The future of energy generation and storage

[qldfrog]

This can't be good for the ALP leading up to the election.

Maybe it wasn't a good idea to put a dollar figure on price reductions prior to the last election.


View attachment 195232

Electricity bills will rise by as much as 9 per cent from July 1, the Australian Energy Regulator has declared, a draft ruling that will intensify pressure on struggling households and threaten the re-election prospects of the Albanese government.

The AER said increases will vary across the National Electricity Market, but the largest jump will be seen in NSW, where prices are set to rise by up to 9 per cent. Increases are smaller in Queensland and South Australia, but prices will rise by between 3 per cent and 6 per cent.

Prices in Victoria are governed by a separate regulator, which earlier ruled prices will largely remain unchanged.

Small business customers face prices increases of between 4.2 per cent and 8.2 per cent.

The energy regulator said the increases were driven by higher costs of producing electricity and network costs, which the AER said had jumped by between 2 per cant and 12 per cent.

Anyone surprised?

 

[sptrawler]

Anyone surprised?

Bill shock is going to be a huge problem for the elderly,when the taxpayer funded electricity subsidies stop, but it wont happen before the election so enjoy it while you can.

 

[Smurf1976]

Anyone surprised?

Not even slightly.

But I'll tell you one thing with absolute certainty - coal, gas, hydro, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal or burnt chicken poo. None of those will fix it, because the means of generation is only a minority of the problem.

The political and public debate about all this is akin to the child who's "looking" for something without wanting to find it. They know exactly where it is, and are thus "looking" everywhere else.

The real problem comes down to huge administrative overheads along with intentionally inefficient operation in the name of ideology.

To put some figures out there, and I'll intentionally not state what company these are for, the breakdown of the price charged to small consumers (households, small business) is:

Generation = 39%

Transmission and distribution = 36%

A long list of administrative costs not relating to generation, transmission or distribution = 25%

Now to clarify that, the generation, transmission and distribution costs include the (rather large) administrative costs actually relating to them. So there's an administrative cost, a very substantial one, embedded into those prices. The other 25% is for other administration, that which isn't about the physical generation, transmission or distribution of electricity.

Hence the industry employs more people today than it did 40 years ago. Noting that, in theory, vast improvements to efficiency have occurred over that time:

Remote read meters substantially replacing manually read meters.

Computerisation of all aspects of administration.

General reduction in manning levels, number of network maintenance depots, etc.

The industry still had a major construction workforce 40 years ago in every state.

Thermal generation has seen huge efficiency improvements. Back then NSW, Qld and SA all still had 30MW steam turbines in service, Victoria had 20MW as the smallest and that was about the point WA closed the 25MW but they still had 30MW beyond that. NT the smallest was 7.5MW for the Darwin system. All those small machines being far more labour intensive than modern, larger machines. They were less fuel efficient too.

Offsetting that has been a huge rise in bureaucracy at all levels and completely new administrative overheads on top.

 

[Smurf1976]

Meanwhile in Tasmania they're building a tunnel, albeit with somewhat less fanfare than Snowy:

That's not a dam, it's the edge of Lake King William which is created by a dam at a different location but this site itself is simply a hole in the ground.

Purpose is to replace the existing canals which convey water about 18.7km to the Tarraleah power station. Partly because they're now rather old (No.1 canal in service since 1938) and needing significant maintenance but the real long term plan is to increase the capacity of Tarraleah power station to 190MW (presently 90MW), the first step to which is to increase the water conveyance capacity.

Suffice to say I'll always be a fan of just getting on with things.

 

[qldfrog]

Not even slightly.

But I'll tell you one thing with absolute certainty - coal, gas, hydro, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal or burnt chicken poo. None of those will fix it, because the means of generation is only a minority of the problem.

The political and public debate about all this is akin to the child who's "looking" for something without wanting to find it. They know exactly where it is, and are thus "looking" everywhere else.

The real problem comes down to huge administrative overheads along with intentionally inefficient operation in the name of ideology.

