Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
User avatar
jonescg
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3441
Joined: Aug 07, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jan 20, 2018 10:59 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 6:47 pm
(There is a corresponding graphic of the Victoria power usage , but i wont bother posting that.
I looked at NEM watch the other day when SE Australia had another hot spell - Victorian hydro was cranking a solid 2 GW for a few hours. It's an awesome power source and I really see value in using it more with RE energy pumping it uphill. But for as long as the big generators are able to game the system they will - Hazelwood was shut and Liddell is on it's way out - two big coal fired generators reaching the end of their useful lives. To repair/upgrade/maintain these stations would be far more than most are willing to pay. But the AGLs of the world profit from volatility in the grid, so they don't mind that things are getting hectic now.

Privatisation of the generation and supply of electricity was a bad idea.

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1664
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jan 21, 2018 1:23 am

jonescg wrote:
Jan 20, 2018 10:59 pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jan 18, 2018 6:47 pm
(There is a corresponding graphic of the Victoria power usage , but i wont bother posting that.
I looked at NEM watch the other day when SE Australia had another hot spell - Victorian hydro was cranking a solid 2 GW for a few hours. It's an awesome power source and I really see value in using it more with RE energy pumping it uphill. But for as long as the big generators are able to game the system they will - Hazelwood was shut and Liddell is on it's way out - two big coal fired generators reaching the end of their useful lives. To repair/upgrade/maintain these stations would be far more than most are willing to pay. But the AGLs of the world profit from volatility in the grid, so they don't mind that things are getting hectic now.

Privatisation of the generation and supply of electricity was a bad idea.
The real reason electricity prices have gone up is due to the epic perversion of renewables caused by the insane amount of support they get via subsidies etc, its just tragic this stuff started at the same time to create such perversion.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKCeK8CVoAEZabI.jpg
In Victoria electricity was fully privatized in every way conceivable when Kennet government took power in the 1990s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Kenn ... vatisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Ele ... ria#Demise
Things only changed once all these subsidies came in for renewables to deform and corrupt the electricity market.

Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, about twice what the crumbling car industry received over 15 years and enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 7c8eb947fc

SA electricity prices went over $11,000MWh at 4pm & $14,000MWh at 5pm on Thrusday 18th in the high heat.
Image

The epic baloney the ABC injects into the minds of people who don't know how to search Wikipedia and string some basic logic together continues to astound me.
Hazelwood was scheduled to continue its operations into 2030. It wasn't until Daniel Andrews came out of know where to triple the price of coal mining royalties for Hazelwood that Hazelwood decided to shut down almost exactly 1 year from the date of the coal price increase announcement as to obviously send a message as to why without saying anything specific.
Dan Andrews was so clueless about the energy situations in Victoria when he tripled the price due to being desperate for more easy money he had then the clueless intuition to taunt the Hazelwood owners to dare not increase electricity prices by passing on the tripled price coal royalty increase, and they basically they didn't, they just shut down their coal-power station instead.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victo ... ocymk.html

Its so obvious subsidies have caused epic perversion of the electricity market because AGL refuse to sell Liddel Power-station to anyone else they only want to shut it down and destroy it so it can never be used again, a normal business would at least try to find a supposedly 'sucker buyer' but not AGL, it wants to shut it down and blow it up.
https://youtu.be/Z81hPg-vma0



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 720afff727
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/ ... 4223062016
And let’s be upfront: the closure of the Liddell plant in the Hunter Valley (capacity 2000 megawatts) is all about making even more money by further squeezing dispatchable power sources, many owned by AGL. It’s the “last man standing” strategy, which is known to many wily business people.

There is absolutely no doubt that when AGL purchased the Liddell plant (and other assets) from the NSW government in 2014, the company had no intention of closing it down in 2022. In fact, the plans that the previous management had to extend the life of the plant were one of the attractions of the purchase.

But a change of management has meant a change of strategy and cashing in on government policy that puts emissions reductions and subsidisation of renewable energy ahead of electricity reliability and affordability. (Recall that the Renewable Energy Target runs to 2030.)


