Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

Yes, PHD by 22 years of age means he was a clever lad and went on to be most prolific in his writings. Thanks for the extra info.

Regards
Paul

The DSc at age 29 is also very impressive, which are awarded in recognition of a 'substantial and sustained contribution to scientific knowledge' beyond that required for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)' and more typically granted mid career.

Only know about those because my FiL had one of them after his name.

Did have one ancestor who matriculated to university at age 12 then dithered while doing his Baccalaureate, Masters and PhD and wasn't appointed to a professorship until he was 20yrs old!

In comparison, his father was a bit slower off the mark not completing his two PhDs and being appointed to a professorship until he was 25...

It's a shame how diluted DNA becomes many generations later...

About 7 years ago I met an Australian in America who had gained entry to Melbourne Uni to study medicine aged 15. His parents reckoned he was too young and made him take a gap year. When I met him he was a 'retired' professor in the USA, but was still involved with the childrens' hospital that was founded in his name.

Originally Posted by AlexS

About 7 years ago I met an Australian in America who had gained entry to Melbourne Uni to study medicine aged 15. His parents reckoned he was too young and made him take a gap year. When I met him he was a 'retired' professor in the USA, but was still involved with the childrens' hospital that was founded in his name.

That is the problem with the precocious. They are ready for the academics but do not necessarily have the maturity to take on the responsibilities after graduation.

My own brother, also a retired professor now (a pioneer in transplant surgery), was too young when he first graduation and then had a year treading water before he could be registered to practice.

But, they still manage get where they are ultimately going ahead of their peers and we are all the beneficiaries of what they contribute.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I heard a radio broadcast a few days ago, Matt Bevan is the presenter and early on in the podcast he quotes a man by the name of Professor John Bokris. Back in 1973 this man highlighted the issues the third rock from the sun was going to have in forty to fifty years regarding Carbon Dioxide: Fifty years ago makes that right now!

Yes, extraordinary that he had the measure of it so accurately, so early. What's even more extraordinary though, is that Bokris then floated off with the pixies. I didn't listen to the podcast, but I read Bevan's article on him. After moving to Texas he descended into Alchemy, trying to convert Mercury into Gold, along with much work on cold fusion which is still a non-starter – maybe it will remain that way (Mercury is still Mercury too). This is all covered in the last section of that article.

Perhaps he should have retired by 1980?

Brett

So many denialists have pointed out how good CO2 is and that plants consume it: True, but a bit like fertiliser, you can have too much of a good thing particularly if yesterday you removed the plants. This is what I extracted from lecture:

he explained that humans were now producing carbon dioxide at a faster rate than it could be absorbed by plants through photosynthesis, and so it was building up in the atmosphere.
"Now, it can be shown that that does unfortunate things to our atmosphere," he said.

I was a student at Flinders Uni (Earth Science) at the time Bockris was there. I don't remember him, but they did develop an electric car at that time. I'm pretty sure they didn't have an engineering faculty at the time, so as a chemist, he may have been involved in its development.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

As the saying goes, there is only a fine line between genius and madness...

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/only-a-fine-line-between-genius-and-madness-study/articleshow/5071954.cms

And, while off on this tangent, a little dyslexia might be safer. Some well known dyslexics include Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs.

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/linkedin-dyslexic-thinking-official-skill-richard-branson/

Originally Posted by NeilS

... Some well known dyslexics include Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs. ...

Interesting, and there is certainly a lot of information on this topic.

When my wife was a graduate student in the States in the 1980's she had a part time job in the University Library and for three years she was one of the curators of its Einstein Collection. She says that Einstein's hand writing, in both German and English and a little in Yiddish, as the neatest that she has ever seen. She describes his personal letters as extremely caring and very nuanced, though in English he occasionally used German grammar and spelling conventions. She says that she detected no lingering signs of dyslexia. But then she only has doctoral level knowledge in behavioural science, and is very careful to note their "late diagnosis" and that he may have overcome the issues.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Interesting, and there is certainly a lot of information on this topic.