To put some figures out there, and I'll intentionally not state what company these are for, the breakdown of the price charged to small consumers (households, small business) is:

Generation = 39%

Transmission and distribution = 36%

A long list of administrative costs not relating to generation, transmission or distribution = 25%

Now to clarify that, the generation, transmission and distribution costs include the (rather large) administrative costs actually relating to them. So there's an administrative cost, a very substantial one, embedded into those prices. The other 25% is for other administration, that which isn't about the physical generation, transmission or distribution of electricity.

Hence the industry employs more people today than it did 40 years ago. Noting that, in theory, vast improvements to efficiency have occurred over that time:

Remote read meters substantially replacing manually read meters.

Computerisation of all aspects of administration.

General reduction in manning levels, number of network maintenance depots, etc.

The industry still had a major construction workforce 40 years ago in every state.

Thermal generation has seen huge efficiency improvements. Back then NSW, Qld and SA all still had 30MW steam turbines in service, Victoria had 20MW as the smallest and that was about the point WA closed the 25MW but they still had 30MW beyond that. NT the smallest was 7.5MW for the Darwin system. All those small machines being far more labour intensive than modern, larger machines. They were less fuel efficient too.

Offsetting that has been a huge rise in bureaucracy at all levels and completely new administrative overheads on top.

Do not forget taxes/fees/mandatory fees paperwork which already apply to the whole economy
But maybe that is a way to maje RE competitive..the ideology one..when the actual energy production cost is only a small part if the deal, you could have dynamo powered by guinea pigs and the extra cist is hardly noticeable

 

[sptrawler]

Green bank backs electrification, but offshore wind too risky

Clean Energy Finance Corporation chief executive Ian Learmonth says the $33 billion fund has shifted towards supporting household electrification and major poles and wire projects vital to Australia’s green energy transition.

www.afr.com

 

[SirRumpole]

The economics of solar panels, again.

The stark reality is that feed in tariffs are at rock bottom. Will this discourage investment in solar by consumers ?

Solar feed-tariffs plummet, but 'the stuff you use is very, very valuable'

Once, governments stumbled over themselves to shower money on rooftop solar owners. No longer — payments have tanked up to 99.93 per cent for exports.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

The economics of solar panels, again.

The stark reality is that feed in tariffs are at rock bottom. Will this discourage investment in solar by consumers ?

Solar feed-tariffs plummet, but 'the stuff you use is very, very valuable'

Once, governments stumbled over themselves to shower money on rooftop solar owners. No longer — payments have tanked up to 99.93 per cent for exports.

www.abc.net.au

Sounds like we are getting close to the changeover point, where the cost of usage remains fairly static and the service charges are increased to cover the network costs that @Smurf1976 keeps mentioning.

Generation = 39%

Transmission and distribution = 36%

A long list of administrative costs not relating to generation, transmission or distribution = 25%

 

[investor13]

Bill shock is going to be a huge problem for the elderly,when the taxpayer funded electricity subsidies stop, but it wont happen before the election so enjoy it while you can.

It’s a bill shock with the tax payer funded subsidies

 

[investor13]

Meanwhile in Tasmania they're building a tunnel, albeit with somewhat less fanfare than Snowy:

View attachment 195264

That's not a dam, it's the edge of Lake King William which is created by a dam at a different location but this site itself is simply a hole in the ground.

Purpose is to replace the existing canals which convey water about 18.7km to the Tarraleah power station. Partly because they're now rather old (No.1 canal in service since 1938) and needing significant maintenance but the real long term plan is to increase the capacity of Tarraleah power station to 190MW (presently 90MW), the first step to which is to increase the water conveyance capacity.

Suffice to say I'll always be a fan of just getting on with things.

It’s missing the Bob Browns and his other loopy mates camp out in the picture like the original days

 

[SirRumpole]

Sounds like we are getting close to the changeover point, where the cost of usage remains fairly static and the service charges are increased to cover the network costs that @Smurf1976 keeps mentioning.

Generation = 39%

Transmission and distribution = 36%

A long list of administrative costs not relating to generation, transmission or distribution = 25%

The cr@p part of it is that all that "wasted " solar could being going into storage, either batteries or hydro, and the consumers who generated that power in the first place could be paid a reasonable return when it's needed during the next cold and dark snap when people need their hot dinners and aircons.