It's extremely rare to find anyone on the Greens and Labour who like the Snowy 2.0 project despite the fact its suppose to store an incredible 350,000MWh of electricity.
http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/guest/ ... spx?id=261
Being against Snowy 2.0 proves the Greens and Labor just don't care about any of it other than gaining political power.
They go into a frenzy of happiness when Tesla starts up its Lithium Cobalt SA Grid battery thats really built on the slave labour of kids in the DRC and subsidized by Australian taxpayers to make it a truly sickening project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJ8me22NVs

Just checking electricitymap.org today Germany is well over x10 times the amount of CO2 emitted compared to France. This is despite Germany building an incredible amount of Wind and Solar capacity of over 100%.
Its just continued proof there is no point to wind and solar if your going to constant generation over 10times the amount of co2 than your nuclear neighbors and all the data is a mere click away.
440g / 37g = 11.89 times..
ABC is be defunded for its incredibly misleading lies and betrayal of the Australian public with its abuse of power on their minds.
They have so much power they quite literally dont know what to do with it.
Attachments
Electricity Map   Germany vs Francej.png
Electricity Map Germany vs Francej.png (49.42 KiB) Viewed 303 times
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

User avatar
jonescg
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3441
Joined: Aug 07, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jan 21, 2018 4:35 am

You do go on.

But your point about Snowy 2.0 - that Greens and Labor are against it, is not true. Many in the Greens and Labour would keenly support it if the idea weren't so cynically brought out in response to SA doing something about their power. What do you think will pump the water up hill if Snowy 2.0 gets built? If the Libs had their way it would be coal. They must be awfully torn, because on the one hand it makes them look like they're doing something, but on the other, it creates a massive market for renewable energy projects, something the Libs are philosophically opposed to.

As it stands, Snowy 2.0 has a cautious "Well, show us your figures" hanging over it. Personally I'm in favour of it. Sorry to ruin your day Mike, but we actually agree on something there 8)

And by the way, the wholesale price of electricity in SA is the cheapest in the country. Getting the grid to play nice and fair is what makes it expensive.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4379
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 21, 2018 9:09 am

And it's going to get worse when global warming hits 2°C and Sydney and Melbourne start seeing 50°C. If only there was a power source that peaked when the sun is strongest to help offset peak electricity demand due to air conditioning...
sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 20, 2018 9:17 pm
Well, of course you did the thing that solar PV advocates tend to do by implying that "RE" always = solar and wind.

I will let the HillMan finish beating you up when he wakes and sees this.
Nope. Hydro is RE whether you like it or not. It's dependent on the weather (and as such is intermittent), has lower energy density than fossil fuels, is not as convenient, and actually is solar-powered. It's also proven to be effective, reliable and affordable, which is why coalers like to distinguish it from wind & solar and pretend it's not really RE.

It's making use of your available natural resources. For some that's hydro, tidal or geothermal, others have lots of sun, others have lots of wind. Some have none of anything and are stuck with importing power and/or fossil fuels (for now).

As for being beaten up... Hardly. I understand some people in Aus are upset because their grid is all messed up and they incorrectly attribute this to a lack of burning coal ("well, everything was fine when we had chimneys spewing black smoke and mercury vapour, and GW is a con, after all"). Your grid is screwed up because people have screwed it up.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 696
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 21, 2018 9:39 am

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 9:09 am
Nope. Hydro is RE whether you like it or not.
Yup. I do like hydro. I don't like green washers intentionally misleading the gullible masses by constantly quoting "RE" "success stories" of locations with small population densities deriving a high "percentage" of their miniscule electrical consumption from hydro, and then implying that that will be duplicated with solar panels anywhere else in highly dense areas because they are both "RE" and thusly "the same".

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4379
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 21, 2018 10:05 am

I simply answered Hillhater's question.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 696
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 21, 2018 10:43 am

The 100 year hydro power of TAS is not "RE" in that context of what he was presenting and we all need to get away from lumping solar + wind together with hydro and biofuel in the media and in these discussions.

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1664
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jan 21, 2018 11:07 am

Tasmania did run out of hydro water/electricity in 2016 and ran on diesel for a fair while because the underwater sea electricity cable to Victoria happened to be broken too.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/t ... ow/7271502
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... bf2b457d13

The Liberals (conservative liberals, yes even our politics is upside-down) are fighting over whether we should subsidize EVs.
Electric car plans spark showdown
A study for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional ­Dev­elop­ment more than a year ago found the high reliance on coal-fired power in Victoria, NSW and Queensland meant electric vehicles charged on the grid in those states “have a higher CO2 output than those emitted from the tailpipes of comparative petrol cars”.

