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

Originally Posted by swk

No, it really wasn't. At its very best when it was new in the 1980s-early 90s, it achieved 96% availability of 2x250 units (= 4200 GWh). Although it was later nominally re-rated to 2x260MW it never really achieved that availability again, due to problems, mostly with tube leaks. It got progressively worse after that as it could not compete in the market, then in the last years it was running with one unit or other mothballed, so wasn't producing more than 2000GWh.
If your numbers include Playford, that was another nominal 4x60MW alternators. But that never ran all of them together, since the 90s. In the early-mid 2000s that was refurbished but to the best of my knowledge never ran in a meaningful way in the last decade.

SWK

thanks or supplying the real operational numbers. I was using those attributed to the persons contributing to the ABC story.
In the context of the up-thread discussion, I believe the "omission" of the word "hours" was a deliberate with the intent to equate apples and oranges. as in "the new solar installation is as big as the old coal fired power station -- but much cleaner"

Originally Posted by swk

The economics for solar farms became viable a couple of years ago. What we'll see is a large number of farms racing to get into the market until it is saturated, then there'll be a cut throat fight between them to see who can stay viable. Which, in theory, should bring the wholesale price down.

what I think I am seeing with solar farms is construction based on long term contracted sales to big entities -- ACT Government, AGL, University of NSW, etc. For example the ACT Government is paying upwards of 180 cents per kWh for it's "green" power.

Longer term, solar operational costs should be close to zero so the real competition will be in regards to their financing arrangements -- and unless something unusual has been happening in that area, most solar farms will have similar terms and interest rates on their bank loans.

I have been told that the evening peak power usage rises more rapidly than in the past as it starts around sunset as solar stops generating. Wonder if daylight saving makes any difference to this.

Originally Posted by Pete57

I have been told that the evening peak power usage rises more rapidly than in the past as it starts around sunset as solar stops generating. Wonder if daylight saving makes any difference to this.

There have been a lot of studies on the evening peak as it is actually the peak, not the average load, that drives the need for network building and/or reinforcing. The total load during the peak (in say Western Sydney) can be up to 160% of average load on a typically hot Sydney afternoon. This peak is largely caused by residents returning home and turning on their aircon. If however it is the third day of a ‘heat wave’, then the peak increase is less but only because more residents have left their aircon on all day and so the daily base load is much higher all day. Aircon has changed Australia from a winter peaking network to a summer peaking network in only a decade. This is technically the worst outcome for networks because most network elements (including the humble cables and wires) can handle less load when the ambient temperature is high. So, the things that help the National market cope with these daily load cycles are that industrial load is reducing as domestic load increases, coastal load diminishes earlier than inland suburban load due to sea breezes AND the currentl differences in daylight saving between states displaces the load peak due to the 1 hour difference in times when people get home from work. It would be much worse if all of the eastern states where on the same time during summer.

Originally Posted by fletty

Aircon has changed Australia from a winter peaking network to a summer peaking network in only a decade. This is technically the worst outcome for networks because most network elements (including the humble cables and wires) can handle less load when the ambient temperature is high.

and at a guess, it will only get worse. As roof top solar further penetrates Sydney's western suburbs, it should be the assumption that the air con "left on during the day" will be sucking up a house's roof top power all afternoon and then fairly quickly switching to the grid as the sun goes down.

Originally Posted by ian

As roof top solar further penetrates Sydney's western suburbs,

I'd like to think this was right but what I saw at the Oran Park development (completed 2-3 years ago) was very disappointing indeed. After several drives, scouring the rooves for Solar, I finally saw one, just one. I think there may be a second one there somewhere now.

They seem to have spent all their money on the land, and the remainder on the house with nary a thought for Solar, which is pretty weird given that they are all air-conditioned, and now have HUGE running costs. The values of those homes have fallen around 10% (apparently) in the last 12 months, and the media keeps telling us the falls will continue.

Originally Posted by ian

...it should be the assumption that the air con "left on during the day" will be sucking up a house's roof top power all afternoon and then fairly quickly switching to the grid as the sun goes down

Probably true but at least the house would be cooled down, and not require "full on" air-con.

When I was building a lot of houses the question often came up about solar from clients to which I replied to do your research and we are happy to work in with your solar installer during the build
Not one client proceeded with a solar system apart from a few hot water units
Perhaps some may have retrofitted it later on ?
The big project home builders would be all over it if there was a dollar in it but they don’t seem to touch it

Originally Posted by Beardy

When I was building a lot of houses the question often came up about solar from clients to which I replied to do your research and we are happy to work in with your solar installer during the build. Not one client proceeded with a solar system apart from a few hot water units

Were the rebates in place at that time? (i.e. not the ongoing feed-in-tariffs but the Fed. Govt rebates on purchase price of the panels). The rebates are pretty good, and are phasing out at a rate of 1/14th (7.14%) per year over the next 13 years (first drop was Jan 2018)

Originally Posted by Beardy

The big project home builders would be all over it if there was a dollar in it but they don’t seem to touch it

I doubt there will ever be a dollar in it for builders of any size because it has to be installed by specialists. The only way a builder could make any money would be to add on a fee for no real service, and that would probably be spotted by the client pretty quickly (if they were slightly on the ball). Now if the builders were to set up their own Solar installation sub-company it would be different - they could then benefit from a genuine value-add process.

