Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by woodPixel

This is very interesting.

One would think its cheaper to keep a coal fired plant open, even if it were fully paid off? Wrong.

It is cheaper, using LCOE, to build a new solar or wind farm. It is CHEAPER to close the coal plant.

SO! Retaining coal is a matter of politics and employment rather than rational economic decisions. So much for the Liberals being "Better economic managers".

Guess they aren't called the COALition for nothing

(see 10'40")

can you link to the projects that have been started... built... and are in service.

SOOOO many of these "renewable" projects end up just as that, a project with D.A consent that never takes off because no one wants to pay for things.


also even in your video above she said using the LCOE graph, wind and solar are the cheapest.... ONLY if their available and it becomes a total moot point if their not. so then they have use some value adjusted one. I don't know why you took that little bit of 10minute video to make your case. @14;47 she even states no one will invest in solar if it is going to flood the market all at the same time and cause prices to go negative.


what the overall pipe dream is:
the government builds all of its own solar, pumped hydro and large scale battery plants
gives the elect out for free (its not really free they will tax you to pay for it)

how ever this is not how our country operates and it relies on businesses to invest in these resources, and unless they can turn a profit not many companies will

Originally Posted by woodPixel

This is very interesting.

One would think its cheaper to keep a coal fired plant open, even if it were fully paid off? Wrong.

It is cheaper, using LCOE, to build a new solar or wind farm. It is CHEAPER to close the coal plant.

SO! Retaining coal is a matter of politics and employment rather than rational economic decisions. So much for the Liberals being "Better economic managers".

Guess they aren't called the COALition for nothing

(see 10'40")

That is a very misleading and possibly even useless analysis from what I can see as you are comparing a baseload option with an ancillary one.
The author even acknowledged that the gas turbines have their place in the system or we need to find an alternative option.

I also don’t see the need to politicise these discussions by bagging a particular political party

Originally Posted by havabeer69

couple of hours to come on line... wait till you come to an old coal clunker like ours that doesn't even have a turbine bypass valve.

Turbine Bypasses are a very useful feature, but we had better explain for the benefit of those outside the industry. It is a feature that allows warming of the boiler components up to the bypass rated load (40% in our case at Millmerran) without synchronising the turbo/generator to the grid.

However, there are many other factors that come into play for runup times. Our machines from cold may take twenty four hours to come to full load. Kogan Creek the last (and largest) coal fired unit to be built in Australia has a 100% Bypass and run up times significantly faster than us.

"Hot" starts are significantly faster for all concerned.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Beardy

That is a very misleading and possibly even useless analysis from what I can see as you are comparing a baseload option with an ancillary one.
The author even acknowledged that the gas turbines have their place in the system or we need to find an alternative option.

I also don’t see the need to politicise these discussions by bagging a particular political party

Beardy

I think the point of her analysis was to explain how the costs associated with renewables, which were once a tremendous barrier to their implementation, are now largely a thing of the past. The pertinent point today is that because they are reliant on weather conditions, primarily wind and sun, they cannot deliver power all the time. So you are correct in that for the moment we are not comparing a "like" product.

I also feel that her comments are fine in theory, but practice shows there are more aspects to consider. She acknowledged that an oversupply of renewables kills the market price through the day in particular to the point where there is a negative price. Clearly that is unsustainable until excess generation can be channeled into storage facilities such as batteries, hydrogen production and pumped hydro to name the most common for the moment. Once a storage facility is added to the primary cost of the renewable source I think there would be a very different picture regarding capitol cost.

There is also the fact that MWs by themselves are not the whole story. The coal fired stations also have to compulsorily provide PFC (primary frequency control), at no cost benefit I might add, to maintain the frequency at 50Hz. The existing renewables are unable to do this, although they could but at a much higher initial cost. I don't know how much extra cost is involved, but certainly enough that solar and wind did not do it. There are additional revenues to be made for the ability to raise and lower load to meet the energy demand. This is another area that is not currently the province of renewables.

As to politicisation I think it is inseparable. It so happens that the Liberal party is the one in power. I doubt the Labour party would be any better. In fact the NSW Labour party was, to my mind, responsible for the privatisation of the electricity industry back in the eighties ( it did not take place then, but they put in place the mechanisms so it could happen and it did!): Something that in my opinion was close to criminal. The current Liberal party is guilty of either perpetuating fossil fuels or appearing to do that. I can accept that we live with what we already have, but to advocate building new facilities is unconscionable.

