The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Electricity price increases: gold plating or carbon dating? > Comments

Electricity price increases: gold plating or carbon dating? : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 16/8/2012

Is Julia Gillard trying to wedge Tony Abbott on electricity prices.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
A good article, which shows that Gillard is all about political spin on this one too.

I want to know where this gold plating is, apart from the cities of course. There are something like 8.5 million power poles, 70% of which are over 35 years old. At the moment many of those are being propped up with a bit of extra steel support, as we've had so many fires start from old poles, here in WA. Where I live, we still have a power blackout about once a month, for a few hours at a time.

So no gold plating, more like a network that urgently needed updating, which they are now finally starting to address.

That was critical. Subsidies paid to solar panel owners and the carbon tax, both adding huge amounts to electricity bills, had nothing to do with being critical. Add the extra cost of green energy, as is highlighted in the article, and yes, power charges have increased quite a bit, even in WA, where the Govt owns the system.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 August 2012 9:10:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The PM is correct in finally seeing that 'gold plating' of networks is happening. The components of a NSW power bill are:

Networks 49.7%
Retail 10.4%
Energy Cost 25.6%
RET scheme 6.7%
Carbon tax 7.6%

Cost of cleaning up energy is 14.3% of the bill compared to network costs of 49.7%.
How do you get 29%? CEFC and ARENA are covered by the carbon price. Perhaps you are 'creatively' double counting them?

Yes the carbon price and RET are supposed to make electricity more expensive (currently 14.3% more expensive for retail customers). They are already working and have increased renewable generation (RE) from about 5% to 9% of total generation, brought RE costs down and effectively stopped any new dirty coal generation. The carbon price will be much more effective when the exempted resource corporations are actually made to pay it.

The real point that the PM has realized is that that spending huge amounts on centralized networks to provide peak power for air conditioners for a several days of the year is the WRONG way to go. The PM was right to point this out. A dispersed grid with more dispersed renewable generation and storage is what is needed for the future.

Anthony the obfustation you and your front organization Climate Sceptics are disseminating is becoming widely known for the fraud it is. Similar tactics were used against tobacco regulation, cleaning up acid rain, nuclear non-proliferation; the list goes on, and many of the same people were involved. Big polluting industries (read fossil fuel organizations)fund this nonsense to try and defend their profits for just a few more years. Oreske et al's 'Merchants of Doubt' documents all of this.

PS Viva the recent court decision for plain packaging of cigarettes! But we should never forget that the tobacco industry staved this off for 30 years with their orchestrated campaign of lies. We must not let the fossil fuel industry do the same with carbon regulation.
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 16 August 2012 9:59:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All states see advantages of higher power prices, and coincidently at the same time. 70% surge in power prices without detail. I say this is a combination of falling power consumption, govt; dividends, and carbon tax.
An inquiry into these costings are needed, to see who gets what.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:03:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1 says this;

"Networks 49.7%
Retail 10.4%
Energy Cost 25.6%
RET scheme 6.7%
Carbon tax 7.6%

Cost of cleaning up energy is 14.3% of the bill compared to network costs of 49.7%."

A link to the source is necessary to establish that these figures haven't been made up because they contradict the Federal government's figures.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The combined ho hum is deafening.

There is a consensus all right, just it's not about Global warming.

No, it is a consensus that her lips are moving again, so she must be lying.

Unlike the pretend global warming consensus, this one is fully factual. Yes she's lying again, or is that still.

You do have to feel a little sorry for those still rusted on Laborites. There is so much empty rust, where so many have now fallen off, there must be no where for them to get a grip.

When will they learn? The only way to make Gillard more popular is to lock her in a camera proof, sound proof room, for a few years. It will only be after some years with out ever hearing or seeing her, that some will start to forget just how thoroughly bad she is.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:12:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite/roses1

Actually roses1's figures are somewhere close to reality.. there is a breakup in an IPART (NSW pricing tribunal) report I saw.. It is generally acknowledged that most of the increase in power prices is due to the changes in the networks and, as the author notes, a part of that is due to need to meet new network standards.

However, where Roses1 errs is in saying its the cost of cleaning up the power supply.. it isn't.. Both the carbon tax and the existing RET have very little effect on the system. However, at present wind accounts for about 3 per cent of the power generated but if demand remains subdued as it has, and the government does not change its target (set as an absolute amount of about 45 Twhrs from memory)then RET costs could be eight times what they are now by 2020.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:00:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon; there is a fair bit of difference between the figures the feds have put out:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/07/carbon-battle-1.jpg

And what the NSW Government have put out; for instance nearly 6% difference in the cost of the electricity. I also can't see any allowance or inclusion of what the Feed in Tariff is costing, which was estimated in this article to be $140 per year per residential bill.

Does anyone know what the electricity is costing? The customer only has 3 things to go; the rate per KwH, which has gone up, the total usage, which in most cases has gone down, the additions, the CO2 tax and AGW/Green imposts, which have gone up.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:33:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From an electrical engineer's experience, the term "gold plating" is thrown around by accountants who have little to no concept of cost vs benefit.