Originally Posted by ian

... I was using those attributed to the persons contributing to the ABC story.
In the context of the up-thread discussion, I believe the "omission" of the word "hours" was a deliberate with the intent to equate apples and oranges. as in "the new solar installation is as big as the old coal fired power station -- but much cleaner"

Nah.
I think you are assuming Ben actually understands this stuff enough to make politician type statements. I wouldn't assume that.

I heard the Federal environment minister talking about the new IPCC report a couple of days ago. She was talking about how the scientists were pushing for a temperature increase limit of 1.5 to 2 "percent". My view is that vanishing few politicians have the vaguest idea when the talk becomes technical. I remember (I think it was science historian James Burke) on the telly many years ago. He made a very pertinent comment. It was along the lines: "if the political debate is about the number of jobs, there are serious technical issues that no one understands or wants to address".

SWK

Originally Posted by ian

and at a guess, it will only get worse. As roof top solar further penetrates Sydney's western suburbs, it should be the assumption that the air con "left on during the day" will be sucking up a house's roof top power all afternoon and then fairly quickly switching to the grid as the sun goes down.

Roof top solar benefits the home in two ways, firstly by shading the roof with the panels and secondly by the electricity produced. The new AC systems now being used run on pennies when compared to the old ones so that should help alleviate the loads being introduced via AC. By now I would expect every new house to be fully lit via LED which further reduces the impact of very new home on the grid. They could of course build homes suitable for the climate and reduce cooling costs even more but that is unlikely to happen.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Were the rebates in place at that time? (i.e. not the ongoing feed-in-tariffs but the Fed. Govt rebates on purchase price of the panels). The rebates are pretty good, and are phasing out at a rate of 1/14th (7.14%) per year over the next 13 years (first drop was Jan 2018)



I doubt there will ever be a dollar in it for builders of any size because it has to be installed by specialists. The only way a builder could make any money would be to add on a fee for no real service, and that would probably be spotted by the client pretty quickly (if they were slightly on the ball). Now if the builders were to set up their own Solar installation sub-company it would be different - they could then benefit from a genuine value-add process.

Most of the higher volumes were from early 2000 to 2015 so assume there were some decent rebates in that time?
The style of client was in a position to be able to afford it as we did poly kitchens with stone tops and full height tiling to bathrooms etc etc as standard amongst other things so it obviously must not have been seen as a viable/attractive proposition

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I'd like to think this was right but what I saw at the Oran Park development (completed 2-3 years ago) was very disappointing indeed. After several drives, scouring the rooves for Solar, I finally saw one, just one. I think there may be a second one there somewhere now.

They seem to have spent all their money on the land, and the remainder on the house with nary a thought for Solar, which is pretty weird given that they are all air-conditioned, and now have HUGE running costs. The values of those homes have fallen around 10% (apparently) in the last 12 months, and the media keeps telling us the falls will continue.


Probably true but at least the house would be cooled down, and not require "full on" air-con.

Not all of them are air conditioned, a friend built out there & didn't put AC in. I'm not sure which builder he used but his house is always cool in the summer, just good design.

Solar & wind power would not be ecconomically viable if they had to put storage systems in so that they could provide power 24/7 like coal, gas & hydro. I can't see battery technology being able to do this in your or my lifetime. Currently pumped hydro is the only viable option for storing enough power, but there have been some advances in Hydrogen production recently, which could provide another option for power storage.
If we'd had any governments with foresight, we should have had gas transport infrastructure in place, so we could have used gas generation as a transition from coal to renewables.

Originally Posted by 62woollybugger

Currently pumped hydro is the only viable option for storing enough power

I don't think that's actually correct these days. Several of the posts in this thread talk about salt storage and there are many farms with salt storage around the world.

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

Roof top solar benefits the home in two ways, firstly by shading the roof with the panels and secondly by the electricity produced. The new AC systems now being used run on pennies when compared to the old ones so that should help alleviate the loads being introduced via AC. By now I would expect every new house to be fully lit via LED which further reduces the impact of very new home on the grid. They could of course build homes suitable for the climate and reduce cooling costs even more but that is unlikely to happen.

The BASIX requirements you are required to meet for a new home are pretty good at making an energy efficient home and then some people take that a step further but Even at the minimum basic build they are miles ahead of older homes. Even the old full brick homes that people think are good are behind your modern basic project home for energy efficiency