Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Paul, what's your take on Liddell closing/being replaced? Doesn't matter what is decided, it is going to be too late.

Brett

As it happens I have just in the last twenty four hours been looking at the AGL website to see what other interests they have and to get more information on Liddell.

It is an inescapable fact that Liddell is at the end of it's life and it would only be kept running if it was economic to do so. AGL have clearly assessed that they can't make money out of it as they have to undertake too much expense in up grading it and they won't get their money back. The schedule according to their own website is that:

"AGL in August 2019 informed AEMO that the first unit at Liddell will close in April 2022. However, following an independent engineering assessment, AGL has determined that the remaining three units will close in April 2023, supporting system reliability throughout the 2022-23 summer months."

More detail on AGL's interests from here:

https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy

I would be most interested to know if the government has offered any "inducements" to keep Liddell running and whether that has influenced the "engineering assessment" despite being independent.

I noted in particular that AGL wishes to open a gas fired station in the Newcastle area and I would see Liddell remaining open being a distinct barrier to that. It would be a competitor once the gas station was built. Gas however is still a fossil fuel and I am not convinced by the long term economics for such a station. It may not happen. I suspect that is why Liddell will close and the government has pleaded for a delay to gain some "wiggle" time in the lead up to the election. The government has correctly recognised they are in a bad place. In the past new stations would have been already been designed and be under way.(It probably takes up to ten years for design, approvals and build to be completed even with the reduced times for bringing units online. It used to be one a year, then it was one every six months and by the time of Millmerran our two units were commissioned about three months apart.)

In today's market with virtually no contingency for the older stations closing down there is nothing to take their place and like it or not the juggernaut is teetering at the top of the hill and on the verge of rolling.

Once this starts to happen the government of the day (whoever it is) will be up to their eyeballs in it.



For example, the brown coal station of Yallourn could be under a cloud:

EnergyAustralia forced to reaffirm its plans for Yallourn, amid media coal panic | RenewEconomy

Probably Yallourn's best hope of remaining viable is that there is just nothing to take the place. That is not really a satisfactory solution for pollution.

So to return to your original question, I think Liddell will close in the time period stated and for a while that will place upward pressure on prices, particularly if it coincides with other stations, even in other states, closing. The potential to increase prices would be a very compelling reason for AGL to close Liddell and refuse to sell it to anybody else. AGL also own Loy Yang in Victoria.

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul. What do you think will happen to the availability and reliability of base load supply once Liddell is closed?

Originally Posted by ian

Liddell is scheduled to close taking 2000 MW of coal fired power out of the system.
To replace that amount of generation will require something like 3,000 wind turbines (at 2 MW each).....Tthat's an $9 Billion investment over just two years.

And then Vales Point is scheduled to close in 2028 taking a further 1300 MW out of the system -- that's another 2000 wind turbines requiring an investment of $6 Billion.

However, investment in large-scale clean energy projects plunged 56 per cent in Australia in 2019.

We are heading in the wrong direction!

Angus Trailer (leading from behind) will no doubt be pleased to see that. Having created enough uncertainty for investors in large scale renewables, the gov might now just have to step in to correct that 'market failure' by subsidising new or existing coal fired generation. SloMo to the rescue!

Am I being too cynical?

Yet, Australian households continue to install rooftop solar at record rates. Last year they invested way more than large scale wind or solar. Households are voting for renewables with their pockets (yes, in part, for the sake of their pockets, but not only). And, who knows, they just might start voting with their ballot papers in increasing numbers.

Although, it is not yet clear if Albo is going to be up to the challenge before the next election (or still their leader by the next election). Besides the need for clear policies that are easily understood, one of his biggest obstacle will be the less than 40,000 (overpaid, IMO) thermal coal miners, their regions and, more particularly, their militant union within the Labor camp.

Sorry for being a little bit negative today.

Relative to a previous post I made
Shell Signs PPA With Largest Storage Battery In Europe | CleanTechnica

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Indeed Ian, which is why the lost decade is going to bite the bum of the Federal Govt. AFAIK there is absolutely no plan in place to cover these output losses. I seem to recall that AGL took a record short time to tell The Fizza "NO!" to keeping it running. The only delay was waiting for the AGL Board to convene.
......

In a previous incarnation I worked as an economist; a very simple economic rationalisation of what is happening.

The power companies' sole reason for existance is to make money. It is not in their financial interests to keep Liddel operating. It is not in their financial interests to build a replacement for Liddel. The more the Governments dither, the more the power companies profit.

The reason is very simple. Wholesale power prices are market determined based on supply and demand. Retail prices are wholesale plus a healthy margin. Reduce the supply and wholesale prices will go through the roof. AGL and its competitors must be salivating at the thought of the closure of Liddel. They know that the governments will not facilitate more supply in a timely manner.

Think this is far fetched? It has already happened in California.


Cheers

Graeme

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Thanks Paul. What do you think will happen to the availability and reliability of base load supply once Liddell is closed?

