Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

Very expensive to build, and exceedingly expensive to decommission. The future decommissioning costs would likely be multiples of those figures.

Pffft. I don't see any problem at all because it'll be someone else's problem.

A couple of points about the Lucas Heights reactor.

Between the years 1993 to 2009 I lived within about 4km of it, in Menai, which was at the time the closest suburbia. Since then the housing has crept closer to it from the north, and east which is now about 1km away. It's not in the middle of surburbia, but more or less adjacent to it. The east can't get any closer because of the valley and Woronora River.

See the map here: Google Maps

The locals never expressed any concerns that I heard of – It just wasn't a discussion point. They were FAR more concerned about the 2nd airport being built at Holsworthy, but hadn't stopped to look at a map to learn that Menai was equidistant from Mascot International and the proposed Holsworthy site, notwithstanding a plethora of UXBs to overcome. Too many of these people had got the vapours about the proposed airport I said "Is the current noise from planes directly overhead a problem for you."
"Well, no, it's good, actually"
"In that case you are looking at exactly the same distance away to Holsworthy, and the noise will be, at most....the same as now."


The second point to make is that the Lucas Heights reactor has saved however many lives of cancer patients.


Nuclear power for Australia is just another brain fart from Lord Voldemort, and we wouldn't even be discussing it if he had any proper, decent ideas. I suspect that we'll have solved renewable energy storage not too long after the first Nuke power station could be built for whatever staggering amount of money. It's a fool's errand.

From the newsfeeds I picked up on this:

'Third-world country’: Renewable energy does ‘not work’ (msn.com)

It seems that Mr. Canavan does not think renewables are working. Well, there are a couple of aspect to which I would point. Look at these recent average wholesale figures for QLD. I have chosen QLD only because our traders provide these statistics and I don't have to go looking for them. The trends are similar, although not exactly the same, for most of the other states with the exception of Tasmania, which, as we have discussed previously, appears to have it's own set of rules for a completely different world.

spot market 7-9 Oct.png

spot market 4-6 Oct.png

spot market 1-3 Oct.png

Even back in September

spot market 15-17 Sept.png

To put these prices into context, it was identified in the late nineties, when our station at Millmerran was being conceived, that the entry point for a new player in the market was $35 per MW/hr. That was close to 25 years ago. Now in 2023 we are in Spring, which is typically a low demand period, and prices are back to those of twenty five years ago!

Yes, at times during Winter prices were high but the average is still quite reasonable to my mind. The reason for the low prices, however, is indisputably the emergence of renewables. A large company has the option to organise contracts and any company worth it's salt would be doing exactly that to even out the peaks and troughs. So, either Boral is not up to the changes in the marketplace and needs to get with modern developments (there are companies that specialise in advising ways to minimise power consumption) or Mr. Canavan is profoundly mis-informed. These two statements are my euphemisms and you should substitute whatever vernacular, in your opinion, best suits the situation.


Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Yes, at times during Winter prices were high but the average is still quite reasonable to my mind.

You are talking about wholesale prices. I doubt that Boral (quoted in the article as having to stop production due to energy costs) have the ability to buy at wholesale prices. Nor do I, nor any "consumers". The result is that we, the consumers, are indeed paying massive prices for power. My peak rate is now 55c/kWh. If I was still trying to run an irrigation farm, I'd be struggling with a price that high.

Another way to look at it is that the average rate on the first line of the first of your attachments is $39/MWh, or $0.039kWh. So someone, from that data, has bought a kWh of electricity for 3.9c and sold it to me for 55c. Most businesses operate at around a 30% profit margin, which means that unit of power should have cost me around 5c. When, at least on paper, the profit margin appears to be over 1300%, doesn't that look like a broken system? Even if you take out the ridiculously high "poles and wires" charge for (from what I can see) 20 people to eat sandwiches whilst one person does some work, the price the consumer is paying is crazy.

Placing the blame on renewables is certainly a questionable call, but from the consumers viewpoint there's definitely something wrong, and power IS massively expensive.

Originally Posted by Warb

Placing the blame on renewables is certainly a questionable call, but from the consumers viewpoint there's definitely something wrong, and power IS massively expensive.

Warb

The thrust of my reasoning is that renewables are not causing a price hike. I am pointing out that the figures at the wholesale level do not reflect an issue: On the contrary, they have leveled out and are at a point where the generators are becoming concerned that they can make a reasonable business at that level.

