The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

For a simpler example of all this, trams.

Go back a century or so and many cities built extensive tram systems covering a wide area.

Most of those systems were decommissioned, and usually physically dismantled, within a relatively short period during the 1950's. Many consider that to be a mistake, a view I agree with subject to the detail of any particular circumstance, and have called for the re-introduction of trams.

So why can't we just put the trams back?

Well a tiny amount has been done but here's the problem, it cost an outright fortune to do it and in at least one case it hasn't even been built in a durable manner, meaning ultimately it will have to be done again.

So a century ago society could effectively and economically build tram systems. It wasn't just Melbourne, the other capitals had them to and even much smaller places such as Geelong, Bendigo and Launceston had their own tram systems, typically run by the council with inherently limited financial resources.

Today however trams are $ billions projects to build a tiny length of track. It's cost prohibitive to reinstate even part of the former network despite a far greater population base over which to spread the cost and the great advances in construction machinery that, in theory at least, ought make the job easier.

Explain that and there's the answer.

More competition these days.

Australians prefer cars and therefore roads.

 

[qldfrog]

More competition these days.

Australians prefer cars and therefore roads.

the point is this country is into a technical/engineering decadence.
after doubling its population and new machinery, IT tools,it can accomplish less than it could 60y ago?
Same for a lot of western Europe, not taking an anti Aussie side there.
So the solution of the numpty is importing more baristas who can then master the Lego setup of foreign built imported solar and windfarms, and when they fail import container batteries...
Couldn't the real reason of this renewable push be, above the scientific incompetence on climate warming of the decision makers, the actual inability to engineer anything of substance?

 

[SirRumpole]

But while a communist of some sort government, China is pure capitalistic as an eco system...
The success of China is the success of primal capitalism, a jungle fight and a government who is forward looking

Think tank warns China’s industrial subsidies threaten 73,000 Australian smelting jobs​

"
China’s industrial subsidisation spending now exceeds its defence budget and threatens to devastate Australia’s smelting and refining regions unless urgent government intervention occurs, according to a McKell Institute report released on Wednesday.

The think tank warned that 73,000 jobs across regional Australia are at risk from Beijing’s “geoeconomic interference”, with some towns potentially losing up to 11 per cent of their population if key facilities close.

McKell Institute chief executive Ed Cavanough said China’s strategy aims to onshore global heavy industrial capacity whilst limiting manufacturing viability in competitor economies. “Currently, the government is playing industrial whack-a-mole – working with individual refiners to preserve individual plants as they come under threat,” Cavanough said.


The report highlighted South Australia’s vulnerability, warning Port Pirie could lose around 2,000 residents – its most economically productive families – in the first year following a smelter closure.

The institute recommended the federal government acquire equity stakes in supported businesses, review anti-dumping frameworks, strengthen domestic procurement requirements, and mandate that a proportion of raw materials extracted in Australia must be refined domestically.

Cavanough said the approach represented a shift from reactive responses to structural action. “If the Commonwealth government is serious about preserving Australia’s capacity to manufacture metals – as it should be – then we need decisive structural action now,” he said."

Think tank warns China's industrial subsidies threaten 73,000 Australian smelting jobs - Australian Manufacturing Forum

China’s industrial subsidisation spending now exceeds its defence budget and threatens to devastate Australia’s smelting and refining regions unless urgent government intervention occurs, according to a McKell Institute report released on Wednesday. The think tank warned that 73,000 jobs across...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

A "pure capitalistic" economy does not subsidise at all, it lets companies fend for themselves.

This is clearly not what is happening in the case of China.

 

[qldfrog]

Think tank warns China’s industrial subsidies threaten 73,000 Australian smelting jobs​

"
China’s industrial subsidisation spending now exceeds its defence budget and threatens to devastate Australia’s smelting and refining regions unless urgent government intervention occurs, according to a McKell Institute report released on Wednesday.

The think tank warned that 73,000 jobs across regional Australia are at risk from Beijing’s “geoeconomic interference”, with some towns potentially losing up to 11 per cent of their population if key facilities close.

McKell Institute chief executive Ed Cavanough said China’s strategy aims to onshore global heavy industrial capacity whilst limiting manufacturing viability in competitor economies. “Currently, the government is playing industrial whack-a-mole – working with individual refiners to preserve individual plants as they come under threat,” Cavanough said.


The report highlighted South Australia’s vulnerability, warning Port Pirie could lose around 2,000 residents – its most economically productive families – in the first year following a smelter closure.