Brett

The reliability won't change. The availability will of course depend on demand. Is there sufficient supply? My guess is that during the day the renewables will easily take up the slack as they are already doing that. Nominally Liddell was a 2000MW (4 x 500MW units) station although I doubt they were capable of full load. When I was there (1986) they were restricted to 470MW but there were some improvements made after that. The problem is when there is high demand and solar is out of the equation: So we are primarily talking evening peaks during hot summer days and to a lesser degree the same time slot during the winter. It will simply mean the peeking plants will kick in at elevated prices.

GrahamCooke has again explained the simple, but horrible truth, of supply and demand and that is why I believe AGL will close the gates at Liddell and leave it to become a rusting hulk. It can't even be used for spares as there is no other similar plant. The other major stations in NSW could be used for spares as they are progressively closed down ( 4 at Bayswater, 4 at Eraring, 2 at Vales Point and 2 at Mount Piper) with Vales being the oldest. They have similarities but are not completely identical.

Regards
Paul

Further to rwbuilds most excellent link is this great little company: Home | Highview Power

Here is a video of its tech. All rather obvious really, but they actually have working plants.... "CRYOBattery can deliver anywhere from 20 MW/80 MWh to more than 200 MW/1.2 GWh of energy and can power up to 200,000 homes for a whole day"

And a video! YouTube


What I like, is these things can be created and stored almost on a suburb or town scale. Sold as a trucked-in bolt-together and remotely operated, even by the big distributors or the green energy suppliers themselves.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

My guess is that during the day the renewables will easily take up the slack as they are already doing that. The problem is when there is high demand and solar is out of the equation: So we are primarily talking evening peaks during hot summer days and to a lesser degree the same time slot during the winter. It will simply mean the peeking plants will kick in at elevated prices.

...which pretty much brings it all back to the need for economically viable batteries for household or shared use.

Am I right in thinking (ignoring economics, and ignoring industrial requirements for a moment) that batteries can reduce the % of Base Load power required from the current 40-50% (I think, isn't it?) to something more manageable as these power stations all progressively go offline? Following on from that in the ensuing years (say up to around 2035), one could expect that batteries would become more and more affordable as more of the power stations go offline, and also that more energy making technologies will be coming up to speed.

These two images of Eagle Island in Antarctica were taken 9 days apart (Feb 4th on the left, Feb 13th on the right)

Eagle Island.jpg

Still think there's nothing to see here?

Then read on, but it will challenge your (dis)beliefs:
Antarctica's Eagle Island undergoes large-scale snowmelt as February sees new high temperatures - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by NeilS

However, investment in large-scale clean energy projects plunged 56 per cent in Australia in 2019.

We are heading in the wrong direction!

Angus Trailer (leading from behind) will no doubt be pleased to see that. Having created enough uncertainty for investors in large scale renewables, the gov might now just have to step in to correct that 'market failure' by subsidising new or existing coal fired generation. SloMo to the rescue!

Am I being too cynical?

Yet, Australian households continue to install rooftop solar at record rates. Last year they invested way more than large scale wind or solar. Households are voting for renewables with their pockets (yes, in part, for the sake of their pockets, but not only). And, who knows, they just might start voting with their ballot papers in increasing numbers.

Although, it is not yet clear if Albo is going to be up to the challenge before the next election (or still their leader by the next election). Besides the need for clear policies that are easily understood, one of his biggest obstacle will be the less than 40,000 (overpaid, IMO) thermal coal miners, their regions and, more particularly, their militant union within the Labor camp.

Sorry for being a little bit negative today.

Doesnt sound all bad to me, the article said we are moving 4 to 5 times faster per capita than China and America, cheaper materials was a major reason for the perceived lower investment although it did still say it was less than previous years
Do you think the main driving factor is as Bushmiller alluded to that we have topped out with variable supply power and it is now base load that is needed and where the next wave of investment will come when the opportunity arises?
I think the key driver to household solar is financial, whether your a GW believer or not does not come into it for most. If you dropped the subsidies or the buyback I think you would see a massive decline in installs

Everybody follows the money

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

...which pretty much brings it all back to the need for economically viable batteries for household or shared use.

Am I right in thinking (ignoring economics, and ignoring industrial requirements for a moment) that batteries can reduce the % of Base Load power required from the current 40-50% (I think, isn't it?) to something more manageable as these power stations all progressively go offline? Following on from that in the ensuing years (say up to around 2035), one could expect that batteries would become more and more affordable as more of the power stations go offline, and also that more energy making technologies will be coming up to speed.

Brett

The answer to that is a resounding "yes." Consider that everybody currently off the grid has batteries. The barrier is the cost of those batteries and the reality that you need to generate three times as much power through the day to charge the batteries up for the night. It might give a warm fuzzy feling to deprive your service provider of his holiday money, but it means you are going to fork out yourself. You may be able to console yourself that you no longer get an electricity bill, but unless you disconect from the grid there will be a service charge and that will eat into potential savings. It will be marginal for a domestic system without batteries. With the cost of batteries too I don't see it being economic at all, although I like the concept.

