The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

And it lasts for a long time, so the cost per operational time unit is very low.

Key reasons engineers and others tend to like hydro:

It's not 100% reliable but it's pretty close. Chance of an unplanned outage of hydro plant is far lower than steam plant.

Conscious awareness that oil and gas are, so far as is known with current knowledge, relatively limited resources. Meanwhile they have a myriad of other uses, many of which have no replacement, and that being so using them to generate electricity seems wasteful at best, arguably borderline criminal. This view being pretty widely held.

Once it's done, it's done. So long as it's properly built and maintained, hydro's as close to permanent as it gets. Looking at the history of all hydro ever built, the vast majority of it's still working today and of that which isn't, the usual reason is it's an early scheme that was later greatly improved upon. That is, the original development was constrained by the technical or financial ability to build it at the time and didn't use the water optimally, someone later coming along and building an optimised version.

An example of that scenario is the old Duck Reach station in Tasmania, opened in 1895. A hugely ambitious project at that time for a relatively small city council, Launceston's population at the time being 17,208 people, to have built a hydro station complete with an 850m tunnel, power station and a full electrical distribution and street lighting system. Suffice to say there was no realistic prospect the council would've been able to build the optimised version to use the same water which involves a 3.5km tunnel through poor ground conditions and a power station at sea level. Once that was built in 1955 that left Duck Reach obsolete and hence closed. That's the usual scenario for the relatively few hydro schemes that have been abandoned - they were built within the limitations of the time but weren't optimised, someone later deciding to build an optimised version.

The environment is of course always a contentious issue with hydro and I'll be the first to say there are examples of places dams should not be built on ecological grounds and that does include some that were actually built. Overall though, reality is the majority of large dams aren't in the news, even the Greens ignore them, and they haven't wiped anything out or otherwise caused a disaster. Taken in the context of oil or gas being the alternative, hydro tends to stack up favourably - not in every single instance, but generically it does when viewed in terms of resource use and so on.

Which raises another important point. If a relatively small local council was able to build that 130 years ago, in a world where electricity itself was still seen as somewhat experimental with no agreement on common standards and so on, everything had to be calculated using human brains and where all construction would've been with human labour, and got it done, then why on earth are we struggling today? It ought be a cinch to do this in 2025 given all the technology we've got today.

Back to the gas well it can be argued how much there is, how long it will last and so on but I've never had the discussion with anyone who doesn't accept the broad notion that oil and gas are at least somewhat problematic. There's a lot in the ground yes, but if we deduct that which is particularly expensive to recover and we then deduct what's under the control of foreign dictators and so on, what's left is a frighteningly small number. Because the harsh truth is that Russia, Iran and Qatar between them have half the world's gas, and if we add all countries hostile to the West along with those at war, that's most of it and therein lies the problem. Reliance on oil and gas comes with geopolitical consequences.

 

[qldfrog]

Key reasons engineers and others tend to like hydro:

It's not 100% reliable but it's pretty close. Chance of an unplanned outage of hydro plant is far lower than steam plant.

Conscious awareness that oil and gas are, so far as is known with current knowledge, relatively limited resources. Meanwhile they have a myriad of other uses, many of which have no replacement, and that being so using them to generate electricity seems wasteful at best, arguably borderline criminal. This view being pretty widely held.

Once it's done, it's done. So long as it's properly built and maintained, hydro's as close to permanent as it gets. Looking at the history of all hydro ever built, the vast majority of it's still working today and of that which isn't, the usual reason is it's an early scheme that was later greatly improved upon. That is, the original development was constrained by the technical or financial ability to build it at the time and didn't use the water optimally, someone later coming along and building an optimised version.

An example of that scenario is the old Duck Reach station in Tasmania, opened in 1895. A hugely ambitious project at that time for a relatively small city council, Launceston's population at the time being 17,208 people, to have built a hydro station complete with an 850m tunnel, power station and a full electrical distribution and street lighting system. Suffice to say there was no realistic prospect the council would've been able to build the optimised version to use the same water which involves a 3.5km tunnel through poor ground conditions and a power station at sea level. Once that was built in 1955 that left Duck Reach obsolete and hence closed. That's the usual scenario for the relatively few hydro schemes that have been abandoned - they were built within the limitations of the time but weren't optimised, someone later deciding to build an optimised version.

The environment is of course always a contentious issue with hydro and I'll be the first to say there are examples of places dams should not be built on ecological grounds and that does include some that were actually built. Overall though, reality is the majority of large dams aren't in the news, even the Greens ignore them, and they haven't wiped anything out or otherwise caused a disaster. Taken in the context of oil or gas being the alternative, hydro tends to stack up favourably - not in every single instance, but generically it does when viewed in terms of resource use and so on.

