The future of energy generation and storage

sptrawler said:

Six years ago, the West Australian Govt cancelled a deal for the company to build a wave farm in the Great Southern region near Albany.16 Apr 2019.

Further strife for Carnegie as value of 'world-leading' wave technology slashed

It was valued at $83 million in June 2017, but Carnegie Clean Energy's CETO wave technology is now worth just $15 million, despite governments pouring tens of millions into the supposedly world-leading company.

www.abc.net.au

It did stay afloat.

Carnegie Clean Energy scrapes together funds to recapitalise wave business

Carnegie relies on third party investors to help reach minimum fund raising target for the re-capitalisation of its wave energy business.

reneweconomy.com.au

Carnegie has since sought to raise funds that would allow the company to re-focus its efforts on the development and commercialisation of the CETO wave energy technology.

Carnegie’s re-capitalisation plan aimed to raise a minimum of $5.5 million in new shareholder capital that would allow the company to undertake a more streamlined approach to research and development and hoped to raise up to $11.5 million which would have provided the company a greater buffer in working capital, better manage historical debts and allow for an expanded research and development program.


March 2025

Carnegie secures more funding for Spain wave energy project

Australian wave energy developer Carnegie Clean Energy has secured more than $545,000 in funding to push forward its plans to deliver and operate a 400 kW version of its ‘CETO’ wave power generation system in waters off the coast of Spain.

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

Australian wave energy developer Carnegie Clean Energy has secured more than $545,000 in funding to push forward its plans to deliver and operate a 400 kW version of its ‘CETO’ wave power generation system in waters off the coast of Spain.

Click to expand...

A future for Spain but not Aus apparently.

sptrawler said:

Six years ago, the West Australian Govt cancelled a deal for the company to build a wave farm in the Great Southern region near Albany.16 Apr 2019.

Further strife for Carnegie as value of 'world-leading' wave technology slashed

It was valued at $83 million in June 2017, but Carnegie Clean Energy's CETO wave technology is now worth just $15 million, despite governments pouring tens of millions into the supposedly world-leading company.

www.abc.net.au

It did stay afloat.

Carnegie Clean Energy scrapes together funds to recapitalise wave business

Carnegie relies on third party investors to help reach minimum fund raising target for the re-capitalisation of its wave energy business.

reneweconomy.com.au

Carnegie has since sought to raise funds that would allow the company to re-focus its efforts on the development and commercialisation of the CETO wave energy technology.

Carnegie’s re-capitalisation plan aimed to raise a minimum of $5.5 million in new shareholder capital that would allow the company to undertake a more streamlined approach to research and development and hoped to raise up to $11.5 million which would have provided the company a greater buffer in working capital, better manage historical debts and allow for an expanded research and development program.


March 2025

Carnegie secures more funding for Spain wave energy project

Australian wave energy developer Carnegie Clean Energy has secured more than $545,000 in funding to push forward its plans to deliver and operate a 400 kW version of its ‘CETO’ wave power generation system in waters off the coast of Spain.

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

Australian wave energy developer Carnegie Clean Energy has secured more than $545,000 in funding to push forward its plans to deliver and operate a 400 kW version of its ‘CETO’ wave power generation system in waters off the coast of Spain.

Click to expand...

Yeap. These one..even sucking money from Spain, such a model of alternative power... LoL

SirRumpole said:

A future for Spain but not Aus apparently.

Click to expand...

Thanks God indeed

qldfrog said:

Thanks God indeed

Click to expand...

Another piece of innovation that has gone offshore and will no doubt be a winner.

farmerge said:

Another piece of innovation that has gone offshore and will no doubt be a winner.

Click to expand...

Definitely not for that one

Which I can summarise as: come, come little sucker, buy and maintain a power generator and we will make sure we will suck you dry and make you pay for the privilege of green pretence
And now the taxpayers are going to multiply the scheme
From their ABC and not the nazi Murdoch press

qldfrog said:

An energy giant 'drained' this householder's battery

In the rush to install ever more solar and, now, batteries on people's homes, one consumer warns of the risks of giving control to big energy.

www.abc.net.au

Which I can summarise as: come, come little sucker, buy and maintain a power generator and we will make sure we will suck you dry and make you pay for the privilege of green pretence
And now the taxpayers are going to multiply the scheme
From their ABC and not the nazi Murdoch press

Click to expand...

One area where there needs to be more government ownership and control.

SirRumpole said:

One area where there needs to be more government ownership and control.

Click to expand...

I did say be careful what you sign up for, a while back Noel Whitaker did an article on the issue and he actually has a battery.