“We need to be very careful that any subsidies or concessions we give to electric cars in Australia will not increase CO2 emissions rather than decrease them,’’ Mr Kelly said.

“The risk here is you’ll have the rich person in Balmain buying a Tesla, subsidized by a bloke in Penrith who’s driving a Corolla.

“And the Tesla will have more carbon emissions than the Corolla.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 2a5c61ab06
I don't like the idea of subsidizing EVs at all as its really just subsidizing child exploitation of African children in the DRC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJ8me22NVs
Really makes me wonder what kind of world we are shaping into, it seems like those bleak futuristic movies where people really don't care about other people is coming true. Like the movie Running Man where everyone just watches criminals run for their life being hunted to the death for entertainment of the public. But instead in real life its kids digging for cobalt in "co2 wars"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvyEBfslsm0
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

User avatar
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh
10 MW
10 MW
Posts: 2305
Joined: Feb 09, 2007 3:02 am
Location: Marlboro

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh » Jan 21, 2018 2:19 pm

...because the underwater sea electricity cable to Victoria "happened" to be broken too wink wank :wink: :wink:
Kick down the barricades Listen what the kids say.
From time to time people change their minds But the Frock is here to stay.
I've seen it all from the bottom to the top Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.
Around the world or around the block Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8530
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 21, 2018 2:25 pm

jonescg wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 4:35 am
What do you think will pump the water up hill if Snowy 2.0 gets built? If the Libs had their way it would be coal. They must be awfully torn, because on the one hand it makes them look like they're doing something, but on the other, it creates a massive market for renewable energy projects, something the Libs are philosophically opposed to.

As it stands, Snowy 2.0 has a cautious "Well, show us your figures" hanging over it. Personally I'm in favour of it. Sorry to ruin your day Mike, but we actually agree on something there 8)

And by the way, the wholesale price of electricity in SA is the cheapest in the country. Getting the grid to play nice and fair is what makes it expensive.
The weak link in the Snowy 2 proposal, is that its only proposed to have an additional generation capacity of 2.0GW.
So it is not going to fill the gap if they replace another 5-10 GW of fossil power with wind.

How did you conclude SA has the lowest wholesale price ?
They claim they have a low generating cost, but that is because of the rebates and subsidies, however the wholesale, or market price is dramatically higher as a direct result of the unpredictability their wind generation has introduced to the system.
It has been suggested that the Tesla "Big Battery" could have taken nearly $2 million in its first few week, just for helping to stabilise the frequency variations, rather than contributing any significant " time shifting" of output from the wind farm it works with
https://electrek.co/2018/01/14/teslas-massive-battery-in-australia-was-paid-up-to-1000-mwh-to-charge-itself/
Last edited by Hillhater on Jan 22, 2018 10:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8530
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 21, 2018 2:39 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 9:09 am
And it's going to get worse when global warming hits 2°C and Sydney and Melbourne start seeing 50°C. If only there was a power source that peaked when the sun is strongest to help offset peak electricity demand due to air conditioning...
.. If only that was a reliable source that did not need 100% back up incase of bad weather .
... and if only those demand peaks were during sunlight hours :wink:
..... I understand some people in Aus are upset because their grid is all messed up and they incorrectly attribute this to a lack of burning coal .....
..... Your grid is screwed up because people have screwed it up.
Yes, Our grid , and power pricing, is screwed up, because reliable fossil power generators have been shut down by misguided green ideology, and there has been insufficient investment in replacement reliable power generation.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8530
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 21, 2018 4:46 pm

We have had some hot windless days (18th, 19th) this month that have tested our power grid.
Generally all scraped through with few problems, though some industries and facilities were required to "reduce" their consumption..( Demand Management)
However , there is still a cost to this madness.
The two states (SA, and Vic) committed to substituting Coal generation with Wind turbines, normally would have a generation "bill" of approx $4m/day (SA), and. $13m/day (vic).
But , due to the lack of wind, and the consequent market shortage resulting in those enormouse pricing spikes , those states actually had to pay the generation companies $128m (SA), and $294m (vic) !!
Thats an EXTRA $400m just for those two days !!
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 696
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 21, 2018 5:46 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 2:39 pm
if only those demand peaks were during sunlight hours :wink:
Some sort of thermal inertia mass system to store "cool" during the early noon hours, instead of storing power, will have to be developed as more solar PV is phased in. And smart grid thermostat control.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8530
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 21, 2018 7:07 pm