Which raises another important point. If a relatively small local council was able to build that 130 years ago, in a world where electricity itself was still seen as somewhat experimental with no agreement on common standards and so on, everything had to be calculated using human brains and where all construction would've been with human labour, and got it done, then why on earth are we struggling today? It ought be a cinch to do this in 2025 given all the technology we've got today.

Back to the gas well it can be argued how much there is, how long it will last and so on but I've never had the discussion with anyone who doesn't accept the broad notion that oil and gas are at least somewhat problematic. There's a lot in the ground yes, but if we deduct that which is particularly expensive to recover and we then deduct what's under the control of foreign dictators and so on, what's left is a frighteningly small number. Because the harsh truth is that Russia, Iran and Qatar between them have half the world's gas, and if we add all countries hostile to the West along with those at war, that's most of it and therein lies the problem. Reliance on oil and gas comes with geopolitical consequences.

Unless you are a country which is could be a gas producer giant and could be self sufficient for half a century or more, especially throwing in coal resources .
I doubt anyone argues that while we should harvest all of hydro possible..which we do not, it will never be enough here especially considering Australian cyclical weather patterns of droughts/floods.
Fact is right now, domestically, we do not develop hydro, we do not develop coal, we do not develop gas and we just send billions O/S to buy energy in a can:
Either as battery/solar panels( fossil fuels transformed into energy with a 10y old expiry date),
Or directly (re) importing our own lpg/lng via sea with a compression/ transport/decompression waste of 30 to 40%
Lucky this is helping the planet
It is VERY hard to be more stupid.
And no hope in sight

 

[sptrawler]

The stupidity of the loonies, is endless. Lol the clever country, I think not.

Anti-Musk sentiment runs high in Adelaide as 95% of submissions oppose land sale to Tesla

Marion city council in South Australia censors strong language in some of the nearly 1,000 submissions that called for proposal to be struck down

www.theguardian.com

The city of Marion in South Australia is considering selling 2,664 sq metres of public land – which is contaminated and not publicly accessible – to Tesla which wants to build a battery factory on the plot.

The council has consulted the community and written a report that says the benefits – including 100 full-time jobs, boosted rates revenues, $56m in economic output and “Tesla-led training programs” – outweigh the “geopolitical or symbolic criticisms expressed in submissions”.

Of the nearly 1,000 submissions sent to the local council, 95% called for the proposal to be struck down, citing “anti-Tesla and anti-Elon Musk sentiment” and “Musk’s influence on global discourse via social media platforms”, as well as the environmental impact and potential loss of green space.

Common sense prevails. Yeh.

Tesla wins council approval for new factory in South Australia despite vocal anti-Musk sentiment

Marion councillors vote to seek state government approval for battery-repurposing plant in Adelaide despite hundreds of submissions opposing it

www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk’s Tesla is one step closer to opening a factory in Adelaide despite overwhelming community opposition expressing “anti-Tesla and anti-Elon Musk sentiment”.

On Tuesday night the City of Marion council voted to seek state government approval to sell the site to a developer who will build a battery-repurposing factory, a showroom and servicing facilities.

 

[Smurf1976]

Elon Musk’s Tesla is one step closer to opening a factory in Adelaide despite overwhelming community opposition expressing “anti-Tesla and anti-Elon Musk sentiment”.

I'm not at all convinced there's opposition from the community overall.

I suspect it's more a case of the squeaky wheels opposing it and the majority unaware any such proposal even existed until the fuss.

 

[sptrawler]

Now we are getting to the pointy end of the issue, this article is about what @Smurf1976 and I have talked about, system strength and inertia when comparing rotating mass as opposed to electronic response.
I'm a bit surprised, that they couldn't just use some of the out of service coal power station alternators, as synchronous condensers.

Seven massive spinning machines to support grid in first major renewable zone

Siemens wins highly lucrative contract to install seven syncons – huge spinning machines that do not burn fuel – to support rollout of wind and solar projects in NSW.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[qldfrog]

Now we are getting to the pointy end of the issue, this article is about what @Smurf1976 and I have talked about, system strength and inertia when comparing rotating mass as opposed to electronic response.
I'm a bit surprised, that they couldn't just use some of the out of service coal power station alternators, as synchronous condensers.

Seven massive spinning machines to support grid in first major renewable zone

Siemens wins highly lucrative contract to install seven syncons – huge spinning machines that do not burn fuel – to support rollout of wind and solar projects in NSW.

reneweconomy.com.au

Funny how they say " which do not burn fuel..well until we find a perpetual machine, they need to be powered up..just to rotate ...so they burn energy instead pf producing some.
Another great extra cost of dealing with so called renewables
For the windfarm, i was expecting that the blades rotation could provide this "tempo", but obviously would require some rotation at all.