The only reason I would suggest that politics are only touched upon, instead the demolition job that should happen, is the stance of these Forums, which ordinarily ban politics, and have been pretty tolerant of this thread. Possibly the administrators recognise that separation is difficult. For that reason, if we wish to use this thread to stay up to date on developments, we should use some political restraint.

WP's pun is only outshone by Goff Whitlam's retort to the statement "I'm a Country Member."

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller whilst I agree with what you have said I just find these type of presentations “ loaded” and bordering on propaganda.

I would much rather they just stick to the unbiased facts

Apologies for the politics. You are all correct, I shouldn't have put that. Soz.


On the video, I watched it twice. Front to back. The presenter is not a propagandist/sensationist - she is simply showing us internationally recognised facts and figures.

On investments, the case is clear - Coal is dead.

Not only is it dead, it is economically unsustainable. Storage will come online and once that occurs its game over for coal.

As was clearly stated, once storage is online, it is 100% more economical to CLOSE coal generators, even profitable ones.

Banks won't lend money. Investors won't put a cent into it.


I really DO understand how people can feel hugely confronted and absolutely antagonistic to this change. Peoples livelihoods, incomes, assets, wealth and futures are under direct threat. But, it is inevitable.

It might not be directly relevant, but in IT this state of relentless change has been non-stop. It has burnt out an unholy number of people. Any highly skilled uber-talent is useless 5 years later. I went through this, too many times. One has no choice but to adapt, learn, move, change or leave.

It is, however, pointless arguing with me or others about an absolute inevitability. All the rage in the world will not alter this progression.



(disclosure - I own a good chunk of WHC. This is because of other things that super high-quality coal can be used for other than burning. WHC has the very best coal in the world. They will be the last standing.)

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.

There is also the fact that MWs by themselves are not the whole story. The coal fired stations also have to compulsorily provide PFC (primary frequency control), at no cost benefit I might add, to maintain the frequency at 50Hz. The existing renewables are unable to do this, although they could but at a much higher initial cost. I don't know how much extra cost is involved, but certainly enough that solar and wind did not do it. There are additional revenues to be made for the ability to raise and lower load to meet the energy demand. This is another area that is not currently the province of renewables.

l

Its actually called fcas now, and you do get paid for it... sometimes more then the MW price

Originally Posted by Beardy

Bushmiller whilst I agree with what you have said I just find these type of presentations “ loaded” and bordering on propaganda.

I would much rather they just stick to the unbiased facts

Beardy

You have reminded me that there were some assertions in Rosie's presentation that I would contend. Before I make mention I would also say that she somewhere said there were a range of values and there was some interactive device at the end where you could plug in different values.

One value she mentioned was the efficiency of coal fired power stations. I think she quoted 28%. Most of the stations remaining in service would be significantly better than 30% and closer to 35%. Millmerran is about 38% efficient just to quote one station. Always with this type of presentation we need to query, if not actually question, the authenticity of so-called facts. I am not even suggesting she has deliberately misled.

Just don't accept anything at face value. Query everything.

Regards
paul

Overall, I've found this thread to be highly illuminating.

I find the perspectives of those "on the ground" in the generation factories excellent. I'm also SUPER excited by the changes to come.

Today I tripped over this on a popular-science site. Its a bit airy and arm wave-y but a fascinating read.

The US could reliably run on clean energy by 2050


This snippet at the beginning piqued my interest....

"One of the biggest concerns with renewables is that they’re intermittent, that wind doesn’t always blow or the sun doesn’t always shine” says Jacobson, who notes that people have claimed this unreliability caused blackouts in California, which relies heavily on renewables–and in Texas, which doesn’t. “So we wanted to test this contention."

Originally Posted by havabeer69

Its actually called fcas now, and you do get paid for it... sometimes more then the MW price

haveabeer69 is in the industry so really much of the following is information for those of us that just "use" electricity.

The various compulsory requirements and the ancillary services available to generators are something that does my head in. They are getting more and more convoluted and the control of these devices is becoming tighter and tighter. By this, I mean even a slight deviation from the bid is penalised.

