Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

This is looking ominous for some parts of the power generation industry; this was posted yesterday.


Solar powers more than half of Australia’s grid for first time, coal at record low


Solar powers more than half of Australia's grid for first time, coal at record low | RenewEconomy


Mick.

electrification is going mainstream... one of my old rants is now being promoted to the peasants!

Converting classic cars to electric vehicles is booming in popularity - ABC News

Originally Posted by Optimark

This is looking ominous for some parts of the power generation industry; this was posted yesterday.

Solar powers more than half of Australia’s grid for first time, coal at record low

Even more ominous when put into the context of ....


"The new benchmark might have been higher were it not for the number of solar farms that were obliged by their contracts to turn themselves off as prices went below zero."

Mick's link is interesting not for just being a landmark in renewable generation.

It highlights the difficulties during the transition from one type of energy production to another: For all the players! We know that during the day the coal fired stations are having to reduce their outputs to absolute minimums as the prices go negative (up to -$1000!), but at times the solar generators, and wind generators too, are having to restrict their outputs as well. And don't they whinge! Welcome to the real world. Down the track, surplus generation will go into storage facilities, but we are not close to that point yet.

SA has been 100% renewable several times, but the 50%+ mark nationally was only achieved because of eastern seaboard conditions ( sunny and windy) and low demand. Spring and autumn are traditionally low demand periods. There is still a long way to go before we become too complacent.

It is worth remembering that no power is "free." It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power ( electricity in the main) that we debate so hotly. Electricity generated from the sun is not free. The solar farms had an initial cost building arrays, installing them and subsequently maintaining them. The solar farms want a return on investment too. When the wholesale price goes negative it affects everybody active on the spot market.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is worth remembering that no power is "free." It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power ( electricity in the main) that we debate so hotly. Electricity generated from the sun is not free. The solar farms had an initial cost building arrays, installing them and subsequently maintaining them. The solar farms want a return on investment too. When the wholesale price goes negative it affects everybody active on the spot market.

Regards
Paul

Paul, broadly I agree with you, with one major difference. The fuel used to generate electricity from PV solar, is totally free.

With our own PV array on the various rooftops of our house, we obviously had an initial outlay for installation; the same initial cost factor also applies for our batteries being purchased and installed. This is the same as what you quote above, "It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power."

However for the fuel used to generate electrical power in our system, we have yet to receive an invoice, solar farms are in the same boat.

Amortisation of purchase and installation costs, plus regular maintenance is looking pretty good so far; but the cost of the fuel resource is still free.

8 years ago we installed our first solar PV array, we were quite surprised that our initial projected payback period of 5½-6 years actually happened at approximately 3 years and 8 months. Changes to tariffs and the manner in which we used our own generated power in ways we hadn't quite envisaged, hastened the payback period.

Similarly, our purchase of our house batteries had a projected payback period of around 9 years. We have been surprised at how the batteries have enabled us to further change our way of using our own power, to such an extent that our projected payback period on them could be between 6 years and 6½ years. If power costs rise, that payback period will move forward with some of the what if scenarios in a spreadsheet telling us it may in fact be closer to 5¾ years or slightly better. Our house batteries will be 2 years old in a couple of weeks.

If one looks at the South Australian big battery, the way it has changed the electricity market is, in some instances, quite different to what was anticipated. At least publicly anticipated, that is.

The Victorian big battery, if it goes along the same route as the South Australian big battery, I'm sure will further change the electricity landscape in ways not originally anticipated. Energy storage is the one missing factor with large scale and small scale renewable power projects; you can only generate energy when the free fuel resource is there.

Mick.

food for thought: Solar panels on half the world's roofs could meet its entire electricity demand – new research

While the fuel for solar panels may be free, the panels have a finite life. Old panels are becoming a source of pollution which will increase as more panels reach the end of their life. Also there is the manufacturing process.
While I can see the vast benefits of solar I can also see the downside.

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy | Discover Magazine

While I think this question is slightly off topic, it's relevant. Maybe one of the cognoscenti can satisfy my curiosity.

Sydney Trains have just announced that their network is going 100% renewable by virtue of a deal signed with Red Energy (Snowy Hydro). Is anyone measuring the amount of electricity sold by Red Energy against the gigawatts generated by them? Or is it yet another political con job?

mick

Originally Posted by Lappa

While the fuel for solar panels may be free, the panels have a finite life. Old panels are becoming a source of pollution which will increase as more panels reach the end of their life. Also there is the manufacturing process.
While I can see the vast benefits of solar I can also see the downside.

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy | Discover Magazine

Panels, like all equipment, eventually stops working or get to a point that it needs replacing or refurbishment. I have seen quite a few stories about solar panels requiring early replacement and that things are not quite what they seem to be. I'm not completely sure whether many of these stories/articles are planted or come from legitimate solar industry specific sources.

From personal experience my first ever solar panel was made in 1991, it is now 30 years old and still working pretty much as it was when I first purchased it. It is small 10W, but 10W back then was a reasonable size for the job it was given.

I personally know of a PV array installation that was done in 1982 in Gippsland, inland from Bairnsdale to be specific. This installation powered the entire house up until the property was sold in October 2019, which is 37 years straight. Their house batteries, huge ex-Telstra units, had one rebuild and were still running along smoothly. I understand the house is still running on that system, but I cannot be 100% sure. But if it is, that is 39 years straight, pretty impressive.