An old electrical network can be compared to a 20yr old Volkswagen beetle. It gets you and your partner from A to B reasonably reliably. However, as your family grows, you need a bigger car. Then you start looking at safety such as air bags and crumple zones, reliability etc. Many of the journeys will still have only one person, but the larger car is essential some of the time. Is this gold plating? A Ferrari would definitely be, a station wagon would not.

The cost of losing power is vast. Imagine at peak time (about 6-7pm) when people are making dinner, the system overloads and trips. Thousands of families can't cook, watch TV, or do their homework. Small businesses such as restaurants have to close for the night and lose thousands for a $100 worth of power.

Large manufacturing concerns such as the one I work for have dual independent feeds, as the loss of power for 1/2 an hour will shut the plant for 6 hrs and cost 3 wks worth of electricity in lost production. A productivity investigation would reasonably quickly be able to determine the cost benefit relationship at various levels of investment. Given that this system upgrade was driven by the Unions, there may very well be gold plating, but I wouldn't take Juliar's word for it.

Also, Juliar crying foul after Labor has spent the money is more than a little rich.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 16 August 2012 1:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well anyone who opens their eyes, can see where the money is going. They had to replace a pole here recently, as the top had cracked, which was noticed when the helicopter flying around and checking every pole, picked it up. First we had a crew inspecting the pole, then eventually a crew of about 8 men and 4 vehicles to replace it.

I'd hate to think what the whole exercise cost, but my neighbour did burn down one of their poles by accident and IIRC the bill came to something like 7000$ to replace it. Multiply that out over 8.5 million poles and you have serious money involved
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 August 2012 1:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that blaming state govts for unprecedented energy price rise is a fair; given, it is states who control the wholesale/retail electricity prices. Besides, Abbott and others seemed to think it fair to blame Gillard for every pre carbon tax price rise!
My power bill doubled and then doubled again the last two years of a Captain Bligh government.
The excuse trotted out was, a shortage of water.
We've got no shortage of water now, and no price reduction!
The states gas business was privatised just a few years ago. The very first consequence? A 400% price rise! And here's the federal govt, shouting from the rooftops, they're our resources!
It's our coal and our power stations, not a gravy train to be plundered by state pollies, simply too unimaginative, to try anything else, even as our manufacturing heads offshore, to seek lower prices.
Coal-fired power cost around 3-4 cents PKH to make. Add in the carbon tax and it goes to 4-5 cents, add a 100% mark-up retail component, and it could be 8-10 cents?
[9 cents retail in many parts of the completely privatised USA?]
Every thing else above that number is BS by the SHIPLOAD, or Gold plated delivery systems.
We consumers need other options, to introduce genuine competition, such as state gas supply being converted to power and free hot water in the home, via the roll out of heavily subsidised ceramic fuel cells.
And that would be a very clever way to stimulate manufacturing, the economy and subsequent tax receipts!
Any money outlay, could be recovered via increased NG charges, over say 10 years.
Underground pipes don't rot or blow over with every high wind or burn down with every fire storm; or indeed, create said fire storm, with massive loss of life and property, after being blown down.
I don't see any so called state or federal leader, with the testicular fortitude to reverse recent trends, and reinvent (a) public energy corporation(s), mandated to bring downward pressure on energy prices, via the implementation of genuine competition; and or, lower cost alternatives!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 16 August 2012 2:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite
take your point on the figures but actualy the agreement is reasonably close considering one is for NSW and one is national.. and I did say somewhere close to reality..

Looking for an exact figure is probably a waste of time in any case. But as a rule of thumb.. about half for wholesale costs, another quarter to one third for actually generating the stuff, plus another 10 per cent on admin.. and the rest on carbon/green? Or does that not sound fair?

Wholesale power prices have been falling of late, incidentally, despite the green idiocy... because demand has been falling..

Yabby - you're in WA right? That's a whole different ball game.. all the arguement has been over the East Aus grid which isn't connected.. but you're power prices have been going up to, I take it??

Shadow Minister - some good points there.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 August 2012 2:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

I live in WA and my bill has at least doubled in the past few years...same issues I think. Updating infrastructure etc.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Thursday, 16 August 2012 2:37:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for validating my figures Curm; they were from http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/five-things-we-learned-this-week-and-tony-abbott-didnt-18907/cappo.

My impression is that you are a good enough journo when it comes to researching facts. Its in the analysis / opinion side of a piece where bias comes in and that's where yours and mine differ.

"Both the carbon tax and the existing RET have very little effect on the system".....? RET alone has given us 3% renewable electricity - from wind, biomass and solar PV - over 10 years. That's without the carbon price, which will nearly double the incentive.

"..if demand remains subdued as it has, and the government does not change its target (set as an absolute amount of about 45 Twhrs from memory)then RET costs could be eight times what they are now by 2020......" You are saying REC's could cost over $200 by 2010!! I don't think so.