 

[sptrawler]

The cr@p part of it is that all that "wasted " solar could being going into storage, either batteries or hydro, and the consumers who generated that power in the first place could be paid a reasonable return when it's needed during the next cold and dark snap when people need their hot dinners and aircons.

Storage and the excess capacity required to charge it, was always going to be the problem bit, then the next issue will be who pays for it.

My guess the taxpayer, but the taxpayer probably wont own it, some companies will get taxpayer subsidies to install it and the taxpayer will get charged more to use it, situation normal. Lol

 

[Smurf1976]

It’s missing the Bob Browns and his other loopy mates camp out in the picture like the original days

One thing they have to be careful of with the project at Lake King William (where the new tunnel's being built) is the design choices are limited to the northern side of the existing No.1 canal.

Because there was a previous (decades ago) idea to build a short tunnel on the southern side to shift water to a natural valley from which it'd flow into the Gordon catchment. The purpose of that wasn't for routine use but simply to discharge excess water in high rainfall years. The logic being the very large capacity of Lake Gordon would easily contain it for future use generating electricity at Gordon power station whereas in a wet year King William fills and spills, effectively resulting in the loss of that water.

So by linking the two, the priority use would've remained as at present, since with the greater head that yields more energy per litre of water, but any excess would've at least been used at Gordon.

Can't do that however because someone "conveniently" put a World Heritage listing on the land at that location specifically to prevent it being done.

As a concept I'm not against sensible conservation of the natural environment but there's a few clearly vindictive ones like that, the boundaries of a conservation area intentionally extending just metres past the point where it precludes building something, despite there being nothing of particular conservation merit at that location.

Long term I expect that'll backfire. As with anything take it too far and at some point it produces a backlash, it comes to be seen as unreasonable. Trouble is it then goes too far in the opposite direction.....

 

[sptrawler]

One thing they have to be careful of with the project at Lake King William (where the new tunnel's being built) is the design choices are limited to the northern side of the existing No.1 canal.

Because there was a previous (decades ago) idea to build a short tunnel on the southern side to shift water to a natural valley from which it'd flow into the Gordon catchment. The purpose of that wasn't for routine use but simply to discharge excess water in high rainfall years. The logic being the very large capacity of Lake Gordon would easily contain it for future use generating electricity at Gordon power station whereas in a wet year King William fills and spills, effectively resulting in the loss of that water.

So by linking the two, the priority use would've remained as at present, since with the greater head that yields more energy per litre of water, but any excess would've at least been used at Gordon.

Can't do that however because someone "conveniently" put a World Heritage listing on the land at that location specifically to prevent it being done.

As a concept I'm not against sensible conservation of the natural environment but there's a few clearly vindictive ones like that, the boundaries of a conservation area intentionally extending just metres past the point where it precludes building something, despite there being nothing of particular conservation merit at that location.

Long term I expect that'll backfire. As with anything take it too far and at some point it produces a backlash, it comes to be seen as unreasonable. Trouble is it then goes too far in the opposite direction.....

Here's a current example @Smurf it isn't only fossil fuel projects getting pushback.

Scientists warn $100 billion ‘green’ project will destroy WA heritage

A plan to build 3000 wind turbines and six million solar panels in WA to make hydrogen and ammonia is in an area experts call “an irreplaceable global treasure”.

www.watoday.com.au

A group of scientists has voiced dismay at a federal decision to disregard any world or national heritage value to Western Australia’s Nullarbor Plain in considering a $100 billion wind and solar project proposal for the region.

The Western Green Energy Hub would build 3000 wind turbines and six million solar panels in WA to power production of hydrogen and ammonia, mostly for export, though potentially leaving some for local use, in an area experts call “an irreplaceable global treasure”.

The project would start at the South Australian border and stretch west along the Nullarbor for hundreds of kilometres near the world’s largest arid limestone karst system, which Save the Nullarbor scientists describe as “a spectacular hidden world of ancient caves and rock holes of staggering dimensions, beauty, scientific values, and priceless cultural importance”.

