Power and gas is to expensive.

[corndog]

We are destroying our energy supply network for no gain, but at a huge expense to personal and corporate bottom lines.
If Aus were to cut it's emissions to zero, the effect on global warming would be as good as nil.
It's all just virtue signalling.....

Now that is a great comment.

[Pottsy]

Now that is a great comment.

X2

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

Yep, Geoff's on the money.
Add me for lots more, Like Bird does.

[Garfish]

I wish I was sure of my facts, but much of the reference to SA I believe is incorrect.
The power outages a couple of years ago were caused by storm damage.
We live just north of Adelaide and have nor had a power outage for ages.
I believe that the recent changes to our power production and storage now mean that we export to the eastern states.

Based on aemo data SA is currently importing about 25% of its energy demand live map here. 
Vhttps://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

[Pete79]

Based on aemo data SA is currently importing about 25% of its energy demand live map here. 
Vhttps://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

Fixed the link; https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

Very interesting to watch that site.

Currently (at 11am) QLD and Tasmania are producing more energy then we need, so QLD is selling it NSW and Tas is selling to VIC.
Then from what I can see NSW is selling to VIC, with the prices increasing as the power makes it's way down the food chain and at the very end of the line is poor old SA, getting shafted by every other state along the way with prices almost double that of QLD....

The damn renewables shafting consumers once again.... 

[corndog]

I thought it was China that was selling us electricity.

[Fizzie]

Sort of - the Chinese own Energy Australia & Alinta Energy, as well as a few of the power stations & transmission networks

[paceman]

The damn renewables shafting consumers once again.... 

not so much the renewables, but the subsidies that taxpayers have to fund to get them off the ground and keep them viable...

and when i say viable, it's not like they provide anywhere near the capacity, reliability or wholesale cheapness of the power provided by coal.

it's the subsidies that hurt taxpayers...

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/queensland-taxpayers-kept-in-dark-as-they-prop-up-solar-firms/news-story/04eefc1e8a2520c25e83d63306e9b896

(bold emphasis added by me)...

The Queensland government is concealing its financial support for large-scale renewable energy projects, guaranteeing subsidies to solar companies that do not ­appear on balance sheets.

With an expert panel previously finding the government would need to spend between $500 million and $900m in subsidies to meet its 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, there are now calls for spending to be made public.

The government has struck four deals with major solar-farm developers, under “contracts for difference”, with floor prices nominated for the sale of their ­energy in order to attract finance. When the market price falls below that threshold, the government has to make up the difference.

one commenter spells it out in plain english (date added by me for comment reference and context):

Yesterday (June 6, 2018) at 9 am Qld.. was generating 7,000 MW from fossil fuels/hydro and 80 MW from windmills and solar panels which is typical of Qld's power mix over the last couple of months. At the same time Qld has been exporting +/- 1,000 MW of excess power to Southern States to make up for power shortages caused by the closure of VICs. Hazelwood.

Two of Qld's "large scale" solar projects  — Genex’s Kidston and Canadian Solar’s Longreach solar farms, which have capacities of 50 megawatts and 15MW respectively — have begun feeding into the grid. These capacities are nameplate ratings only if they run 24/7/365, which of course they cannot, especially at night. The real ratings of these two baby power projects is more like 12.5 MW and 3.75 MW respectively which are definitely not large scale.

QLD has a long way to go to reach the 3,000 MW,  50% target of intermittent energy by 2030, but it will still need 3,000 MW of fossil fuel backup for when the wind and sun go missing. BTW the 3,000 MW represents energy produced not nameplate ratings which is a capacity factor of 25%.

if renewables are so good, why do they need subsidies to remain viable?

if renewable energy companies are so confident in their product, then fund and build without taxpayer-funded subsidies... go your hardest...

to be clear, i have no issue with renewables providing power (i really don't care where my power comes from), but i do have a problem with:

power prices going up for no good reason, when we have the ability and resources to provide cheap, plentiful and reliable power for hundreds of years at our disposal, today.
governments pushing for renewables, at the expense of people's costs of living, to try and mitigate something that has yet to be proven conclusively and something that we may have absolutely no control over (despite what the 'models' tell us), and
to be treated like some kind of a moron when i (or anyone else) suggest that we could have an orderly transition to renewable power, when the technology is ready.


common sense dictates that we could have a sensible, middle ground... 

[Pete79]

not so much the renewables, but the subsidies that taxpayers have to fund to get them off the ground and keep them viable...

and when i say viable, it's not like they provide anywhere near the capacity, reliability or wholesale cheapness of the power provided by coal.

it's the subsidies that hurt taxpayers...