The institute recommended the federal government acquire equity stakes in supported businesses, review anti-dumping frameworks, strengthen domestic procurement requirements, and mandate that a proportion of raw materials extracted in Australia must be refined domestically.

Cavanough said the approach represented a shift from reactive responses to structural action. “If the Commonwealth government is serious about preserving Australia’s capacity to manufacture metals – as it should be – then we need decisive structural action now,” he said."

Think tank warns China's industrial subsidies threaten 73,000 Australian smelting jobs - Australian Manufacturing Forum

China’s industrial subsidisation spending now exceeds its defence budget and threatens to devastate Australia’s smelting and refining regions unless urgent government intervention occurs, according to a McKell Institute report released on Wednesday. The think tank warned that 73,000 jobs across...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

A "pure capitalistic" economy does not subsidise at all, it lets companies fend for themselves.

This is clearly not what is happening in the case of China.

that's on top and above.
their government works for the long term benefit of the country, not a globalist agenda.
Australia subsidises solar,batteries, skin colour and genders studies..
and smelters

 

[qldfrog]

back to the basics

Businesses gutted by soaring energy costs

Energy is the bedrock of a modern economy. Without affordable and reliable energy, an economy will experience cost inflation across the supply chain. The energy-intensive manufacturing sector will also shrink as it can no longer break a profit and compete against cheaper imports. Australia’s...

www.macrobusiness.com.au

and the key which has not been understood by our estimed leaders is
Energy is the bedrock of a modern economy.

 

[SirRumpole]

For those interested, ABC TV 12:30 pm 8th October. (or on iView later).

Mark Vassella, BlueScope Managing Director and CEO, will Address the National Press Club of Australia on “Australian gas prices are costing us our manufacturing, jobs, energy transition, and a future made in Australia”.

Australian manufacturing is at a dangerous crossroads.
If industry and government are smart enough to navigate these conditions safely, it will determine whether the manufacturing sector can remain viable in Australia and whether the Federal Government’s “Future Made in Australia” economic policy is achievable.
This looming risk to manufacturing is the result of the long-standing dysfunction of the domestic gas market and the lack of a fair gas price for Australian customers.
Today, on behalf of all 12 members of Manufacturing Australia, I’m proud to officially launch Manufacturing Australia’s campaign for Fair Gas Prices. We are here to call on all right-minded parties to recognise the economic benefit and maintenance of our sovereign capability if we treat our country fairly on gas and allow our manufacturers to compete internationally.
BIO:

 

[sptrawler]

Think tank warns China’s industrial subsidies threaten 73,000 Australian smelting jobs​

"
China’s industrial subsidisation spending now exceeds its defence budget and threatens to devastate Australia’s smelting and refining regions unless urgent government intervention occurs, according to a McKell Institute report released on Wednesday.

The think tank warned that 73,000 jobs across regional Australia are at risk from Beijing’s “geoeconomic interference”, with some towns potentially losing up to 11 per cent of their population if key facilities close.

McKell Institute chief executive Ed Cavanough said China’s strategy aims to onshore global heavy industrial capacity whilst limiting manufacturing viability in competitor economies. “Currently, the government is playing industrial whack-a-mole – working with individual refiners to preserve individual plants as they come under threat,” Cavanough said.


The report highlighted South Australia’s vulnerability, warning Port Pirie could lose around 2,000 residents – its most economically productive families – in the first year following a smelter closure.

The institute recommended the federal government acquire equity stakes in supported businesses, review anti-dumping frameworks, strengthen domestic procurement requirements, and mandate that a proportion of raw materials extracted in Australia must be refined domestically.

Cavanough said the approach represented a shift from reactive responses to structural action. “If the Commonwealth government is serious about preserving Australia’s capacity to manufacture metals – as it should be – then we need decisive structural action now,” he said."

Think tank warns China's industrial subsidies threaten 73,000 Australian smelting jobs - Australian Manufacturing Forum

China’s industrial subsidisation spending now exceeds its defence budget and threatens to devastate Australia’s smelting and refining regions unless urgent government intervention occurs, according to a McKell Institute report released on Wednesday. The think tank warned that 73,000 jobs across...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

A "pure capitalistic" economy does not subsidise at all, it lets companies fend for themselves.

This is clearly not what is happening in the case of China.

Well it isn't as though we haven't known this is happening and it's going to get worse.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well it isn't as though we haven't known this is happening and it's going to get worse.

Of course, but you can't call it "capitalism".

 

[sptrawler]

Of course, but you can't call it "capitalism".