I believe larger companies, like the retailers themselves, can indeed deal direct or at the very least have access to preferential rates. As to the average consumer, well, I agree he is not in such a good place. Much depends on your location. There is not so much choice at all in small regional locations compared to the big cities where you can tout around for the best price.

The contention was that Matt Canavan stated categorically that renewables were not working. There are aspects that are troubling, to me at least, and they revolve around the ability or rather the lack of ability to store the energy. For the moment, as we have discussed here on this thread, storage is woeful. However, clearly they are working.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The thrust of my reasoning is that renewables are not causing a price hike. I am pointing out that the figures at the wholesale level do not reflect an issue: On the contrary, they have leveled out and are at a point where the generators are becoming concerned that they can make a reasonable business at that level.

I believe larger companies, like the retailers themselves, can indeed deal direct or at the very least have access to preferential rates. As to the average consumer, well, I agree he is not in such a good place. Much depends on your location. There is not so much choice at all in small regional locations compared to the big cities where you can tout around for the best price.

The contention was that Matt Canavan stated categorically that renewables were not working. There are aspects that are troubling, to me at least, and they revolve around the ability or rather the lack of ability to store the energy. For the moment, as we have discussed here on this thread, storage is woeful. However, clearly they are working.

Indeed, and I really wasn't arguing with any of it. Large companies can certainly get preferential rates, although nowhere even close to the wholesale prices (unless things have changed in the last few years!).

The difficulty is that a politician (any politician) can very easily say "prices are crazy" because for the vast majority of people (AKA voters), they are. Having established that he or she "understands" the impact this is having on the voter, he or she can spin that sentiment in any way they choose. Where they take it depends on their own bias, funding, pressure groups (industry or otherwise) etc., and how far they think they can lead people before they are questioned.

I have no knowledge of the person in question (I'm assuming they're a politician, but it's just an assumption!), but the basis of their argument, to the average person who sees constant reference to renewables, notices wind farms popping up everywhere (assuming they ever leave the city!) and then receives an enormous electricity bill, would possibly seem valid.

I may have mentioned before that our son is living in Norway. He sent these pictures of a power station (Hydro) that is right behind the house to which he has just moved:

PHOTO-2023-10-11-02-28-01.jpg

A little on the specification

PHOTO-2023-10-11-02-28-01 (1).jpg

and for those of you who's Norwegian is a little rusty.

PHOTO-2023-10-11-02-28-01 (2).jpg

Simon described it as sexy, but I would say cute. Admittedly 1.6MW is not huge, but whatever rows your boat. It would appear that a hydro facility next door is a lot more attractive than a Nuke.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Warb

... I have no knowledge of the person in question (I'm assuming they're a politician, but it's just an assumption!) ...

He is a senator from Queensland, a far right member of the LNP.

I think Paul is right, Warb. The margin between wholesale and retail electricity prices has widened substantially in the last 18 months.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... Simon described it as sexy, but I would say cute. Admittedly 1.6MW is not huge, but whatever rows your boat. It would appear that a hydro facility next door is a lot more attractive than a Nuke. ...

I would love to have a little hydro scheme like that next door, but we do not have the requisite river or creek.

And 1.6 MW or 1,600 kW is rather more electricity than I use. The wire connecting my house to the street is 80 amp, capable of carrying 19 kW, but I am sure we never run it hot.

EDIT: Typos corrected.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I think Paul is right, Warb. The margin between wholesale and retail electricity prices has widened substantially in the last 18 months.

My point exactly - the "man in the street" is seeing prices skyrocket, he has no knowledge of why, or the wholesale price, he just sees his bill getting (much) bigger. It's a lever for any politician to use to "prove" whatever he or she wants to "prove", in this case, that "renewables aren't working".

The interesting point is that "renewables" obviously do work, but we have rather botched the transition (no storage!) and our current system (50% retail price increases) is clearly broken. The problem is not renewables, but rather how we are implementing them, and the need in our society for exponential profit growth. When the power market is saturated (usage will increase only with new houses, especially as consumers move to lower energy devices) how do you increase profit? Increase the prices. Which is where we are now, apparently!

Extremely well argued, Warb.

However, I do object to your use of the word "we". You and Paul and I have not botched the transition. We are mere consumers. It is Paul's employers, the rest of the electricity industry, the universities and the politicians that have failed to anticipate the problem and develop timely storage solutions.