Couldn't agree more..... Stop ALL of the subsidies...

The bold bit was added by me.

At a time when the mining industry is earning record profits you might be surprised to learn that it is also receiving $4 billion worth of government subsidies and concessions each year. The Australia Institute provides a breakdown of the amount of support the industry receives, which includes cheap fuel and tax breaks.

The $4 billion includes:

$1,900 million in fuel subsidies
$550 million in reduced tax payments for the gas industry’s production of condensate
$368 million on tax write-offs for capital works
$330 million on deductions for exploration and prospecting
$312 million in accelerated depreciation write-offs.
Significantly, this is likely to be an underestimate as it does not include State subsidies (the Queensland Government alone is spending $1.4 billion each year in subsidies to the mining industry) or sweeteners like fringe benefits tax exemptions and benefits from publically-funded infrastrucuture projects.

With the resources boom in full swing it appears counterintuitive that the government is subsidising the mining industry. Government subsidies are often used as a way of supporting important industries at times when they are financially vulnerable. This is clearly not the case for the mining industry.

In turn, there does not seem to be any reason why these subsidies are in the national interest. With the mining industry so profitable these subsidies are not supporting the industry, but instead are simply increasing the size of their profits and placing greater pressure on other industries such as manufacturing, tourism and education.

Put simply, these subsidies represent a transfer of funds from taxpayers to the owners of mining companies operating in Australia, most of which are foreign-owned.

Or they're not really the subsidies we're worried about, are we??

Perhaps it's just the government subsidies that go towards energy production that we're concerned with....

The Division of Resources and Geoscience’s, Coal Innovation NSW (CINSW), was set up to advance low emissions coal technologies research and development across the state, with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the mining and use of coal in industries such as electricity generation, steel and cement.

Low emissions coal technologies can play a vital role in reducing the state’s future greenhouse gas emissions and can contribute to the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to mitigate the effects of climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement1. Advancements in the capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) in NSW will also assist the NSW Government to meet its aspirational target of zero-net emissions by 20502.

Low emissions coal technologies can reduce the emissions from coal mining and coal-fired electricity generation,and contribute to ensuring the security and reliability of the state’s electricity network, and also provide businesses and households in NSW with access to affordable electricity.

CINSW:

provides strategic advice and makes recommendations to the Government about funding projects that encourage the development of low emissions coal technologies
provides advice on policy to encourage the development and implementation of low emissions coal technologies
makes recommendations about opportunities for private and public sector organisations concerning interstate, national and international research projects involving low emissions coal technologies
provides advice on other matters concerning low emissions coal technologies
undertakes these activities in accordance with the CINSW Code of Conduct.
CINSW is an advisory council established by the Coal Innovation Administration Act 2008 (the Act). Council representatives come from the coal and energy industries, research institutes and the NSW Government.

One of the key roles of CINSW is the ongoing provision of strategic advice to the Minister concerning the Coal Innovation NSW Fund (the Fund). This $100 million Fund was established under the Act and is a vital tool in reducing NSW's carbon dioxide emissions, now and into the future.

Apparently subsidies are handed out pretty freely, just depends which side of the fence you're on as to which ones get you more outraged.....

[paceman]

Or they're not really the subsidies we're worried about, are we??

Apparently subsidies are handed out pretty freely, just depends which side of the fence you're on as to which ones get you more outraged.....

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/miners-pay-their-fair-share-of-tax-if-you-count-royalties-report-20180108-h0f0qh.html

The Australian mining industry paid $185 billion in federal company tax and state and territory royalties between 2005-06 and 2015-16, according to a report produced by Deloitte Access Economics for the mining lobby.

i'd say receiving 14.5 billion (full 185, divided by 10 years, minus the 4 billion on subsidies), having spent 4 billion, is a pretty good return on investment... 

when renewables pay the same percentage (or any) royalties back to the government coffers, then we can compare apples with apples, regarding differences in subsidies...

high power prices for no reason, other than ideology and government interference get me outraged...

in the end, we can agree to disagree... just my thoughts on the subject...

[Pete79]

in the end, we can agree to disagree... just my thoughts on the subject...

 

[Fizzie]

The bold bit was added by me.

& this bold bit was added by me

"will also assist the NSW Government to meet its aspirational target of zero-net emissions by 20502"

Well, at least someone is finally discussing a realistic target date! 

[alnjan]

and while speaking of target emissions, to help reduce the alleged green house gases attributed to Climate Change the target sights have been moved to the farming community and some dumb #@$% has decided we need to cull half the countries livestock.  I guess they want us to eat tofu with no dairy products. 

