Thread: Getting a better Energy deal - WHAT A JOKE!

Beardy

I should have qualified my comments a little in that, it might at least get done eventually under government ownership.

As it is, the incentive to eat into profit is just not there for the private enterprises. There is the added barrier of the government's (all sides of politics) lack of decision and the constantly changing standpoint. What company is going to commit to a multi million (actually make that billion) dollar project if they know the goal posts are going to be moved. An example of this in recent times is the competitive market that operates along the east coast of Australia. The system was established with associated rules and for years it operated with considerable losses to the generators. Now it has reached an equitable point in terms of market returns the government fabricates "rip-off" type scenarios and wants to change the market conditions.

Both governments and public commentators are fond of quoting extraordinary high prices on the wholesale market and indeed this does happen: It is infrequent and commonly lasts for five minutes. I have heard this on numerous occasions; I have never heard them quote the -$1000 (yes that is "minus") that actually occurs more frequently and sometimes for longer. None of this affects the domestic user as an immediate consequence and large consumers in industry and on the wholesale market have the option to enter into contracts at guaranteed fixed prices which effectively insulate them from those wide market swings.

I see that I have digressed a little as my own emotion on the subject gains momentum. So, yes, the government is inefficient but at least they can't start to shelve the blame to other entities. The buck ultimately stops with them. Not so at the moment.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

To my mind the increasing level of solar power should all be allowed for as and when upgrades take place.

This goes back to the various levels of Govt talking to each other. If they were communicating (properly) they could even do something radical like plan for all the extra Solar power. Councils could be taking advantage of surplus power production by having some batteries scattered throughout the community to run streetlights, traffic lights, whatever. Those same batteries could also be used for coping with surges in power (couldn't they??) and perhaps helping with blackouts due to lightning strikes (couldn't they??). Every time we have an electrical storm up here the power gets knocked out fro anywhere as short as a second to as long as several hours, and we get a lot of electrical storms here by comparison.

I don't understand the technicalities, but it just seems to me that if a battery such as the SA monster can help with State-wide stability, then surely smaller batteries scattered around the community can help on a more micro level.

If there had been any kind of proper plan in place it would have meant that the various levels of Govt could have accelerated battery development with funding, because they would have known that the demand would be there - THEY would be creating the demand. What we do know is that funds speed up development. Surely batteries can't be that far off being viable if the SA battery is anything to go by. I forget the numbers now but it sounds like it will pay for itself in not too many years and create more stable power as well in the meantime.

Bring on a powerful Dept Of Power I say.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is ludicrous to state that solar is a problem because the infrastructure is inadequate. The Electricity distributors have to wake up, acknowledge that the nature of electrical generation is changing, do their share and provide for the future.

Because if they don't their business model will become obsolete, and quickly at that. A few hundred posts ago I said that I thought Mike Baird had sold the Poles & Wires at the perfect time - while he could still get decent bucks for them. It would have been a much better idea if much of that money was mandated to go into renewable R&D rather than completely wasting it by rebuilding the Football Stadium and the Olympic site *like they couldn't have been used for another 10-30 years.......and Football is SO much more important than a secure electricity supply)

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

If there had been any kind of proper plan in place it would have meant that the various levels of Govt could have accelerated battery development with funding, because they would have known that the demand would be there - THEY would be creating the demand. What we do know is that funds speed up development. Surely batteries can't be that far off being viable if the SA battery is anything to go by. I forget the numbers now but it sounds like it will pay for itself in not too many years and create more stable power as well in the meantime.

Brett

More interest and involvement would certainly improve and speed up development. I sometimes think back to cars and TVs and how the increased interest and consumption decreased the cost hugely. QED.

However.... having said that, I am not convinced that batteries are sufficiently economic yet. Solar by itself is still only "approaching" the cost of thermal fired power. Batteries are an extra cost on top. We tend to forget that and talk about them separately and then compare them to thermal coal or gas. That is not a true comparison.

What is the current coast of a solar plant? Not quite sure, but in round figures when out station was built in 2002 it cost $1.5 billion for an 850MW plant. OK it would be more expensive today, but compare to the Tesla battery at 100MW for ONE hour at a cost of $500mil. (8.5 x 24 x 500 produces a figure that is laughable: $102 billion, plus the cost of the Solar generation). The real advantage of the Tesla battery is the ability to regulate voltages extremely quickly and provide voltage control where previously with solar there was no provision for what is an essential aspect of electrical generation. It is not a cheap solution.