A while back, I taught sailing for about 15 years, mainly to adults but we ran two annual camps for 14-15 year olds. All the kids had a passionate interest in the environment - David Attenborough was their favourite "grandfather" - but they all hated David Suzuki. Both are very renowned environmentalists seemingly with a similar philosophy and the kids reactions really puzzled the instructors. The answer was quite simple:

• Attenborough was saying that there is a major problem in the environment and we must work together to solve it,
• Suzuki was saying there is a major problem in the environment and you have caused it,
• The kids just said that they have not trashed the environment and resented the false accusation.

I also object to the false accusation:

• It is not feasible to put a pumped hydro scheme in my backyard, and
• I am not willing to be ripped off by Elon Musk for a battery storage system.

I think we are all in the same boat on this.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Extremely well argued, Warb.

However, I do object to your use of the word "we".

Typing "we" is quicker than typing "Australia"! The three of us have not, as you say, botched the transition. But we are part of the whole.......

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The kids just said that they have not trashed the environment and resented the false accusation.

This is indeed what they say, it is the sentiment expressed by most young people. Whilst it may be true to some extent, it is also true that they have massively benefited from the process that caused the situation. They are also continuing to exacerbate the problem, fully adopting the philosophy of consumerism. They are very keen on avoiding responsibility, far less keen on putting effort into fixing it - happy to sign a Facebook petition (zero effort), really resentful of being asked to limit a shower to less than 10 minutes. Walk a few hundred meters to the shops? What? Turn off the lights when they leave a room? Huh?

It's interesting to consider, based on both the above points, exactly who is responsible? I have never deliberately produced CO2. I have produced it as a side effect of doing something else, driving a car, heating a room, wearing clothes etc. But not just for the sake of it. So clearly if those kids aren't "responsible", then neither am I. Or you, presumably. So who is?

A 16 year old charging their phone (from the grid) results in the same amount of CO2 being released as me charging mine or you charging yours.....

I have always found it strange to blame people for doing things that turn out, years later, to have a negative impact. Continuing to do them when the impacts are known, that's a different matter.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

He is a senator from Queensland, a far right member of the LNP.

There's a little more to his story than that, and it's particularly relevant to his views on renewables vs coal. If you put "matt canavan coal interests" into a search you'll find he had family ties to coal mining which may or may not have since been shed, partially or completely.

I don't think anything he says on energy can be "fully relied upon" to be impartial.

Originally Posted by Warb

I have always found it strange to blame people for doing things that turn out, years later, to have a negative impact. Continuing to do them when the impacts are known, that's a different matter.

A couple of points to make here: It's the baby-boomer and Gen X politicians who have kept bad policy going when the impacts were actually known (a helluva long time ago), and we can't expect "kids" to have fully informed, mature opinions on such matters. All they can see is dickhead politicians bitching at each other while their (kids) future is being trashed. I'd be angry at us too if I was their age, because I sure as hell am angry at the deniers and vested interests that have been holding us back for so long.

After all, a 16 year old hasn't got any power to vote the mugs out, but we have had a lifetime of opportunity to do so.

Some of these idiots won't be convinced of global heating until it's so bad that there is absolutely nil can be done about it, and then they'll die, leaving the mess for someone else.
In Katoomba, September 2023 was 35% hotter than the 66 year average, and we had 14.5% of our average rainfall.



Regarding wholesale rates and retail pricing, I have just posted a full month's data in t'other thread.
Getting a better Energy deal - WHAT A JOKE!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

After all, a 16 year old hasn't got any power to vote the mugs out

because

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

we can't expect "kids" to have fully informed, mature opinions on such matters

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

It's the baby-boomer and Gen X politicians who have kept bad policy going when the impacts were actually known

This is true, but it's very easy to criticise decisions when we're not the people making them. I entirely agree that there are vested interests, and that decisions are made for the wrong reasons, but above all that is the reality that the world runs on commerce. In this thread we have discussed the fact that things will not happen if they are not profitable, and also that consumers don't want to pay too much. We also know that politicians are voted into power, and that people will vote them out if they don't like what is happening. The climate change issue is fraught with problems from all these viewpoints, whether it's that renewables have to cost more so the companies can profit, or that people for some reason like black roofs on their houses, it's actually a very difficult path to tread for a politician who wants to avoid being voted out. People are very keen on having someone else fix the problem, as long as they don't have to make any effort or sacrifice. As a result, the cost of living or restrictions on what you can and can't do (even if those restrictions are intended to fix climate change) are far more important to the average person than addressing the problem.

If we are sticking to a democracy where leaders are voted for by a short sighted, avaricious, self-centred population, we must expect those leaders to exhibit the same traits.