A delegate of federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has determined the project will require a full assessment of its impact on three criteria: threatened species, migratory species and the Great Australian Bight Marine Park.

 

[qldfrog]

Here's a current example @Smurf it isn't only fossil fuel projects getting pushback.

Scientists warn $100 billion ‘green’ project will destroy WA heritage

A plan to build 3000 wind turbines and six million solar panels in WA to make hydrogen and ammonia is in an area experts call “an irreplaceable global treasure”.

www.watoday.com.au

A group of scientists has voiced dismay at a federal decision to disregard any world or national heritage value to Western Australia’s Nullarbor Plain in considering a $100 billion wind and solar project proposal for the region.

The Western Green Energy Hub would build 3000 wind turbines and six million solar panels in WA to power production of hydrogen and ammonia, mostly for export, though potentially leaving some for local use, in an area experts call “an irreplaceable global treasure”.

The project would start at the South Australian border and stretch west along the Nullarbor for hundreds of kilometres near the world’s largest arid limestone karst system, which Save the Nullarbor scientists describe as “a spectacular hidden world of ancient caves and rock holes of staggering dimensions, beauty, scientific values, and priceless cultural importance”.

A delegate of federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has determined the project will require a full assessment of its impact on three criteria: threatened species, migratory species and the Great Australian Bight Marine Park.

So we f***ed it up with gas and doing it again with ammonia and hydrogen... at the very least, put a clause to allow national use priority on a percentage of the production

 

[mullokintyre]

Perhaps its a recognition that its policy model was somewhat questionable, the Feds have quietly removed a link to modelling that it used to pledge that it would not only reduce carbon emissions, but would decrease the cost of electricty by $275 this year.
From Evil Murdoch Press

The article goes on to point out that having failed in its electricity price reduction, it is trailing badly in its other ambitious targets.
The projected target of 89% of all new car sales being Electric Vehicles seems particularly ambitious , given that the largest retaier, Tesla , is now persona non gratis with all the fanboys and fangirls.

Mick

 

[qldfrog]

And a summary of the challenge switching fossil gas or adding H2:
Been vocal on this for years but that is an unbiased factual summary

Debunking The Myth: Existing Natural Gas Pipelines Are Not A Cheap Slam Dunk For Transporting Hydrogen - CleanTechnica

Reusing gas pipelines for hydrogen requires costly upgrades. Embrittlement, leaks, and compressor issues make it far from simple.

cleantechnica.com

Critical for our grid if we were going the way of the previous posts to generate h2 via remote solar wind farms and use it in our power plants or for retail domestic use

 

[basilio]

And a summary of the challenge switching fossil gas or adding H2:
Been vocal on this for years but that is an unbiased factual summary

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/03/1...p-slam-dunk-for-transporting-[B]hydrogen/[/B]

Critical for our grid if we were going the way of the previous posts to generate h2 via remote solar wind farms and use it in our power plants or for retail domestic use ???

WTF ? I can't recall any intelligent analysis that would propose such a use of Hydrogen produced at solar/wind farms.
What you might be referring to is using excess solar/wind energy to power a Hydrogen electroliser which then can use hydrogen fuel cells (or a generator) to firm up energy supplies.

With regard to current energy costs this analysis bears a good look.

The epic policy failure that's to blame for rising household power bills

Households are once again bracing for another round of power bill hikes. But for a nation that is one of the world's biggest energy exporters, it's a situation that defies logic and reeks of an epic policy failure.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

WTF ? I can't recall any intelligent analysis that would propose such a use of Hydrogen produced at solar/wind farms.
What you might be referring to is using excess solar/wind energy to power a Hydrogen electroliser which then can use hydrogen fuel cells (or a generator) to firm up energy supplies.

With regard to current energy costs this analysis bears a good look.