Primary Frequency Control or PFC ( AEMO call it Primary Frequency Response ) is compulsory for most "traditional" generators and not only is it a requirement of generation, without recompense, we are penalised if we deviate from the target. Some information on this can be found here:

AEMO | Primary frequency response

There are indeed a range of ancillary services for which generators are paid and, as haveabeer says, in extreme circumstances could be more than the revenue from MWs! But not very often.

For anybody that is brave enough to wade through the blurb, here is some more information:

Market Ancillary Services Specification - v6.0 effective 1 Jul 2020 (aemo.com.au)

The ability to participate in these ancillary services (there are six bands available) depends a lot on the response time capability of the particular generator. Also, participation is again by a bidding process so if you are outbid by another generator, you don't get the opportunity to play at all and share in the proceeds.

Another problem in understanding the vagaries of the system to my mind is that there seems to be a lack of continuity in what these various pricing schemes are called. We call this last lot "Reg Services," which is short for Regulation Services. This confusion, I think, is because the market rules have evolved in dynamic fashion and are constantly being modified, ostensibly to bring generators into a reasonable line and prevent manipulation of the market. Whether it is Ancillary Services, Primary Frequency Control, Regulation Services or FCAS, they are all mechanisms that respond to the market demand for electricity (up or down) and in so doing maintain the frequency as close to 50Hz as possible in Australia.

Regards
Paul

its actually kind of funny,

some time ago, base load generators (really the ones that can't turn off an on in a hurry) used to make alot of their profit during the day. all the industries where running people churned through their air cons etc etc

but renewables (mainly solar) are now pushing this demand down, and in some cases so far down that the elect price goes negative. This is going to the biggest ham string to renewables... no one is going to build a multi-million dollar renewable project if the only time they can really generate is during the day when the prices are so low they will never see a return on investment. but on the other hand coal generators are actually starting to turn a slight profit during the evening and night as the solar drops off which is the total opposite to how the used to make their money

Originally Posted by havabeer69

its actually kind of funny,

some time ago, base load generators (really the ones that can't turn off an on in a hurry) used to make alot of their profit during the day. all the industries where running people churned through their air cons etc etc

but renewables (mainly solar) are now pushing this demand down, and in some cases so far down that the elect price goes negative. This is going to the biggest ham string to renewables... no one is going to build a multi-million dollar renewable project if the only time they can really generate is during the day when the prices are so low they will never see a return on investment. but on the other hand coal generators are actually starting to turn a slight profit during the evening and night as the solar drops off which is the total opposite to how the used to make their money

haveabeer

You are absolutely right there. The dynamic has been totally reversed. In fact we were discussing these aspects the other day. We worked on Christmas night and Boxing Day night and, thankfully, it was uneventful (a catastrophe on such occasions really is the pits ) and we spent a good deal of the twelve hour shift putting the world to rights. One topic that arose was the wholesale price for power, particularly in South Australia. As we have discussed on this thread before, SA has the largest percentage of renewables compared to their demand and are the closest to being self sufficient. I have to assert again that this self sufficiency is only with the right set of conditions (low demand, bright sunshine and good wind) and then only for a relatively short period, but at least they have achieved this small milestone ahead of the other states. So I am not knocking their achievement.

However, the corollary to this is that wholesale prices during the day are often very low and frequently go negative for long periods of time: At a glance it is difficult to imagine how the existing solar generators can make any money and even more difficult to see new players entering the market as haveabeer has pointed out. Added to this, the prices through the dark and windless hours are high, again, as one might imagine. Just for a little amusement, and to pander those of us who like pictures, I quickly took a snapshot of the current demand and prices (remember this price band only lasts for five minutes) also remembering that between Xmas and the New year demand is low.

AEMO generation 30 Dec 2021.png

What we tend to forget is that we are only looking at the spot price. Every station has contracts in place at fixed prices. These contracts are confidential and probably quite variable from station to station. They are also in place for varying periods of time, but not normally short term. Six months is likely a minimum length. I must point out that I am completely guessing here as even at our station in Millmerran I am not told what percentage of our exported power is under contract. It is absolutely confidential. It seems likely that at coal fired stations contracts could be up to half the station capacity if it is a two unit station, two thirds for a three unit station and three quarters for a four unit station. This could be slightly modified if more than one station is owned by the same company. My reasoning here is that if one unit has to come offline you still have to honour the contracts and this power has to be bought from the spot market if you are unable to produce that power yourself. Consequently, in principle, you sell contracts to allow one unit off line in an unscheduled event. Ok, you lose production for that unit, but at least you don't have to buy back from the market at an elevated price (the price goes up because your generator is cactus).