From what I've read the rebate is dependent on you signing up for the battery to be VPP compliant, which will mean that the grid decides whether it needs to use your battery or not.

from the above figures, do we agree that it is a null sum exercise
2 cases:
if you have the cash and borrow these $17000, it will cost you around (6% interest rate) $1000 a year to save $720 and lose the whole $17000 at the end of the 15y life expectancy so loser loser;
DO NOT DO IT
If you have the cash spare: you save $720 a year and break even by life expectancy.So null sum at best 15y later
Obviously, you could have this money in a term deposit bringing you 4% or $680 a year ,less after tax but I did not factor any compounding and still have your 17000 capital in 15y instead of paying for disposal by then
Let's not forget this is an ideal story, your inverters will probably die before the 15y, maybe even the batteries..all risks, repairs, grilled gecko on you!!Not to mention the retrospective changes, added grid fees etc we are getting used to here
So the question I have:
is that basic unfairness actually a gift to our poorer taxpayers who will NOT take on the scheme and so save money...

qldfrog said:

from the above figures, do we agree that it is a null sum exercise
2 cases:
if you have the cash and borrow these $17000, it will cost you around (6% interest rate) $1000 a year to save $720 and lose the whole $17000 at the end of the 15y life expectancy so loser loser;
DO NOT DO IT
If you have the cash spare: you save $720 a year and break even by life expectancy.So null sum at best 15y later
Obviously, you could have this money in a term deposit bringing you 4% or $680 a year ,less after tax but I did not factor any compounding and still have your 17000 capital in 15y instead of paying for disposal by then
Let's not forget this is an ideal story, your inverters will probably die before the 15y, maybe even the batteries..all risks, repairs, grilled gecko on you!!Not to mention the retrospective changes, added grid fees etc we are getting used to here
So the question I have:
is that basic unfairness actually a gift to our poorer taxpayers who will NOT take on the scheme and so save money...

Click to expand...

It does depend on how much power is used per year and also how much is needed at night so it will vary so much for each user.

My total power bill would be about $4,500 pa but with solar and battery it is less than $1000.

I realise that I could have solar without a battery and I would still save quite a lot but the battery completes the setup.

Recently we had a black out for 48 hours and we were quite ok, we did not have everything working but we had lights and enough power points to get by.

If we did not have the battery our solar panels can't island and would have switched off, a mate has got twice as many panels as me but he had no power because he does not have a battery.

We have an asthmatic in the family so we try to be a bit cautious with our power arrangements

In NSW the chance of regular blackouts over the next decade is rather high so we made the move to solar, no regrets so far

macca said:

It does depend on how much power is used per year and also how much is needed at night so it will vary so much for each user.

My total power bill would be about $4,500 pa but with solar and battery it is less than $1000.

I realise that I could have solar without a battery and I would still save quite a lot but the battery completes the setup.

Recently we had a black out for 48 hours and we were quite ok, we did not have everything working but we had lights and enough power points to get by.

If we did not have the battery our solar panels can't island and would have switched off, a mate has got twice as many panels as me but he had no power because he does not have a battery.

We have an asthmatic in the family so we try to be a bit cautious with our power arrangements

In NSW the chance of regular blackouts over the next decade is rather high so we made the move to solar, no regrets so far

Click to expand...

I am fully off grid battery and solar so not opposed per say, and in our case, this avoids a 60k connection fee so choice is easy
but the fact remains that it is still not economically viable for someone already on the grid
as for keeping power on..a $500 generator can do it.
I seriously doubt your batteries save you $3500 a year, maybe your solar does yes but doubt the battery.
Feel free to get back to a spreadsheet, if only for yourself: i and probably others would be keen to see how it could be actually money worthy

qldfrog said:

I am fully off grid battery and solar so not opposed per say, and in our case, this avoids a 60k connection fee so choice is easy
but the fact remains that it is still not economically viable for someone already on the grid
as for keeping power on..a $500 generator can do it.
I seriously doubt your batteries save you $3500 a year, maybe your solar does yes but doubt the battery.
Feel free to get back to a spreadsheet, if only for yourself: i and probably others would be keen to see how it could be actually money worthy

Click to expand...

I did acknowledge that without the battery we would still save money but we feel the battery is worthwhile for us.

We would rather have the small saving (mainly overnight) and be able to benefit from our panels when blackouts happen.

NSW is between a rock and a hardplace with power generation and it will get worse quite soon.

We intend to move from here within 5 years so having solar and battery in place will be a selling point IMO

macca said:

I did acknowledge that without the battery we would still save money but we feel the battery is worthwhile for us.

We would rather have the small saving (mainly overnight) and be able to benefit from our panels when blackouts happen.

NSW is between a rock and a hardplace with power generation and it will get worse quite soon.

We intend to move from here within 5 years so having solar and battery in place will be a selling point IMO

Click to expand...