The 'capitalists' will ride the the horse into the ground and then just move onto another horse.
For some reason the loonies feel that they have some sort of loyalty to the greater good, they are a business not a social organisation, their main function is to make money as efficiently as possible.
If the gas company can pay less tax, they will, that's their job.

 

[qldfrog]

Of course, but you can't call it "capitalism".

no it is called socialism or rotten capitalism, deciding who the winner is, energy wise, 30y ago, based on net zero, subsidies and regulatory issues , but also in many other areas in the west.
if there is one area in Australia where capitalism is completely out, it is energy.

 

[SirRumpole]

f the gas company can pay less tax, they will, that's their job.

Of course, but it's up to the government to ensure that what companies do is in the national interest.

 

[sptrawler]

Of course, but it's up to the government to ensure that what companies do is in the national interest.

Absolutely, it's the Governments responsibility to look at the long term ramifications, but Governments have tried to outsource that to the companies.


And on the same note:

Gas crisis threatens Whyalla rescue bid, steel giant warns

Australia’s top steelmaker has urged the Albanese government to stare down gas exporters and force them to cut prices if it wants to prevent factory closures.

www.theage.com.au

Australia’s largest steelmaker, BlueScope, warns a shortage of affordable gas on the eastern seaboard could prevent it from lobbing a bid to rescue the collapsed Whyalla steelworks, as it steps up calls for the Albanese government to force prices lower.

BlueScope is leading a consortium that’s considering a joint bid to buy the beleaguered South Australian steel mill, which had been owned by British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta but was placed into administration this year.

 

[sptrawler]

With regard the gas situation, which @Smurf1976 has been highlighting endlessly, how long did Victoria have a moratorium on gas exploration?

Don’t scapegoat Queensland LNG for gas shortages

Manufacturers’ myopic focus on exports ignores more than a decade of unheeded warnings about, and inaction over, the threat of future gas shortfalls.

www.afr.com

Last week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) confirmed what gas producers and users have known for years – that the complex patchwork of regulations governing the East Coast gas market is actually making things worse.

The regulations that are meant to ensure a well-supplied and functioning market have not only failed to add any material volumes of new gas, they “appear to have had the unintended consequence of exacerbating the risk of domestic supply shortfalls,” the ACCC concluded.

It also warned the East Coast faces gas shortfalls from 2028 “despite there being sufficient reserves and resources for at least the next decade.”

Australian gas producers and users agree that the status quo is not working for anyone. The Federal Government has also recognised this, taking the important step of establishing the Gas Market Review with an aim to “improve and streamline these instruments to ensure sufficient affordable gas supply in the longer term”.

The review presents an opportunity to future-proof the gas market and break the cycle of short-term fixes, market interventions and looming shortfalls.

This requires a return to a strong, stable and competitive gas market that delivers more gas when and where it’s needed, while providing certainty for existing and future investment.

Delivering reforms that strike the right balance – between gas producers and gas users, and between near-term and longer-term solutions – won’t be easy. Natural gas is essential for providing reliable and affordable electricity, for heating and cooking in more than five million Australian homes, and as the main source of energy for manufacturers.

The Government is acutely aware that its Future Made in Australia is contingent on ensuring reliable and affordable gas supply – natural gas provides almost 40 per cent of energy used in Australian manufacturing, and it is the only viable energy source for many industries.

Self-serving calls from some large manufacturers for more government intervention and price controls in the gas market are not the answer. As the ACCC confirmed, past gas market interventions have done more harm than good, and “there are limits to what the gas policy measures can achieve on their own if the underlying causes of inadequate supply and ineffective competition are not addressed.”

What is needed is a considered package of reforms that address barriers to new supply, support continued investment in new gas supply and infrastructure, and provide long-term certainty to all market participants.


The simple truth is that the only sustainable way to put downward pressure on prices and ensure a well-supplied gas market is to increase supply.

A well-designed, prospective reservation policy for the East Coast that is linked to new supply can be part of the solution. However, it must be backed by immediate actions to address near-term challenges.

Key among these is fixing environmental approvals that are delaying projects, increasing costs and driving away investment. The Federal Government’s commitment to overhaul the national environmental laws to deliver faster and simpler approvals is a welcome first step.

The states must also do their part, especially Victoria and NSW – those most at risk of gas shortfalls and which have done the least to support new gas development. Santos’ Narrabri gas project, for example, which could supply half of NSW’s annual gas demand, remains mired in regulatory approvals and legal challenges after more than a decade.