The solar companies may not have the same level of restrictions as short of a meteor striking the array it is not really likely they will suffer a calamity affecting more than a handful of panels (lightning strike could be a scenario I suppose and another might be a vicious hailstorm). Consequently they may well have a much higher percentage of their power under contract. Their contracts would be vastly different to those of the fossil fuelled stations as they would be limited to the sunny hours and their biggest issue is a cloudy day. It may well be that the negative daytime prices affect only a very small amount of their available generation with the bulk being under fixed contract. It probably means that the rooftop solar, which is not at this stage easily switched off, and the commercial solar (also commercial wind) under contract is coping almost completely with the demand.

I stress that all this is supposition on my part, but something along these lines has to be the case. What it does emphasise is that renewable power has, just like traditional power, to go hand in hand with demand. As demand steps up so will renewable installations. We are fast approaching saturation until viable (I emphasise viable) solutions to electricity storage are found. Then we will see an exponential rise in the likes of solar and wind power. To remove fossil fired power we will need upwards of five times the amount of generation capacity we currently enjoy.

Regards
Paul

Hmmm.

I can buy bananas during the day for 0.00 cents each, or even get PAID $31.06, put them in my truck, then sell them for 23 cents each after 8pm.

I only wish there were a technology or business plan that might sit behind this....




Edit - having a bit of fun. I'm a huge fan of CAES and battery. I've invested in both and think they complete a big hole in the puzzle. I also agree with BushMiller and others.... there is a big problem with the transition and shambolic haphazard jamb-ins give nobody any comfort... especially those businesses that need reliable power and home users with rely on it.

Edit 2 - Last night I watched Don't Look Up on Netflix. Brilliant movie. Brilliant... this article this morning on The Guardian: I’m a climate scientist. Don’t Look Up captures the madness I see every day | Peter Kalmus | The Guardian

As a little bit of an aside I thought I might address the issue of the nukes. In many ways it would be the absolute answer to replacing fossil fuels so why has it not happened and why does there continue to be resistance?

To step back a little, the article that I saw today was what prompted this post:

Explainer-Wall of ice at Fukushima's crippled nuclear plant (msn.com)

The Fukushima clean up continues....

It is not the first time of course, that a nuclear disaster has reared it's nucleonic head and we all remember Chernobyl. Which of us remembers Three Mile Island incident in 1979? TMI-2 actually had the potential to be the worst in history. I did read a while back ( but can't now find the article) that it was about thirty seconds off being another Chernobyl/Fukushima or worse as it was close to a populated area and on a river.

Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia

The clean up took twelve years and cost $1b and that was last century prices!

Backgrounder On The Three Mile Island Accident | NRC.gov

To be fair, the unit was an older style PWR (Pressurised Water reactor), but not the oldest, which are BWR (Boiling Water Reactors) and more modern units may well be more reliable

While proponents of nuclear power from time to time suggest we should revisit the possibilities, to my mind, these are the barriers in no particular order of importance except for the last one, which I think is the real killer.

1. Very expensive to build (probably three times the cost of a an equivalent fossil fuelled station).
2. Very expensive to maintain (There is no margin for error)
3. Until recently have only suited larger installations
4. Easily mined fuel is beginning to diminish. That might not be an issue with fast breeder reactors.
5. Problem of location. Nobody wants one in their backyard and remote location becomes a non-starter because of transmission costs.
6. Nobody builds nuclear power plants without atomic weaponry aspirations. Admittedly there is a big gap between enrichment for power (4%-6%) and enrichment for bombs (>94%).
7. De-commissioning costs are huge.
8. Any mis-hap is potentially more serious than at any other type of power plant (with the possible exception of a storage dam failing at a hydro plant)
9. Nobody has found a satisfactory solution to the disposal of the spent nuclear fuel.

The last point is, I think, the final stumbling block. Only France ( I think 70% of their power is nuclear) seems happy to "collect" waste. An engineering friend recently suggested to me that the French are doing this so that at some point in the future, when technology is such that they can reuse the so-called "spent" fuel, they will have an abundant fuel source: I don't know about that (BobL. Any thoughts?)

Regards
Paul