[tryagain]

and while speaking of target emissions, to help reduce the alleged green house gases attributed to Climate Change the target sights have been moved to the farming community and some dumb #@$% has decided we need to cull half the countries livestock.  I guess they want us to eat tofu with no dairy products.

Apparently Kangaroo if fine to eat, beef not to so much so.

[Pottsy]

and while speaking of target emissions, to help reduce the alleged green house gases attributed to Climate Change the target sights have been moved to the farming community and some dumb #@$% has decided we need to cull half the countries livestock.  I guess they want us to eat tofu with no dairy products.

I reckon let the livestock fart all they like, I like MEAT!

[alnjan]

I reckon let the livestock fart all they like, I like MEAT!

Yeah will make a BBQ pretty unappetising

[Poita]

This thread has been making for some very interesting lunch time conversations at work, where we have several experts in power and renewables.

They did mention several aspects to consider:

• The Australian government has no choice, they MUST lower green house emissions. Installing new coal plants will only set this target backwards, so not an option. They are also extremely expensive to build and maintain (see point 3). They need to subsidise to encourage investment to meet this target.
• Mining is heavily subsidised as well.
• The operating cost of renewable plants is cheaper than coal when greater than 1000MW (cumulative) and far far cheaper once you hit about 4300MW and above.
• A large contributing factor to the rapid decline in installation costs of renewables is the fact that governments were prepared to fund and install this infrastructure encouraging research in improved technology and manufacturing processes. I put a 6kW system in recently for less that what it cost my boss to install a 1.5kW a few years ago. It has saved me $1000 in 6 months, so I am very happy with that.

No new tech is cheap, but if you can look beyond today, it is far more sustainable, cleaner and will end up being cheaper.

As for increased pricing, it has very little to do with the coal VS renewables debate. From the last reference, the rise is costs can be contributed to:
42% Network expansion. Needs forecasts were grossly over estimated, better (expensive) safety regulations and finally a pathetic business regulation model which encourages businesses to build even if it's not required.
26% Retail (cost of billing and servicing the customer). This was due to deregulation.
17% Wholesale (cost of generation). Read the article, quite interesting.
16% Government environmental policies Not really a success, but still only about 6% of the end users bill. This is the part being debated in this thread, so you can see how little impact it really has had in the scheme of things. So people getting worked up over this are completely missing the bigger picture.


References:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/plunging-costs-make-solar-wind-and-battery-storage-cheaper-than-coal-83151/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#399e9c6b4ff2
https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450

And I think this graph helps if we can think long term:

[GeoffA]

This thread has been making for some very interesting lunch time conversations at work, where we have several experts in power and renewables.....in SA?....

They did mention several aspects to consider:

• The Australian government has no choice, they MUST lower green house emissions.......says who? It's our country. There is always a choice..
• The operating cost of renewable plants is cheaper than coal......but coal works when the sun don't shine, and the wind don't blow.
• A large contributing factor to the rapid decline in installation costs of unreliables is the fact that governments were prepared to fund and install this infrastructure......with truck loads of taxpayer money
  

If renewables are such a good thing, why was power so much more reliable and affordable before they were foisted upon us?

If AUS cut it's emissions to ZERO, the effect on global warming would be as good as nil. WOFTAM

 

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

This thread has been making for some very interesting lunch time conversations at work, where we have several experts in power and renewables.

They did mention several aspects to consider:

• The Australian government has no choice, they MUST lower green house emissions. Installing new coal plants will only set this target backwards, so not an option. They are also extremely expensive to build and maintain (see point 3). They need to subsidise to encourage investment to meet this target.
• Mining is heavily subsidised as well.
• The operating cost of renewable plants is cheaper than coal when greater than 1000MW (cumulative) and far far cheaper once you hit about 4300MW and above.
• A large contributing factor to the rapid decline in installation costs of renewables is the fact that governments were prepared to fund and install this infrastructure encouraging research in improved technology and manufacturing processes. I put a 6kW system in recently for less that what it cost my boss to install a 1.5kW a few years ago. It has saved me $1000 in 6 months, so I am very happy with that.

No new tech is cheap, but if you can look beyond today, it is far more sustainable, cleaner and will end up being cheaper.

As for increased pricing, it has very little to do with the coal VS renewables debate. From the last reference, the rise is costs can be contributed to:
42% Network expansion. Needs forecasts were grossly over estimated, better (expensive) safety regulations and finally a pathetic business regulation model which encourages businesses to build even if it's not required.
26% Retail (cost of billing and servicing the customer). This was due to deregulation.
17% Wholesale (cost of generation). Read the article, quite interesting.
16% Government environmental policies Not really a success, but still only about 6% of the end users bill. This is the part being debated in this thread, so you can see how little impact it really has had in the scheme of things. So people getting worked up over this are completely missing the bigger picture.


References:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/plunging-costs-make-solar-wind-and-battery-storage-cheaper-than-coal-83151/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#399e9c6b4ff2
https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450

And I think this graph helps if we can think long term:

If renewables are such a good thing, why was power so much more reliable and affordable before they were foisted upon us?

If AUS cut it's emissions to ZERO, the effect on global warming would be as good as nil. WOFTAM

 

Exactly, and why can't they do it without subsidies, if it's such a world saving bunch of ideas.

[Poita]

I was also accused of not knowing what I was talking about with SA's power failure.

The labour government has always been vocal against SA's move towards renewables, especially Turnbull. So it's no surprised that they immediately blamed renewables and the brown nosed media ran with that story. Of course all the tin hatters loved it and believed it as gospel.

Turnbull was also the twit that touted the "clean coal" mantra. To quote recent studies:
“This so-called ‘clean coal’ is no better than the average emissions intensity of the market, and insignificantly better than regular coal. It defies belief that we are even talking about building one (a new coal plant) in 2017,” [1]

Did it have anything to do with wind? Yes, it blew the interstate transmission line over in 3 places. There are two actually, but one was down being serviced. In May that year, SA closed it's last coal power station down, but even if this and the previous one were running it would not have made any difference. This is not the fault of the SA government, but rather a lack of redundancy in the national grid, which is recognised as being one of the most spread out electricity grids in the world. South Australia and North Queensland both are at risk being at extreme ends of the grid.

"Decentralised energy solutions such as solar with battery storage and micro-grids would likely increase the resilience and energy security of South Australia’s very stringy electricity network.... This is what New York has done. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012" [2]

The flow on blackout was not caused by renewable energy deficiencies, but some overly sensitive protection circuitry tripped after detecting six voltage dips on the grid over a two-minute period (as a result of the transmission line failures). This then increased the load on the Victorian interconnect which triggered its protection circuit taking this offline. SA has load-shedding protection to deal with this but the rate of change in frequency was so rapid it didn't work. So pretty much the whole system collapsed and SA was disconnected from the national grid. Changes have been made to these protection settings to ensure that this does not happen again given a similar number of dips.

So was it renewables?? No, not really. It was incorrectly programmed protection devices. Flame away tin-hatters.

[1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalitions-clean-coal-plan-revealed-idiotic-fantasy-12811/
[2] https://theconversation.com/what-caused-south-australias-state-wide-blackout-66268
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings-to-blame-for-sa-blackout-aemo-says/8389920

[Poita]

        The Australian government has no choice, they MUST lower green house emissions.......says who? It's our country. There is always a choice..
        The operating cost of renewable plants is cheaper than coal......but coal works when the sun don't shine, and the wind don't blow.
        A large contributing factor to the rapid decline in installation costs of unreliables is the fact that governments were prepared to fund and install this infrastructure......with truck loads of taxpayer money


If renewables are such a good thing, why was power so much more reliable and affordable before they were foisted upon us?

If AUS cut it's emissions to ZERO, the effect on global warming would be as good as nil. WOFTAM

 

You serious?? Just because it's our country we don't have any obligation to minimise the damage we are doing to the environment for future generations? And it's not just our country it's international agreements signed by multiple countries who are all trying to work towards minimising the mess we are creating. That is a pretty damn short sighted view...

Recent studies show that wind and solar combined with modern storage could effectively supply the entire demands of Australia. At this stage it would be too expensive though. Wind and solar combined aren't anywhere near as unreliable as the nay-sayers would have us believe. For example, if demand in power increased suddenly, a coal plant takes about 24 hours to ramp up. No where near quick enough to meet the demand. Natural gas takes a couple hours. Renewable storage... 200 milliseconds. Which the battery storage plant in SA has already done several times, even feeding back into Victoria when they needed it.

Tax payers money is wasted on huge amounts of things that we might deem extravagant. If it helps forge a better and cleaner future and encourages development of technology that means we are less reliant on dirty energy and the ecological effect this has (mining) then I am happy to pay for it.

If you read my thread... renewables are not the cause of the price increase. And again, if you read my thread, our pathetic national grid is at far more fault.

[Poita]

Exactly, and why can't they do it without subsidies, if it's such a world saving bunch of ideas.