Meanwhile the Germans have been conducting some pretty impressive research into how long and how well solar panels are running in an array. This link makes for interesting reading as these panels are approaching 45 years. At the 35 year mark individual panels were removed and subject to rigorous examination, the losses of performance for these panels, is to put it mildly, minimal.

The oldest photovoltaic array in the world still in operation

In the not too distant future, possibly within 10 years maybe, we could start seeing solar panels with much greater output. Basically solar panels convert one small part of the spectrum they are sensitive to into electrical energy. By having another layer of material that is sensitive to another part of the spectrum, the energy output can be magnified to possibly double their current output.

Something like this technology could spur greater take-up of PV panel generation at the industrial level and at the same time may initiate a trend to replace existing panels to gain more generation from the same footprint.

This is the kind of technology behind the unbelievable output of solar panels used in outer space, at the moment it is quite expensive to manufacture, but so were the original PV solar panels offered to the public 40+ years ago.

Mick.

Originally Posted by Glider

While I think this question is slightly off topic, it's relevant. Maybe one of the cognoscenti can satisfy my curiosity.

Sydney Trains have just announced that their network is going 100% renewable by virtue of a deal signed with Red Energy (Snowy Hydro). Is anyone measuring the amount of electricity sold by Red Energy against the gigawatts generated by them? Or is it yet another political con job?

mick

you don't get to pick and choose where the electricity from the wall comes from. Sydney trains just says that they use 50Mw's of power per year (dunno what the number is this is just an example), so they're going to invest in "green" projects that would generate that same 50Mw. It all basically works through offset certificates. So Sydney trains invests a bunch of money into building a 50Mw wind farm which would net them a certain amount of carbon offset certificates.

Originally Posted by havabeer69

you don't get to pick and choose where the electricity from the wall comes from. Sydney trains just says that they use 50Mw's of power per year (dunno what the number is this is just an example), so they're going to invest in "green" projects that would generate that same 50Mw. It all basically works through offset certificates. So Sydney trains invests a bunch of money into building a 50Mw wind farm which would net them a certain amount of carbon offset certificates.

Just a minor tech matter.
It's "MW" (both are capitals), and that's "energy" ie not "power".
Power = Energy x time , so I think you probably mean 50 MW-hours (MWh)?

Originally Posted by Optimark

From personal experience my first ever solar panel was made in 1991, it is now 30 years old and still working pretty much as it was when I first purchased it. It is small 10W, but 10W back then was a reasonable size for the job it was given.

I personally know of a PV array installation that was done in 1982 in Gippsland, inland from Bairnsdale to be specific. This installation powered the entire house up until the property was sold in October 2019, which is 37 years straight. Their house batteries, huge ex-Telstra units, had one rebuild and were still running along smoothly. I understand the house is still running on that system, but I cannot be 100% sure. But if it is, that is 39 years straight, pretty impressive.

Mick.

there are always examples to quote.
i personally know of three arrays set up in the 2010’s (when the Govt first the first bought in the solar rebates) that have deteriorated to the point they need to be replaced. Admittedly, during this early scheme there were a lot of cowboys who brought in crap panels. Apparently there are thousands put in under this scheme that need to be replaced. There are many articles stating these facts and the problems with disposal which, at the moment, seem to be pushed to the background.
I also personally know of two recently installed arrays that were badly damaged during a big hail storm in Berowra and need to be replaced. I’d imagine this could be the case in many parts of Australia.
Like I said in my original post, I have nothing against solar and in the future it will be an important part of our electricity supply BUT like all forms of energy production there are negatives. The problem is when you look at the majority of the media and expert comments recently, it’s all roses with no mention of the thorns. It reminds me somewhat of the possible Astra Zeneca side effects plastered all over the media with absolutely no mention of the heart problems that where the possible side effects of Pfizer and Moderna.
Personally, I would like to see the nuclear option explored in more detail.

Originally Posted by BobL

Just a minor tech matter.
It's "MW" (both are capitals), and that's "energy" ie not "power".
Power = Energy x time , so I think you probably mean 50 MW-hours (MWh)?

Fairly sure he isn't talking about the output of a car engine or the local flour mills stream-powered grinding wheel

Maybe we should quote in some other unit? Reddit has a standard of Olympic Swimming Pools (volume), a Banana (size) and African Elephants (if there is doubt of the unit).

Maybe power (MWh) should be quoted in AA rechargeable batteries

Originally Posted by Lappa

Like I said in my original post, I have nothing against solar and in the future it will be an important part of our electricity supply BUT like all forms of energy production there are negatives.

Personally, I would like to see the nuclear option explored in more detail.

We should, as a society, have put in place a vast recycling program. Just as a thing put in has a cost, so should its decommissioning.

These panels, like asbestos, should be treated properly. Dumping them is a terrible idea.

In 100 years, or more, our ancestors will curse us for our waste.


On nukes, I've read many excellent articles on pebble-bed reactors. Their design is inherently safe, plus they can be cranked on/off/up with very little delay. The tennis ball sized pebbles flow from the bottom, are collected, recycled/remanufactured and popped back in the top.

They are safe too. One can handle the balls.