When my wife was a graduate student in the States.... she was one of the curators of its Einstein Collection...She says that she detected no lingering signs of dyslexia....

Thanks Graeme.

Yes, this is the nub of the problem with trying to retrospectively diagnose someone with what is a 'clinical diagnosis' that hadn't even been developed during Einstein's lifetime.

If anyone wants to go off on this tangent to the Electricity Market topic of this thread (yes, I know, I'm the culprit), according to Fernette Eide, co-founder of Dyslexic Advantage, the short answer to whether Einstein was dyslexic is "we really don't know".

For more on this see her post in the following link and in particular her inclusion of material about his style of visual thinking from an Orton Society paper.

Dyslexia: Was Albert Einstein dyslexic? - Quora

Apologies for taking this thread further off topic... so I will leave it at that and if anyone wants to pursue it further perhaps they can start a separate thread...

I suppose that with the forthcoming general election and the populace demanding statements on climate change as well as security in the region, the subject of electricity supply and cost was bound to rear it's ugly head. This article outlines some of the issues:

Slow move to renewable is spiking power prices for households (thenewdaily.com.au)

I have some questions and concerns about this but before I get into that, the premise is that wholesale prices have averaged a 141% increase for the first quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021. I wouldn't dispute that. I did find it strange that when questioned the Prime Minister blamed the situation in Europe for the price spikes (actually SWMBO thought the comment had been made by the Labour party), but I fail to see the relevance. Solar, wind and hydro do not have a fuel that is dependant on Europe. Coal fired stations burn rubbish quality coal mined in Australia that is never ever exported. The only possibility that I can see for a European influence is if gas prices have gone up because there is more of a demand for our product overseas. If that were the case, and I don't believe it is, it would be the last nail in the the already fully constructed coffin that gas is a way to clean energy.

Even more surprising is that nobody has apparently called this one out!

Back to the article linked above. These are the the flaws in the article I would point to:

1. There is an increase in price of ~ 141% compared to the 2021 quarter. It is still higher than Q1 2020, but not so much and it is less than Q1 2019.
2. It is the first time in years that I have seen QLD prices the highest.
3. QLD has more solar power than almost any other state, but not the most as a ratio to total demand. That falls to South Australia, but they would be in extreme difficulty if they did not have the Victorian interconnector.
4. The statement was made that we need more renewable energy and that is probably true, but not in isolation and not without sufficient corresponding storage facilities.
5. Blame was laid at the feet of the coal fired power stations for pushing the price up. What did these nut jobs expect when they went to a competitive market? If there is a dearth of toilet rolls the price goes exponential. Excrement is not the only "shirty" business.
6. "The best response to breakdowns at old coal fired generators is to replace them more quickly than planned," said independent economist and Climate Council member Nicki Hutley." Replace them with what? More renewables that don't function at night or in calmed conditions or during a drought?
7.Professor Mountain said " We only need one megawatt of storage for every megawatt of solar and wind." I would contend that it is the other way around and even that is a vast understatement. I would be most interested to know how that is going to work. Also we need to talk in megawatts per hour and not megawatts for one hour (or maybe two hours), which is the extraordinary small capability of the existing storage batteries.

There is probably a little more that has been spoken of that I might contest, but that will do for now.

We have to understand, and when I say "we" I mean "they", that the whole dynamic of electricity generation in Australia has turned on it's head. Peak demand has gone about face. Whereas high demand was once during the day with peaks at breakfast and in the evening, high demand is now at night time. But, the peaks of breakfast and early evening fall outside the prime sunlight hours. The wholesale price of electricity on a sunny day is negligible. It is virtually being given away. In fact, if the solar companies did not have some form of subsidy in guaranteed prices, they would have gone down the tube. New solar installations are probably not eligible for any guarantees so there is no real market for people coming to the grid for the moment.