Simple economics, it's not rocket science. New tech is expensive. Military, government etc investing in new tech eventually drives the price down as it becomes more common and the tech improves and manufacturing processes are refined and cheaper. This same process has occurred many times. LED lights are one example. I remember when a globe was $30-$40. I picked one up on the weekend for $9.95 and it wasn't the cheapest one there.

[tryagain]

This thread has been making for some very interesting lunch time conversations at work, where we have several experts in power and renewables.

+1 for doing some research and looking into it, on the whole, I don't disagree with you, but there are some bit's that I think could do with being put into a better context.

They did mention several aspects to consider:

• The Australian government has no choice, they MUST lower green house emissions. Installing new coal plants will only set this target backwards, so not an option. They are also extremely expensive to build and maintain (see point 3). They need to subsidise to encourage investment to meet this target.
• Mining is heavily subsidised as well.
• The operating cost of renewable plants is cheaper than coal when greater than 1000MW (cumulative) and far far cheaper once you hit about 4300MW and above.
• A large contributing factor to the rapid decline in installation costs of renewables is the fact that governments were prepared to fund and install this infrastructure encouraging research in improved technology and manufacturing processes. I put a 6kW system in recently for less that what it cost my boss to install a 1.5kW a few years ago. It has saved me $1000 in 6 months, so I am very happy with that.

Australias is a sovereign nation, in reality, we could do what we wanted.
Yes, mining gets some subsidies, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that these aren't infinitely smaller than what renewables receive, and we are actually talking about electricity generation, not mining, and whilst they are somewhat linked, they aren't the same thing.
You really need to compare the LCOE not just running costs to accurately compare, and in reality, you also need to factor in back costs if it is intermittent.

As for increased pricing, it has very little to do with the coal VS renewables debate. From the last reference, the rise is costs can be contributed to:
42% Network expansion.

Everything I have read says that the network expansion spend as more renewables come online will need to increase significantly, so yes, whilst a lot of the "Gold Plating" at the time wasn't needed, it and more will be required as renewables increase. So some of that spend would likely have had to be done at a later at a later date under the renewables associated costs.

And I think this graph helps if we can think long term:

I think anything looking that far into the future you need to take with a grain of salt, and as mentioned earlier you really need to factor in storage for renewables to be a like for like comparrison with coal.

[Poita]

+1 for doing some research and looking into it, on the whole, I don't disagree with you, but there are some bit's that I think could do with being put into a better context.


Australias is a sovereign nation, in reality, we could do what we wanted. Agreed, but I'd rather live in a country that wanted to try to improve processes rather than bury it's head in the sand and leave it to future generations/governments to worry about.

Yes, mining gets some subsidies, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that these aren't infinitely smaller than what renewables receive, and we are actually talking about electricity generation, not mining, and whilst they are somewhat linked, they aren't the same thing. The subsidies for coal and gas generation is very hard to find. A lot of politics involved (they fund many politicians political campaigns) and very difficult to accurately calculate as they range from mining the source fuel all (you can't unlink them, without the mining the coal generation wouldn't occur) the way through to the dumping of waste at the end. There are also many direct and indirect costs which are not born by the generation company during the life of the plant, environmental being just one of them.

You really need to compare the LCOE not just running costs to accurately compare, and in reality, you also need to factor in back costs if it is intermittent. There are heaps of these graphs around. Working out what data is used is more difficult. But they all point to the same thing... as the cost manufacture, installation and maintenance of renewable stations are dropping, coal is very quickly becoming unattractive financially

Everything I have read says that the network expansion spend as more renewables come online will need to increase significantly, so yes, whilst a lot of the "Gold Plating" at the time wasn't needed, it and more will be required as renewables increase. So some of that spend would likely have had to be done at a later at a later date under the renewables associated costs. I agree, the archaic networks really need to be updated and that will cost a fortune. But that's not the cause of the current price rise which everyone is complaining about and blaming renewables for. This price hike is due to increasing grid capacity for existing tech which was not needed. They would have been far better off future proofing their tech rather than expanding capacity.

I think anything looking that far into the future you need to take with a grain of salt, and as mentioned earlier you really need to factor in storage for renewables to be a like for like comparrison with coal.
Yes and no. They have a large amount of data now to use for predictions. But future aside, we are pretty much at that crossover point now. Storage is also dropping really fast and the battery tech is also getting much better. Give it 5 or so years and battery storage will be quite affordable even for householders. I'm an electronics engineer (Electrical/Electronics, majoring in Electronics) and in my field I have seen many times really expensive tech plummet in price very quickly once it becomes established.

[GeoffA]

Virtue signalling.....
What would be the impact on global warming if Australia cut its' emissions to ZERO?
Give me a number please.....