Queensland’s LNG exports have become a convenient scapegoat, with calls for government intervention to force uncontracted gas to be diverted to the domestic market. But this myopic focus on exports ignores more than a decade of unheeded warnings and inaction on the need for new gas supply and infrastructure to avoid future shortfalls.

It also ignores the fact that access to export markets was essential to the development of Queensland’s gas industry, and remains essential today. Without continued investment in Queensland gas supply, underpinned by access to international markets, the East Coast faces an even worse supply outlook.


Australia doesn’t have to choose between the domestic market and exports. We have enough undeveloped gas to meet our long-term energy needs and remain a reliable energy partner in our region. What is needed is policy certainty and stability for gas producers and users alike.

Australian gas producers, as much as their customers, want and need a well-supplied, affordable gas market. The Gas Market Review has provided the opportunity to work together to address the causes, not just the symptoms, and fix the gas market once and for all.

 

[mullokintyre]

Absolutely.

And on the same note:

Gas crisis threatens Whyalla rescue bid, steel giant warns

Australia’s top steelmaker has urged the Albanese government to stare down gas exporters and force them to cut prices if it wants to prevent factory closures.

www.theage.com.au

Australia’s largest steelmaker, BlueScope, warns a shortage of affordable gas on the eastern seaboard could prevent it from lobbing a bid to rescue the collapsed Whyalla steelworks, as it steps up calls for the Albanese government to force prices lower.

BlueScope is leading a consortium that’s considering a joint bid to buy the beleaguered South Australian steel mill, which had been owned by British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta but was placed into administration this year.

Well, the government has set the precedent by promising Glencore a AUD600million lifeline to keep the Mt Isa copper smelter going according to The AFR .
At least South32 is an Australian owned company, unlike Glencore which is owned by theose sneaky Swiss.
Why they did not demand some equity in the business, I just don't understand.
Giving momey away to keep jobs maybe?
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

What's the alternative when gas runs out I wonder?

 

[qldfrog]

What's the alternative when gas runs out I wonder?

but but solar farms, windmills and imported batteries of course Mr Rumpole
Who needs the remaing 5% of manufacturing in Australia anyway when we can buy Chinese,
(but for weapons where we buy US to fight China..of course)
Could nearly be a comedy, and I am French born, so know much about comedy and politics, and incompetence

 

[Smurf1976]

What's the alternative when gas runs out I wonder?

First a few pictures.

From the previously linked video, Poatina generates 342MW and, not featured in that video, downstream of it there's another dam, another tunnel and another power station, Trevallyn, generating 100MW re-using the same water as well as water from other sources. This was built as a separate project. There's also a trivial scale generator at Tods Corner as part of it, capacity 1.6MW, which recovers some of the energy used in pumping from Arthurs Lake.

This diagram shows the whole scheme (adding for clarity this is by no means the only hydro scheme in Tasmania, it's just the particular scheme of relevance here):

Now here's a photo of a former (now demolished) coal plant in NSW at Tallawarra:

Note the overall scale of the site compared to trees, vehicles, transmission towers etc and also consider that to make it work there's a need to constantly mine coal, transport that coal to the pile in the background, and also to dispose of the ash after burning it.

Now I picked this station for good reason, it's about the same scale as Poatina. Fully operational Tallawarra generated 320MW, comprised of 120MW from the "A" station (foreground) and 200MW from the "B" station at rear with taller stack.

Now here's a more recent photo of the same site as it looks today:

What you're looking at there is two separate gas-fired plants. On the left is "B" station (reverse order to the old coal stations) with capacity of 316MW by itself, an on the right is the older "A" station at 435MW.

This is the exact same site as the coal plant. The old was demolished to ground level and the new was built but it's the exact same place, indeed the new "A" station uses the sea water canal for cooling water that's a leftover from the coal stations.

Now compare the simplicity and small scale of that versus coal or hydro. Each of those two gas-fired units is about the same capacity as both former coal plants combined or to Poatina.

Per MW of capacity, it's drastically easier to build gas, and also runs into a lot fewer objections given there's no coal mine, no ash dump, no dams or canals, etc. Given all the equipment is "off the shelf" on the engineering side, it's a comparative cinch both intellectually and physically.

But there's a problem, a big one.

Poatina's "fuel" literally falls out of the sky and lands on the ground. Whilst the quantity that falls in any given year is limited, ultimately it's a 100% renewable natural resource.

Coal is not a renewable fuel, it's a finite resource, but it's a very abundant one. There's lot of the stuff.