 

[sptrawler]

Well emissions only increased marginally last year, but they have declined quite rapidly from 2005 to 2021 apparently.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-30/australia-emissions-rose-in-2024/105359510
From the article:

The country had achieved a relatively steep decline in emissions between 2005 and 2021, but since then progress has essentially flatlined, according to the latest quarterly update of Australia's greenhouse gas production.

Electricity sector emissions were pushed up by a 2.2 per cent increased demand for power and a lower than usual contribution from hydro-power.

Transport sector emissions climbed by 1.9 per cent.

But those increases were offset by decreases in sectors like agriculture, due to lower crop production, and in industries like chemical and steel manufacturing.

Transport is the country's second-largest contributor to carbon emissions, and the climb in emissions is largely being put down to a surge in consumption of aviation fuel and diesel.

While petrol use has fallen in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, jet fuel and diesel use have surged to record highs.

 

[qldfrog]

Well emissions only increased marginally last year, but they have declined quite rapidly from 2005 to 2021 apparently.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-30/australia-emissions-rose-in-2024/105359510
From the article:

The country had achieved a relatively steep decline in emissions between 2005 and 2021, but since then progress has essentially flatlined, according to the latest quarterly update of Australia's greenhouse gas production.

Electricity sector emissions were pushed up by a 2.2 per cent increased demand for power and a lower than usual contribution from hydro-power.

Transport sector emissions climbed by 1.9 per cent.

But those increases were offset by decreases in sectors like agriculture, due to lower crop production, and in industries like chemical and steel manufacturing.

Transport is the country's second-largest contributor to carbon emissions, and the climb in emissions is largely being put down to a surge in consumption of aviation fuel and diesel.

While petrol use has fallen in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, jet fuel and diesel use have surged to record highs.

Do not worry, with the speed of our industrial decline, we will reach our target with hi 5s...

 

[IFocus]

Market forces providing cheaper power?

 

[Smurf1976]

Market forces providing cheaper power?

A point missed is much of this has nothing at all to do with the technology of generation. Prices were rising before the first significant wind or solar were connected to the grid.

The real problem is a structurally inefficient market that adds substantial cost that need not exist at all.

My favourite example of the situation being to point out that AGL, which has always been a for-profit shareholder owned company, charges more in real terms for gas in Sydney in 2025 operating in a competitive market than it charged customers in the exact same houses 35 years ago operating as a monopoly. So consumers pay more meanwhile shareholders now have a much higher risk investment compared to the monopoly days when AGL couldn't possibly have failed and was one of the safest things someone could possibly invest in.

So much for competitive markets leading to lower prices.

 

[Smurf1976]

So consumers pay more meanwhile shareholders now have a much higher risk investment

To clarify I'm not suggesting AGL is going bust, just that as a business operating in a competitive market that's inherently more risky than being a monopoly.

Historically in the old days if you lived in AGL's service area and wanted gas then that was your only option. Either buy gas from AGL or use some other fuel eg electricity or bottled gas.

Where it's gone wrong is that economists were right about the theory that competition would encourage lower prices. What they missed was:

1. The competitive market has introduced huge new costs, for participants, such that even a barely profitable price is still higher than the monopolies were charging.

Or in simpler terms, profit has been driven down by competition but underlying cost has risen to the point consumers are paying more.

2. When the only thing a gas company sold was gas, and the only thing any given electricity supplier sold was electricity, likewise for suppliers of solar equipment (eg hot water), firewood, fuel oil, LPG an so on they had a real incentive to aggressively market their product and did so enthusiastically. Quite a bit of effort was put into marketing, because when you've only got one product to sell that's what you do.

Versus today where practically all retailers sell both electricity and gas, and Origin sells LPG as well. So that's killed off any real competition between fuels.

3. At present in SA there are 27 electricity retailers (companies) offering a total of 278 pricing plans and there are 9 gas retailers offering a total of 64 pricing plans. And that's just for residential consumers, business is separate.

All of those plans are, of course, subject to change price at any time.

Quite simply the average consumer has no real ability to even make an informed choice since it's not just a matter of looking for the lowest price given they're all structured differently meaning calculation is required.

There are websites that compare electricity suppliers based on a known consumption level, but overall you'd have to be pretty determined (and knowledgeable) to do a proper comparison of all options across all energy sources given that means altering consumption levels of any given fuel (eg electricity).

The market's simply far too complex for most consumers to make informed decisions. Now if it's not something people can understand, then how competitive can we really consider it to be?

 

[SirRumpole]

To clarify I'm not suggesting AGL is going bust, just that as a business operating in a competitive market that's inherently more risky than being a monopoly.

Historically in the old days if you lived in AGL's service area and wanted gas then that was your only option. Either buy gas from AGL or use some other fuel eg electricity or bottled gas.