I see commercial investment slowing as investors come to the realisation that there is no liklihood of an acceptable return. Ironically, domestic solar may be their biggest competitor.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The answer to that is a resounding "yes."
The barrier is the cost of those batteries and the reality that you need to generate three times as much power through the day to charge the batteries up for the night.
unless you disconnect from the grid there will be a service charge and that will eat into potential savings. It will be marginal for a domestic system without batteries. With the cost of batteries too I don't see it being economic at all, although I like the concept.

I see commercial investment slowing as investors come to the realisation that there is no likelihood of an acceptable return. Ironically, domestic solar may be their biggest competitor.

Rightio then, we know the following (and please adjust/correct if necessary):

• We are staring down a shortage of base load power starting presumably from 2022 (supply falls, demand will obviously rise with population growth)
• We know when various power plants are scheduled to go offline
• As a result we can forecast how much Base Load supply will be tapering off, but we can't forecast other replacement technologies coming on stream
• In all likelihood, coal is political suicide, and for all the right reasons
• We have lost a decade due to political indecision and lack of leadership, and now the Gnats are rattling for a new CF power Station, because it is obvious we are running out of time to replace retiring assets
• It would cost $3b to build a new CF Power Station (? someone may want to adjust that figure). Would one CF PS be enough?
• After our world famous Black Summer, Australia would be a ridiculous laughing stock if it were to build a new CF PS, and we would have lost any chance we may had to galvanise global action
• We know that Solar has reduced the demand on Base Load, and so we don't need as much Base Load these days (there must have been quite a drop in the last 2-3 years with so much Solar going up onto the roof)
• Not hard to imagine that the remaining players in fossil fuel power are fairly pragmatic about the demise of that part of their business

So why not get that $3b and use it to subsidise batteries? At $5,000 subsidy per battery, that translates into 600,000 batteries which would surely go a helluva long way towards allowing the ever-diminishing supply of Base Load to still besufficient for the country to function properly. Not forgetting too that there will be very significant tech advancements by 2035 in both battery storage and large scale power generation.

It seems that a Tesla battery is about $12,500 or so, so at a reduced price of $7,500 you'd have to think they would be extremely popular amongst people who already have panels.

Now I know that the existing poles and wires grid is having trouble with the rising amount of power coming into it from the burbs because it was never designed for it, but the point of batteries is to stop/diminish that anyway by holding the stored power for local use at the source of generation.

I've some further expansion on this to make, but we'll see how this flies so far.

Quadrupling turbines, US can meet 2030 wind-energy goals

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Rightio then, we know the following (and please adjust/correct if necessary):

• We are staring down a shortage of base load power starting presumably from 2022 (supply falls, demand will obviously rise with population growth) -- YEP
• We know when various power plants are scheduled to go offline
• As a result we can forecast how much Base Load supply will be tapering off, but we can't forecast other replacement technologies coming on stream -- YEP
• In all likelihood, coal is political suicide, and for all the right reasons -- You said it
• We have lost a decade due to political indecision and lack of leadership, and now the Gnats are rattling for a new CF power Station, because it is obvious we are running out of time to replace retiring assets
• It would cost $3b to build a new CF Power Station (? someone may want to adjust that figure). Would one CF PS be enough? -- It's really a case of smoke and mirrors. I reality, we shouldn't invest in any new coal fired (or gas fired) power plants as we're really trying to get to a future where allowed CO2 emissions are "reserved" for steel production. And a new fossil fuel fired plant, once built, will have a life well beyond 2050.
• We know that Solar has reduced the demand on Base Load, and so we don't need as much Base Load these days (there must have been quite a drop in the last 2-3 years with so much Solar going up onto the roof) -- It's not that roof top solar has reduced the need for base load, more that it's existence, and the existence of wind and grid scale solar, have made coal fired base load uneconomic on those days when the sun is shining. You have to run a coal fired plant 24/7, but when the sun is shining the plant loses money.
• Not hard to imagine that the remaining players in fossil fuel power are fairly pragmatic about the demise of that part of their business

So why not get that $3b and use it to subsidise batteries? At $5,000 subsidy per battery, that translates into 600,000 batteries which would surely go a helluva long way towards allowing the ever-diminishing supply of Base Load to still be sufficient for the country to function properly. Not forgetting too that there will be very significant tech advancements by 2035 in both battery storage and large scale power generation.

I may have posted this link previously, Navigant: 'Risk of slower than expected price declines' for lithium batteries but prices will fall | Energy Storage News

As of 2019, Li-ion batteries cost about USD $139 /kWh. So a 600 kWh battery (good for powering a "typical" 3 person home for about 40 hours) might cost somewhere north of USD $80,000 -- which, in AUD terms, is well into super luxury car territory. In that context, an AUD $5,000 subsidy is just a drop in the ocean -- besides doing nothing for the 50% of Australians who rent or live in unit blocks.

By 2030, Li-ion batteries "could fall to as little as USD $76 per kWh". That amount for 600 kWh storage is around the price of a new BMW X3 in the states.

But the area of solar panels required to recharge the battery would be around 20 times the size of your typical 5 kW solar system.