The claims of batteries becoming cheaper is probably true, but the assertions that they are viable is still for the moment, I believe, hyperbole. This is much as I would like to believe that. My own fanciful belief is that some other storage option will be developed and batteries, as a large scale storage device, will fade away. I hope I am wrong.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

However.... having said that, I am not convinced that batteries are sufficiently economic yet.

The claims of batteries becoming cheaper is probably true, but the assertions that they are viable is still for the moment, I believe, hyperbole

Agreed - I'm just saying that if there was a national plan put into place - say a decade or more ago - we would be much further down the battery development path than we are now. We might even be at the reasonable "break even" point by now, especially given that batteries look like being commercially viable in around 5 years from now.

Thinking about batteries, the funny thing is that one of the "presumed" benefits of electric cars is that when you get home after your daily commute you plug the car in and the residual energy in the battery is used to help manage the evening peak demand. The car is then charged overnight with off-peak power at a time when coal fired thermal is probably the cheapest and most reliable source.

Business not only wants certainty with Energy policy, it seems to want Solar:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...nment/10445518

The more various business lobby groups tackle the Federal Govt the quicker we might get some kind of certainty, but that may have to wait until after the next election (dunno what Labor's Energy policy is, but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")

My daughter's in laws own several large wharehouses and they have finally decided that the sums now add up to cover them in solar panels.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")

You forgot "definitely, positively with absolute certainty maybe"

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

My daughter's in laws own several large wharehouses and they have finally decided that the sums now add up to cover them in solar panels.

So now that you've had your panels up for a year (I think) what's the best estimate of how long before you break even on the cost?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

The more various business lobby groups tackle the Federal Govt the quicker we might get some kind of certainty, but that may have to wait until after the next election (dunno what Labor's Energy policy is, but we do know what the Libs is: "Yes, No, ah dunno, yes maybe, no actually")

now that's very cynical

I though the Lib's had a well thought out energy policy that Labor (but perhaps not the Greens) supported but a certain former PM wouldn't countenance because
1. it had Malcolm Turnbull's name on it.
2. Labor was generally supportive.
3. it would deliver a stable investment environment for business -- which was bad because of 1.
4. it would almost certainly survive a change in government -- which was bad because of 1.

Originally Posted by ian

now that's very cynical

Yeah, o'coarse! I agree with the general idea that you've outlined there Ian. It was all the reasons why the Libs were thinking their so called virginity was taken by Turnbull. He was trying to Centrify them, and for the likes of Abbott and his fellow buzzards, it had very little to do with policy (and good policy at that) and far more to do with personal revenge which is just a pizz-weak reason to stay in Parliament (thank you Malcolm for buggering off quickly and without having to be told).

Rudd was just as guilty of hanging around to white-ant (a particularly sensitive term amongst Woodies ). I was disappointed that he didn't take a golden opportunity for a Double Dissolution election back when his ETS was knocked back twice by the Senate. It seemed to me at the time (2009??) that they (or more probably he) didn't have the nuts for it, when the truth is they would have won in a canter, and therefore both houses combined for the DD vote on the Bill would have carried the vote for the ETS (which I seem to remember as being even better policy than any of the myriad policies and non-policies that have followed).

Remembering of course that Climate Change is BS - just ask the Farmers and Industry - what would they know compared to a Glass House Politician from the Northern Beaches? He's even a so-called eggspurt on Indigenous matters (and it would seem they don't want to know Abbott about him either).

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So now that you've had your panels up for a year (I think) what's the best estimate of how long before you break even on the cost?

It is a moving target, as the prices go up the pay back period gets shorter but I reckon on five to six years at the present rates. I gave up keeping detailed records at the beginning of the year and just pay the bill when it comes in. What has become obvious is that during the hot days of summer it is unlikely we could full charge a battery pack which I had always suspected but numbers now prove. I have been looking at the workshop roof but the problem there is it is shaded by the house during winter and the carport roof is too flimsy to hold any panels at all. Overall our bill is about $650 better off per quarter.

A long clip, but worth listening to here.

CEO of the US firm Exelon, one of the largest single utilities in the US.

SWK

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

Overall our bill is about $650 better off per quarter.

My combined electricity and gas bill isn’t that much a quarter!