Where it's gone wrong is that economists were right about the theory that competition would encourage lower prices. What they missed was:

1. The competitive market has introduced huge new costs, for participants, such that even a barely profitable price is still higher than the monopolies were charging.

Or in simpler terms, profit has been driven down by competition but underlying cost has risen to the point consumers are paying more.

2. When the only thing a gas company sold was gas, and the only thing any given electricity supplier sold was electricity, likewise for suppliers of solar equipment (eg hot water), firewood, fuel oil, LPG an so on they had a real incentive to aggressively market their product and did so enthusiastically. Quite a bit of effort was put into marketing, because when you've only got one product to sell that's what you do.

Versus today where practically all retailers sell both electricity and gas, and Origin sells LPG as well. So that's killed off any real competition between fuels.

3. At present in SA there are 27 electricity retailers (companies) offering a total of 278 pricing plans and there are 9 gas retailers offering a total of 64 pricing plans. And that's just for residential consumers, business is separate.

All of those plans are, of course, subject to change price at any time.

Quite simply the average consumer has no real ability to even make an informed choice since it's not just a matter of looking for the lowest price given they're all structured differently meaning calculation is required.

There are websites that compare electricity suppliers based on a known consumption level, but overall you'd have to be pretty determined (and knowledgeable) to do a proper comparison of all options across all energy sources given that means altering consumption levels of any given fuel (eg electricity).

The market's simply far too complex for most consumers to make informed decisions. Now if it's not something people can understand, then how competitive can we really consider it to be?

Governments have to have much more ownership and control of the energy sector in the national interest, the current system is a joke, but governments are too afraid to run businesses these days because most if them are incompetent to start with.

 

[qldfrog]

Governments have to have much more ownership and control of the energy sector in the national interest, the current system is a joke, but governments are too afraid to run businesses these days because most if them are incompetent to start with.

That's very true and comparing as @Smurf1976 does public or monopolistic companies from the 1980s to nowadays is fraught with danger.
Does anyone with long enough experience and no ideological blindfold really believe a public/semi public company in 2025 would do better?
Look railways, city buses, water board or your council etc
Real capitalism with real legal framework is needed, not a mate's world and new royalty.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's very true and comparing as @Smurf1976 does public or monopolistic companies from the 1980s to nowadays is fraught with danger.
Does anyone with long enough experience and no ideological blindfold really believe a public/semi public company in 2025 would do better?
Look railways, city buses, water board or your council etc
Real capitalism with real legal framework is needed, not a mate's world and new royalty.

Just look at prices under State controlled networks compared to what it is now and the answer is obvious.

 

[sptrawler]

The electrical subsidies look like drying up this year, so there may be some serious bill shocks coming.

 

[qldfrog]

Just look at prices under State controlled networks compared to what it is now and the answer is obvious.

Yesi look at water here in SE Qld..

 

[qldfrog]

Yesi look at water here in SE Qld..

Still public semi public but 2025

 

[SirRumpole]

Yesi look at water here in SE Qld..

No idea what the issue is with them, but at least people can vote and hold the government to account. We can't vote for foreign companies.

 

[sptrawler]

Another industry,that will probably be running the ruler over the feasibility of re opening, or just call it a day.

Sanjeev Gupta’s Tasmanian plant is the latest smelter to hit trouble

The decision to pause operations at the Liberty Bell Bay smelter adds to broader doubts about the economic viability of Australia’s metals smelters.

www.afr.com

OMG the loonies will have a meltdown, we have a problem, we are considering tariffs, to make our industries stay home and competitive. ​

Bowen open to carbon tariff, says Australia must 'do more' to hit 2030 goal

The energy minister says the re-approved North West Shelf gas plant would not jeopardise Australia's emissions goals because the site is required to hit net zero.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:

A "carbon tariff" on dirty cement or steel made elsewhere could be considered in the Albanese government's second term, as Energy Minister Chris Bowen concedes Australia must "do more" to achieve its climate targets.

Mr Bowen said he was willing to consider new policies if required, including the use of tariffs to ensure that companies do not shift emitting activities offshore to evade the intent of Australia's targets.

 

[Knobby22]

Bowen open to carbon tariff, says Australia must 'do more' to hit 2030 goal

The energy minister says the re-approved North West Shelf gas plant would not jeopardise Australia's emissions goals because the site is required to hit net zero.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:

A "carbon tariff" on dirty cement or steel made elsewhere could be considered in the Albanese government's second term, as Energy Minister Chris Bowen concedes Australia must "do more" to achieve its climate targets.

Mr Bowen said he was willing to consider new policies if required, including the use of tariffs to ensure that companies do not shift emitting activities offshore to evade the intent of Australia's targets.

Why wouldn't he be?