Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

Apparently an extra $30 to upgrade all three sinks in the house just wasn't possible on the $230,000 original build price?

But....

If the additional $30 is added to the price the customer pays, and repeated across every item in the house, then the resulting $ increase of the total price may either cause the project to be shelved or the customer to go to another supplier, and the builder loses out.

Or

If the additional $30 is an extra cost to the builder and reduces his profit, then when repeated across every item in the house and every house the builder puts up in a year, then the builder loses a substantial amount of profit.


The same applies to Bunnings (and all other suppliers). The extra $0.50 profit on a single item isn't much, but when replicated across every item the company sells it becomes a phenomenal amount.

A very long time ago, in my first career, I spent a lot of time researching ways to cut a few pennies from the cost of some of the company's products. The savings per unit were trivial, but when totalled across the globe the additional profits were staggering.

I put a post in my thread about "Getting a better energy deal". There is a newish kid on the retail block, and they have been inundated with people changing over to them.

Getting a better Energy deal - WHAT A JOKE!

It appears there is a new ceiling price for the wholesale market. Yesterday QLD nearly reached it at $14,777 per MW/hr and NSW did get there at $16,599 per MW/hr! These prices normally only last at that level for a single five minute segment, but yesterday, in QLD, it ran for two segments.

Regards
Paul

good news everybody!

Move over lithium-ion: Zinc-air batteries a cheaper and safer alternative - ECU Newsroom

One of many alternatives out there, and some are MUCH closer to market. Whenever I see an article out of a university, it usually means they've cobbled something together on the bench, initial testing looks promising, and they are desperate to attract funding to further their research. Unfortunately (in my direct experience) academics tend not to have much understanding of the "real world", so it could take them a while (and $$$) to get there .

Funny story - I did some consultancy work a few years ago for a university spinoff outfit developing a novel kind of optical sensor. They promoted it as a real "world changing" technology with all sorts of exciting applications, when in reality it had some pretty fundamental limitations (narrow operating temperature range, low bandwidth, very high cost) which really limited it to a few niche markets. All the hype was good enough to attract grant money though, and I'm sure they all lived it up for a few years, but inevitably the bubble burst leaving just a couple of sad little faces covered in soapy water. Website hasn't been updated since 2020, so I guess it finally crashed and burned.

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

... Website hasn't been updated since 2020, so I guess it finally crashed and burned.

Zinc-Air batteries have been dominant in hearing aids for quite a few years, in part because they have the highest energy density of any commercial battery technology. But there seems to be a couple of constraints on the technology:

• It cannot be upscaled to larger batteries - like AAA size, and
• It is non-rechargable.

Many of the major battery companies are both using the technology and researching it. Here is a paper by Energiser:
https://data.energizer.com/pdfs/zinc...ichandbook.pdf

The scientists among you will remember that the utopian concept of nuclear Fusion has been trotted out as being around the corner for at least forty years: Probably more like fifty or even sixty years.

Is limitless clean energy possible? Nuclear fusion could be the answer (msn.com)

After all this time they have finally been able to produce more energy than it took to make it. The economic viability and large scale now remains.

I don't think it will be in time to meet the net zero timeline.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The scientists among you will remember that the utopian concept of nuclear Fusion has been trotted out as being around the corner for at least forty years: ...

Hell, Paul, I can remember when nuclear fission was going to be so cheap that it would not be worth the cost of metering electricity.

Still waiting.

If I have this story straight, back in (I think) the 1970s there was going to be some kind of nuclear reactor built at Jervis Bay (don't know if it was for power, more research or what). It got to the stage where they had poured at least part of the slab before it got canned.

I just had a look on Maps at where I thought I had previously seen it (in the flesh), and it seems to me it must have been at Murrays Beach, right at the southern tip.

Google Maps

Zoom out and check this horrible part of the world - definitely worthy of a nuclear bomb! Or not.

I should explain that I am not opposed to nuclear power in total: Just as it exists for the moment with the all the associated limitations. It is certainly worth continued research with the proviso any "solution" has to be safe, able to be built in a reasonable period of time, easily located to the satisfaction of any populace and the requirements of the transmission lines, eventually easily de-commissionable and, most importantly, affordable. The last one means it needs to be economically viable for private enterprise to pick up and run with it.

I don't believe it has to provide cheaper power than renewables, at least, not while they are unable to deliver reliable power 24/7.

Having said that, it is a big ask for such a venture to be viable if only competitive during the sunless or windless hours. It is the very issue thermal stations are experiencing right now and they are the cheapest form of continuous power we have, providing they already exist (ie. don't have to be built).

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

If I have this story straight, back in (I think) the 1970s there was going to be some kind of nuclear reactor built at Jervis Bay (don't know if it was for power, more research or what). It got to the stage where they had poured at least part of the slab before it got canned.

I just had a look on Maps at where I thought I had previously seen it (in the flesh), and it seems to me it must have been at Murrays Beach, right at the southern tip.

Google Maps

Zoom out and check this horrible part of the world - definitely worthy of a nuclear bomb! Or not.

FF

That was nearly the first nuclear reactor in Oz back in 1969:

Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia

As you can see from the Wiki article, it was planned to be a 500MW unit and was nearly a 600MW unit, but as you said, it got canned. Thermal power was just too damned cheap in comparison! However, according to the article, there was an underlying aspiration to make nuclear weapons too. The concept was for a nuclear fission facility rather than the nuclear fusion. There is quite a big difference. The only nuclear fusion reactor within four and a half light years is the sun.

You are quite right and it is probably the only carpark designed by so many high level technicians and physicists.

"About 70 staff were involved full-time in evaluating tenders, principally from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, and more than 150 others had a significant part-time role."



Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

...nuclear Fusion has been trotted out as being around the corner for at least forty years: Probably more like fifty or even sixty years.

My late FiL, who was a plasma physicist, was working on the magnetic field containment of nuclear fusion in the mid 60s, so definitely going back sixty years.

The failure of fusion to become a working and economic source of energy is one of the great disappointments in modern science. The theoretical concept is sound but the engineering challenges to bring it into reality, let alone at a competitive price, were too great for it to replace power generation by nuclear fission at a time when it was most needed. I expect it is an idea that is past its used by date.

Unlike other fellow travellers on the left, I too have never been opposed to nuclear power. But, for all the reasons Paul points out, fission is also becoming a source of power that is close to its used by date, for most purposes.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

That was nearly the first nuclear reactor in Oz back in 1969

Canned by Billy McMahon of all people. I didn't know that he'd made a good decision.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

... I didn't know that he'd made a good decision.

Me, either. Must have been a mistake?