive pricing outweighs the negative and it will always be that way.

I think that you and probably many of the rest of us are a little aggrieved to find that we committed to rooftop solar and in so doing kickstarted the renewable trend and now find that at times they want to charge us! It goes against the grain. However, in the smart system, I would think there must be a function that simply turns off feeding back to the grid and that would remove the problem. During that time you would charge your water heater, run your pool pump, charge your storage battery and run the air conditioning flat out on any additional surplus of power. Oh to be in such a position!

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I think that you and probably many of the rest of us are a little aggrieved to find that we committed to rooftop solar and in so doing kickstarted the renewable trend and now find that at times they want to charge us! It goes against the grain. However, in the smart system, I would think there must be a function that simply turns off feeding back to the grid and that would remove the problem. During that time you would charge your water heater, run your pool pump, charge your storage battery and run the air conditioning flat out on any additional surplus of power. Oh to be in such a position!

I'm not really aggrieved, frankly since the ending of the ludicrous 60c FiT my PV systems have only made trivial dollars over and above paying the bills. The negative FiT isn't really an issue either, I haven't signed up for such a scheme and, as you say, I have the ability to limit my export to whatever I want - though I'm not sure I can do that by time-of-day without writing some code!

I think what annoys me most is that "green" is being used as an excuse to make more money without actually doing any work. This isn't limited to the electricity market, in almost every case any measures purporting to be green are in fact thinly disguised profit grabs, and what's worse is that so many of the "climate action now" brigade are fooled every time. This negative FiT is just another example. It is clear that we need to change our consumption patterns to match the availability of power from renewable generation. it is also clear, as you say, that we need to artificially keep the old stations alive (aka profitable) until we no longer need them. But instead of approaching this in a pro-active and future friendly manner, we instead use it as an excuse to do nothing and grab more cash. Worse still, as you say, we are taking the opportunity to build things like the negative tariff into the system, and in the future such things will be justified on the basis that "they've always been there".

I suspect the real cause of this is not the requirement to make a profit, it is the requirement to always make more profit. Until we, as a society, realise that constant growth is neither a requirement or even a possibility, we don't stand an ice-cream's chance in hell!

Edit: I've just ordered another battery!