The epic policy failure that's to blame for rising household power bills

Households are once again bracing for another round of power bill hikes. But for a nation that is one of the world's biggest energy exporters, it's a situation that defies logic and reeks of an epic policy failure.

www.abc.net.au

Is this what you guys are talking about?
As I keep saying, great ideas, with pizz poor planning and implementation, it was supposed to run on 50% H2 by 2025 and it hasn't even got a gas supply by 2025.
2021:

Labor to unveil support for taxpayer-funded construction of gas-fired power station in the Hunter Valley, but it comes with a caveat

Federal Labor confirms it will back the taxpayer-funded construction of a gas-fired power station in the New South Wales Hunter Valley, under the proviso the facility runs on zero-emissions green hydrogen fuel earlier than expected.

www.abc.net.au

The federal government announced it would spend up to $600 million building the new gas-fired power station in Kurri Kurri in May last year as a way to fill the 1,000-megawatt gap left by the closure of the Liddell power station in 2023.

The decision was criticised by energy analysts and industry representatives, who said it was an unnecessary market intervention that could discourage private investment.

At the time, federal Labor backed those claims and opposed the project, saying the proposal did not stack up, or the market would have decided to build the plant itself.

Under Labor's plan, the plant would initially operate on 30 per cent "green hydrogen," which is a clean energy source made without fossil fuels with an aim to ultimately use the fuel 100 per cent of the time.

Labor argues the plan is in line with its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 if it secures government.

Labor to support $600m Kurri Kurri power plant but only if it runs on green hydrogen by 2030

Anthony Albanese will back controversial Snowy Hydro project that Morrison government has committed to funding

www.theguardian.com

Guardian Australia understands Labor wants the proposed gas “peaking” plant to be powered by 30% hydrogen at the time it becomes operational, promised by next year, and 50% by 2025 and 100% by 2030.

Kurri Kurri Lateral Pipeline, Australia

The Kurri Kurri lateral pipeline located in New South Wales, Australia is anticipated to commence operation in 2024.

www.offshore-technology.com

2025:

Snowy seeks approval to burn six times more diesel than planned at Kurri Kurri gas generator

Snowy Hydro is seeking approval to run the Hunter Power Project entirely on diesel fuel in 2025, in a move that will send the hybrid gas plant’s year-one emissions soaring by up to 80%.

reneweconomy.com.au

Snowy Hydro’s “fast-start, on demand” hybrid hydrogen and gas plant is seeking permission to run entirely on costly and polluting diesel fuel for at least its first year, new documents have revealed, as the over-time and over-budget project continues to fall miserably short of its clean energy ambitions.
The wait for gas comes down to the project’s heavily criticised location beyond the end of the Sydney-Newcastle trunkline, which has meant building a 21km lateral pipeline connection as well as an on-site storage pipeline to the new power plant.

And because it relies on these on site storages, its ability to provide gas back-up in say, the feared “dunkelflautes” (periods of low wind and solar output), would be limited by its inability to operate for than 10 hours before its reserves are exhausted.

“Under the current program, commissioning of the power station is expected to commence in late 2024, but construction of the gas pipeline is not expected to be completed until late 2025.

“The delay in construction of the pipeline is due to a combination of factors that include the time taken for a pipeline licence to be granted … and construction delays caused by wet weather, hot weather and industrial action,” the documents say.

 

[sptrawler]

WTF ? I can't recall any intelligent analysis that would propose such a use of Hydrogen produced at solar/wind farms.
What you might be referring to is using excess solar/wind energy to power a Hydrogen electroliser which then can use hydrogen fuel cells (or a generator) to firm up energy supplies.

With regard to current energy costs this analysis bears a good look.

The epic policy failure that's to blame for rising household power bills

Households are once again bracing for another round of power bill hikes. But for a nation that is one of the world's biggest energy exporters, it's a situation that defies logic and reeks of an epic policy failure.

www.abc.net.au

Hey Bas you reckon things were bad before, the situation ain't getting better, hopefully the renewables pick up the slack, soon.

How much does the Australian government Subsidise coal? Quite a few coal power stations are being propped up by Government injections of money.
From google:

How much is this costing Australia? Australia's subsidies to fossil fuel producers and major users from all governments totalled $14.5 billion in 2023–24, an increase of 31% on the $11.1 billion recorded in 2022–23. $14.5 billion equates to $27,581 for every minute of every day, or $540 for every person in Australia.9 Oct 2024