There is now only one problem and that problem is how to store electricity. Until that problem is solved we cannot move forward and the continued installation of more solar power will cease.

Until that time the thermal stations have to continue unless the unthinkable happens and we are prepared to go without power from the grid for up to three quarters of the day (and completely on cloudy days).

A sobering thought for people and until a government is prepared to divert funds to R&D for this problem I don't see how it can be resolved.

Looking forward to people's thoughts on this.

Regards
Paul

Storage is certainly the problem of our time. In the longer term the solution will be driven by the market and mass production would makes batteries cheaper, I'm sure, because that mass production will inevitably lead to new discoveries and techniques. This is the sort of project that needs huge Govt backing to get it rolling, get past the current inertia. Perhaps put things like Sports Rorts etc on hold for a wee while, as we develop what could and should be a world leading industry. Some serious Govt backing would also push through some of the current boundaries in battery tech development – so many different projects underway that are showing real potential.

To say that one megawatt (per hour or otherwise) needs to be replaced with another is also a little short sighted by whoever it was. To mitigate global heating we need MUCH more electricity generated to electrify everything we possibly can. Coal burning is only part of the problem – a big part, to be sure – but cars and other transport, and other uses of gas are the elephant in the room. I don't know what the attributable figures are but they have probably been mentioned in this thread somewhere.

Question
Lets say the world turns to battery storage as the go to replacement for motor vehicles and general power usage. Can enough batteries be supplied and how long will this resource last?

Beardy

I suspect battery storage may only be an interim measure (say, twenty to thirty years?) and more likely hydrogen fuel will take over. However, that is pure speculation on my part and is not even close to viable until hydrogen is produced only from renewable sources. Once in place it could be used for many applications.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Beardy

Lets say the world turns to battery storage as the go to replacement for motor vehicles and general power usage. Can enough batteries be supplied and how long will this resource last?

I don't think that batteries will be the total solution for transport because batteries of any kind are probably going to be heavy and/or bulky, and therefore somewhat self defeating. Also, in the period that we still have fossil fool vehicles (20 years until they have no resale value at all?? Less than 20??) there will be an increasing number of EVs of course, but also increasing tech to go with them. So presumably battery demand will increase while hydrogen is being sorted out, and then decrease. I suppose it's very likely that we might have a series of different hybrid vehicles for a while, to counteract vehicle redundancy. What I mean by that is engines that can run, or be easily adapted to run, on different fuels as they come into play. Similar to Gas & Petrol engines of the last 40(?) years. The last thing someone wants to do is to buy a vehicle that is going to be useless and therefore valueless 5 years after purchase.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I suspect battery storage may only be an interim measure (say, twenty to thirty years?) and more likely hydrogen fuel will take over.

For transport I think you are dead right Paul. There are too many parts of the planet where an EV would be useful for a few hours before you are buggered. Simpson Track, much of deepest darkest Africa etc. Then you have commercial airliners, sea freighters etc. They will have to be hydrogen powered (or nucular ), I am sure.

However, is there any getting away from batteries for solar (et al) power? (maybe that's not what you meant – just vehicles) One way or another, renewables are all going to begin with solar, wind, wave and whatever else, so we can then produce green hydrogen which is far more compact for the purposes of fuelling transport in all its forms. Nor do I see getting away from household batteries for a good long while yet – not sure I want a hydrogen combustion engine banging away down the back!

All of the above is why I think manufacturers should be making hydrogen powered vehicles now, using Blue hydrogen, so that the transition into Green H is utterly painless for the vehicle owners, and the suppliers of fuel to the punters (Servos). I think I am correct in thinking that the only thing holding back Green H is investment? There are no big secrets to crack are there? How much worse is Blue H than using the same fossil fuel in vehicles? The pollution is at least all in a much smaller number of places for capturing, rather than spread out all over the place in billions of individual vehicles.