No doubt the modern uptake of AIrCon has significantly added to power demand in the last 10-20 yrs,
..but history shows that there has always been am, and pm, power peaks associated with the population movements and meal preparation, ovens , cooktops etc, water kettle use, and of course lighting , TV and such.
It would be so easy to smooth much of this out with a relatively small domestic battery, but that wont happen until the costs become more affordable.
"Passive" building design using a little thought regarding heat and cool can go a long way to reducing power consumption. Simple things like planting tall shade trees to keep most of the summer sun off the roof and windows .(but still allowing lower angle winter sun to shine in).
Australias classic traditional "Queenslander" wooden house design has uses similar principles for 200 yrs.
https://hubpages.com/travel/queenslander
They are built above ground on high piers to alow wind under the floor, and have a wide covered veranda to keep the sun off the walls and windows. High ceilings and bug screen doors and windows for air circulation.
My own home is sited on a hill near the ocean , hence the daily ocean breeze means we rarely ever need to use AC , even on those recent 40+C days.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1664
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jan 22, 2018 10:59 am

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 4:46 pm
We have had some hot windless days (18th, 19th) this month that have tested our power grid.
Generally all scraped through with few problems, though some industries and facilities were required to "reduce" their consumption..( Demand Management)
However , there is still a cost to this madness.
The two states (SA, and Vic) committed to substituting Coal generation with Wind turbines, normally would have a generation "bill" of approx $4m/day (SA), and. $13m/day (vic).
But , due to the lack of wind, and the consequent market shortage resulting in those enormouse pricing spikes , those states actually had to pay the generation companies $128m (SA), and $294m (vic) !!
Thats an EXTRA $400m just for those two days !!
Yeah someone made a chart for it.
jan-18-19-chart.jpg
jan-18-19-chart.jpg (66.09 KiB) Viewed 241 times
The way I see it its basically the bill for running Victoria+SA without Hazelwood for 2 days in the 40c heat, $380million dollars.
I wonder if Dan Andrews still thinks he's a genius for tripling the coal royalty rate to bring in a few million extra a year to the government. He killed the country town on top while doing it.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victo ... ocymk.html
Hazelwood was originally scheduled to run until 2030!
So many people are full of this well thought up baloney from ABC news that Hazelwood suddenly decided to shutdown giving only 1 year notice because it was suddenly too old to run any more rather than stupid Daniel Andrews trying to gouge them for extra money treating them like crap and not realizing what a favour they are doing to Victoria and South Australia running like they did. Hazelwood was shutdown almost exactly on the date 1 year later that the royalty rates for coal was announced to be tripled, I don't think you can get a clearer message. There is a new federal law now as a result of Daniel Andrews poor state management that you can't shut down a coal-power station anywhere in Australia without giving 4 years notice.

A basic search of news shows countless references to 2030 in the past. I am so tired of seeing Australians being fooled by ABC stuffing them with epic garbage information, its just evil and abuse of ABCs power, its all done because people don't google search and really they shouldn't be expected to double check the crap ABC injects in their minds everyday.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 22506.html
Attachments
2018-01-22 (4).jpg
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

User avatar
wineboyrider
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2947
Joined: Sep 30, 2009 9:08 am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Jan 22, 2018 11:20 am

PNM in NM gives credits to purchase evaporative coolers, which work very well in our hot dry climate.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 768
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 22, 2018 1:16 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 5:46 pm
Some sort of thermal inertia mass system to store "cool" during the early noon hours, instead of storing power, will have to be developed as more solar PV is phased in. And smart grid thermostat control.
https://www.ice-energy.com/
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 696
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 22, 2018 2:27 pm

billvon wrote:
Jan 22, 2018 1:16 pm
https://www.ice-energy.com/
Very nice!

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4379
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 22, 2018 4:03 pm

Is it possible that the situation with the privatised energy market in two Australian states is not representative of the whole world?

For that matter, how did Tasmania do during the same period?

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 696
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 22, 2018 6:43 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 22, 2018 4:03 pm
Is it possible that the situation with the privatised energy market in two Australian states is not representative of the whole world?