Ok, i get this, not a $ value but a security.

macca said:

I did acknowledge that without the battery we would still save money but we feel the battery is worthwhile for us.

We would rather have the small saving (mainly overnight) and be able to benefit from our panels when blackouts happen.

NSW is between a rock and a hardplace with power generation and it will get worse quite soon.

We intend to move from here within 5 years so having solar and battery in place will be a selling point IMO

Click to expand...

Hi Macca, is your battery controlled by wifi from system control, or does it only supply your place.

sptrawler said:

Hi Macca, is your battery controlled by wifi from system control, or does it only supply your place.

Click to expand...

Just for our use, it is a Tesla and is enough for us, we usually have about 50% left in the mornings if it is 100% the day before

macca said:

Just for our use, it is a Tesla and is enough for us, we usually have about 50% left in the mornings if it is 100% the day before

Click to expand...

And therein lies the crux of the matter.
Well done Macca, you're a legend.

qldfrog said:

from the above figures, do we agree that it is a null sum exercise

Click to expand...

It's actually somewhat worse at an overall societal level.

Using figures for SA, following are the network usage charges for residential consumers. That is in simple terms the charge for use of the transmission and distribution systems:

All other times = 18.79c / kWh
1am - 6am = 7.56c / kWh
10am - 3pm = 3.81c / kWh

Plus fixed supply charge of 57.53 cents per day.

These rates do not include GST and note these are the network prices only, they aren't retail pricing which is a lot higher than that.

Now what the issue is quite simply is those prices don't really reflect costs. Because in truth it costs effectively zero to run electricity through the network outside the peaks, meaning the true cost is zero at any time that isn't 5pm - 9pm.

So what's the justification for charging then? Well that's because the real actual cost is made up of fixed costs which are not dependent on usage, and a peak capacity cost which is dependent on usage only during the peak.

Now turning the clock back 30 years and heading down to Tasmania, there was an attempt to recover actual fixed network costs via a fixed network charge, then recover only the variable costs via consumption pricing.

Sounds fair? Well mathematically it is yes. Ended up with serious political fallout however, big time. To the point that other states, all of which had similar thoughts at the time, have never been willing to try it and it's still viewed with caution 30 years later.

Trouble is a pricing system that relies on consumers using roughly equal amounts of electricity doesn't work too well when a portion of them have the option to generate their own, in doing so avoiding paying not only for variable costs (where there's a genuine saving) but also avoiding paying for fixed costs that are simply shifted onto other consumers.

It also has the perverse outcome that it's actually cheaper for a consumer in SA to buy gas than it is to buy otherwise curtailed (effectively wasted) solar energy during the 10am - 3pm period from already built solar farms. So we have the bizarre situation of a state with the world's highest use of VRE (Variable Renewable Energy - wind and solar) as a % of total supply into a large system also has an almost absolute market share for gas water heating in new homes in metropolitan Adelaide. You'd need to look at an awful lot of new houses to find one that doesn't have gas, it's up around 95 - 96% in new subdivisions.

That said, I'm not begrudging anyone doing what's in their own interests under the circumstance as they exist, my comment's in the context of society overall.

Personally I've got solar on the roof and I have a battery. And I'm in the minority with electric (heat pump) water heating - and yep, it's timed so that it does 100% of its heating during the middle of the day when that'll not always but will often put otherwise curtailed solar (large scale not households) to some use, and on overcast days it's at least adding load to the more efficient thermal generation not the old clunkers.

I think we need to see batteries +solar coming scheme along 2 views:
#The grid.. beneficial of cause if implemented property
#The purchaser of the battery
It seems from the figures given in post above that adding a battery in a household connected to the grid is a waste of money..meaning, there is no return on investment, it is a cost EVEN after a government subsidy.
People might do it for safety/blackout insurance, or prefering to save the planet by giving China coal plant work and lithium mines in Chile the opportunity to use big Komatsu haulers.
But the cost of the battery and installation/, maintenance will never be paid back to the subsidised purchaser.
If it is so, and so far noone has shown me any different figures, we should make sure our friends and family are aware if they engage in the scheme.
Unless you take the cynical view of:
Let the suckers join and voluntarily pay to subsidize my grid.
Note once again that i am discussing adding a battery to a household system.solar in itself coupled with wise consumption timing is profitable

There are all sorts of prices charged by companies to install batteries. We know that battery prices are falling rapidly. How much is that going to reflected in quotes for installations?

It got me wondering about how practical it would be for more direct purchase and installation of home battery packages. There are electrical safeguards to be sure but I came across these prices for batteries on TEMU.

3.8 Kwh battery for $645 ? 15,000 Cycles. Three of these would be sufficient for most households.

And now a controller between the batteries and the solar panels ?