Gas however is very different. It is non-renewable and reasonably limited at least in terms of known reserves relative to consumption. With an added problem that most known reserves are in problematic places and another problem that we need rather a lot of the stuff for purposes other than electricity generation that cannot easily be replaced by anything else.

Based on EIA (US government) data from 2021, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, USA, UK, Norway and all EU countries combined have 12.0% of world reserves with Australia itself at 1.5%

Therein lies a huge geopolitical problem. Apart from the 12% in the West, the rest is just about all in places that have enough people and economic activity such that they'll reserve that gas for their own use or it's in places that have serious problems with wars, internal dysfunction and so on. Most of that 88% isn't going to be available to the West, at least not reliably and peacefully.

Once you consider that, then consider the need for gas as a direct use fuel (that is, for things that don't involve generating electricity), all of a sudden it's rather valuable.

That's the bit that neither side of this debate seems able to comprehend. That it's not all about electricity, that we need fuel, in particular oil and gas, for rather a lot of things most of which aren't power stations. That even if we go 100% to renewables or nuclear for electricity, we're still going to be using very substantial quantities of oil and gas for other purposes and those aren't going away, they're here for the foreseeable future.

Taking SA as the example, even if gas use for electricity was reduced to zero, which is not proposed to actually be done by anyone at present, then once we factor in ongoing use in other sectors and expected growth in some of those, in 2050 SA will still be using 75 - 80% as much gas as it does today.

Aggressive electrification in the non-industrial sector could get that down to 60 - 65% of present gas volumes in 2050. Not that anyone is actually proposing to do that - I'm a strong advocate for it, but it's not happening in practice, there's no denying that.

Now to be clear those volumes are assuming the other states, that is in practice the eastern states, can provide deep firming for SA's electricity supply thus removing the need to do it with gas. To do that they'd have to build the required infrastructure, and that is of course rather pointless if they just did it using gas themselves, it only makes sense if they do it with some other means eg hydro. Or if some other new tech comes along and saves the day.

In the absence of that, so that is using gas to firm electricity as is envisaged at present, then SA's total gas consumption only comes down about 4% from present levels in the absence of any move to change the trajectory of non-electricity gas consumption. Or in practical terms, growth in other sectors offsets the declining use for electricity.

Bearing in mind that last option is the actual plan, the federal government one. The first two, those that reduce gas consumption more substantially, is just me saying what's possible but suffice to say I'm not a politician.

Noting the above is specific to SA and embeds some information regarding specific industrial projects and assuming they proceed. Other states have different circumstances so the figures should not be applied nationally.

That leaves two problems:

1. Obtaining sufficient gas on a long term basis at an affordable price.

2. All this talk of net zero. How, exactly, does government propose to make the numbers add up whilst using gas to firm electricity supply and continuing with the use of gas for non-critical purposes in homes and the commercial sector?

One doesn't need to be on any particular side of the political fence to see a problem there. It's just maths.

 

[Smurf1976]

As I said, it's not just Snowy 2.0

The entire process by which government runs physical works is flawed.

 

[qldfrog]

As I said, it's not just Snowy 2.0

The entire process by which government runs physical works is flawed.

i was going to pick a " i love" or "I laugh" meme for that video but it is truly abysmal in its accuracy and revelation of pathetic management.
people keep banging about how expensive the average house is, how young generation is doomed by $1m average house.
if the overrun of ONE office renovation budget by the RBA is $1 billion or 1000 average house, i guess average houses are pretty cheap, should i say given?
and the budget overun on Snowy 2 is what a small town , 20,000 average houses?
To compare living standard, there is the hamburger index, we should use the average house index for infrastructure, which currently is focused on NetZero related projects, we do not build anything else in 2025 Australia
People have lost notion of money past the million dollar.

 

[sptrawler]

i was going to pick a " i love" or "I laugh" meme for that video but it is truly abysmal in its accuracy and revelation of pathetic management.
people keep banging about how expensive the average house is, how young generation is doomed by $1m average house.
if the overrun of ONE office renovation budget by the RBA is $1 billion or 1000 average house, i guess average houses are pretty cheap, should i say given?
and the budget overun on Snowy 2 is what a small town , 20,000 average houses?
To compare living standard, there is the hamburger index, we should use the average house index for infrastructure, which currently is focused on NetZero related projects, we do not build anything else in 2025 Australia
People have lost notion of money past the million dollar.

As we keep saying, these days to be successful in business or politics, it is all about presentation and optics, not about outcomes.