For that matter, how did Tasmania do during the same period?
What Tasmania does, or doesn't do, for electrical supply pricing is pretty much irrelevant to any discussion. They only have 500,000 people in the whole market and have the luxury of 85% supply from hydro (when the water doesn't run low) , the big civil works aspects of which started building out 80 years ago and are long since paid for.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8530
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 22, 2018 6:54 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 22, 2018 4:03 pm
Is it possible that the situation with the privatised energy market in two Australian states is not representative of the whole world?

For that matter, how did Tasmania do during the same period?
Certainly not representative of the whole world, but it follows a very obvious pattern of increasing power prices seen in other countries that have incorperated high proportions of wind and solar in their generation capacity ,..eg Germany, Denmark, California etc.

Tasmania is a very different situation as it has sufficient hydro to more than supply its own demand so it never has to import power at peak prices.
Infact it can (does) benefit by exporting power to the mainland during peak periods , as previously explained, resulting in some interesting pricing variations in its own market.
On Beasties post of the 21/1 above , you can see in the graphic of the 18/1/18, when SA pricing was up over $11k , and Vic at $10k+/MWh, ....the Tasmainia price was at -ve $74/MWh !
But the daily average for that day ended up at $160/MWh....whilst the average for the following day was $42MWh ?
It just depends how much they export/import, at what times, and what the mainland market is doing ..
( in other words, Tasmania's power price depends on how much wind is blowing on the mainland ..500+ kms away ! ) :lol:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3441
Joined: Aug 07, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jan 22, 2018 11:48 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 21, 2018 2:25 pm
How did you conclude SA has the lowest wholesale price ?
I was going on old data sorry - this from 2017:
Wholesale power price.JPG
Wholesale power price.JPG (103.01 KiB) Viewed 203 times
From the AFR.

Not sure what it's like now, but the cost of generation is very low regardless of government measures.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8530
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 23, 2018 3:14 am

Ahh ! ..the data equivenent of a "sound grab". .it.makes a headline , but doesnt tell the full picture !
Better to get it straight from the horses mouth...
http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Nati ... rice-table

Currently its average price for the month is still much as i posted back on the 21st..
SA at $170+ , Vic at $120
QLD, and NSW at under $80
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3441
Joined: Aug 07, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jan 23, 2018 3:41 am

A fair bit of that is the state's dependence on expensive gas. At least in WA we set aside a fixed amount for domestic consumption.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4379
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 23, 2018 4:20 am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 22, 2018 6:43 pm
What Tasmania does, or doesn't do, for electrical supply pricing is pretty much irrelevant to any discussion. They only have 500,000 people in the whole market and have the luxury of 85% supply from hydro (when the water doesn't run low) , the big civil works aspects of which started building out 80 years ago and are long since paid for.
I think it's very relevant. They have tapped their natural RE resource, invested early, have built excess capacity and so can export power to struggling neighbouring areas when their RE is low. The overall result is cheaper energy and a more stable supply than their neighbours. I'm sure when the hydro dams were proposed there were critics who said it wouldn't work/would be too expensive/too intermittent/that we'd never run out of coal.
Hillhater wrote:
Jan 22, 2018 6:54 pm
Certainly not representative of the whole world, but it follows a very obvious pattern of increasing power prices seen in other countries that have incorperated high proportions of wind and solar in their generation capacity ,..eg Germany, Denmark, California etc.


Interestingly, the people who actually live in those areas and have posted in this thread tell a different story. You also need to be careful to compare spending on power as a percentage of income, not just the absolute price as standards of living, incomes, taxes, social security etc vary wildly from country-to-country.

I get it, living in South Australia must suck when it's hot. I feel for you guys, but you have a local problem, no doubt due to political incompetence, not one inherent due to a lack of burning coal.

GW is increasing the frequency and severity of heatwaves that now kill more people than all other natural disasters combined. If warming hits 4°C (which it will without drastic changes), significant parts of this planet will be inhospitable to humans. I don't mean that it will be so hot no one will want to live there, I mean existing there for more than a few hours will kill a healthy human adult (technically a wet bulb temp. of 35°C). The areas most prone are the Amazon and large swathes of India. In terms of severe heatwaves, Australia will be up there amongst the hardest hit. But don't worry, keep digging coal out of your ground to send to India and China so they can burn it in the coal plants you advocate to poison your air and cook your homes. As an added bonus it can damage and poison your Great Barrier Reef on the way out!

Post Reply