My own study - ch 20 of 'The_Biochar_Revolution' (http://biochar-books.com)- shows clearly that the current price about $38 for Large Scale Generations Certificates (http://lgc.mercari.com.au/)plus a $30/tCO2 carbon price would enable at least 5% of our power to be generated by dedicated biomass alone and that is a hell of a lot more expensive than wind. There is much more potential for wind; it has been viable even without a carbon price. South Australia already generates 20% of its electricity from wind.

PS Yabbie - yes I agree they had a lot of catching up to do replacing poles; electricity prices were kept way below cost for more than 10 years under vote seeking state governments both Lib and Lab. But I don't think it justifies them charging nearly 50% of our bills for networks, do you?

cohenite - feed in tariffs would be included in the 6.7% RET figure. FIT cost is very small because so little electricity is generated by PV (0.2%). PV will increase. But FITs in most states have already decreased to near the wholesale cost of electricity and are now net not gross.

PS Curm if you request through my website http://ghgenergycalc.com.au I'll email you a copy of my biomass study.
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:53:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1

I'll look at your biomass study when I get to it, but I don't think you'll like what I'll find.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying about green energy.. its not the price of the RECs that will go up, but the number of RECs that companies will have to buy which will multiply and these will be an additional cost.

At the moment wind accounts for 3 per cent of wholesale - not much -and is the only form of energy that can be expanded to meet the RET targets. Those targets are, incidentally, on top of EXISTING renewable generation which includes the existing biomass stuff and hydro. Despite your enthusiasm for biomass no-one serious expects it to expand, and all the other forms of renewable energy remain in pilot plant stage.. that leaves wind.. which has to be expanded a lot.

And those additional wind farms must be built in addition to the existing conventional power network .. the Aus Energy Market Operator has already set out the capacity factors it will allow for wind farms (3-7 per cent, depending on the season). In other words its a straight additional cost.

This does not take any skills as an analyst. Just common sense
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 16 August 2012 5:14:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*But I don't think it justifies them charging nearly 50% of our bills for networks, do you?*

Well I don't have the exact figures of their costs, Roses and neither would you. But I know that they are spending a fortune right now, trying to catch up, as Govts had let the infrastructure run down, to try and keep electricity prices low, for political reasons. Now their chickens are coming home to roost, for years of neglect. Somebody has to pay for these costs, namely users.

What Barnett is saying is that electricity has to pay its way, which is not unreasonable.

Curmudgeon, yes I am in WA, but it kind of makes my point. We have similar power charges to you and there are no companies ripping big profits out of the system.

If Gillard thinks that we have a gold plated system, she should explain to me why I lose power around once a month, because of system failure. Quite frankly, at one stage it was becoming more like third world power. Perhaps they don't lose power in Canberra, that is hardly what is happening in other parts of Australia, like Western Australia
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 August 2012 5:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"feed in tariffs would be included in the 6.7% RET figure"

FIT will be included in RET under the "Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES)." However, the costs for the FIT are NOT included in government estimates; the reason for that is the cost of every installation is assumed to be a private debt! In addition PV will not increase unless the O'Farrell government is voted out in 2016. If they stay in it will be gone, or rather it will not be subsidised, which will amount to the same thing.

As for wind and the myth of SA. People who advocate wind and solar for that matter do not understand the difference between installed power, which is what the installation produces IF it produced power 24/7, and capacity factor, which is what the installation actually produces, expressed as a % of the IP.

Wind, anywhere, SA included, operates at a CF of about 20% but even that 20% is misleading because wind is unreliable from minute to minute and requires a reliable, constant back-up power source, ie fossils or nuclear, to be running continually.

So renewables do not replace the fossils, they are in ADDITION to them. Renewables are a scourge and a scam.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 16 August 2012 8:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wouldn't I love a gold plated network, that didn't fail every time we get a strongish thunder storm.

I'd be happy to even pay a little extra for it. Of course we have a string & tin network because that Labor Ba###**d Beattie was ripping $250 million out of the system every year to pay the excess bureaucrats.

Yep I'd be happy to pay for a good network, but not this pretend renewable stuff.

My daughter said it all, when she was about 4, & we were moving off the yacht permanently. One of her questions was, "Dad will we have real 'lectricity in this house, or just the Micky Mouse stuff, like on the boat". Out of the mouths of babes, & now these fools want to make cartoon characters of all of us with windy power.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 16 August 2012 9:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curm:

OK now I get your meaning "its not the price of the RECs that will go up, but the number of RECs that companies will have to buy which will multiply and these will be an additional cost."

Yes of course generating companies will have to spend more on renewable energy; that is the aim of the RET / carbon tax strategy. The progressive companies (those that will still be in that business in 20 years time) will however not buy RE certificates, they will invest in their own renewable generation capacity and keep ahead of the game.

Curm, your statement 'the AEMO has set capacity factors for wind at 3-7%' is nonsense. Please explain. If you mean they will allow no more than that figure on the grid,(that's not the capacity factor) then SA figures of 20% and those of Denmark (over 20%) give lie to it.

Cohenite:
Your are wrong in talking about the 'wind myth' of SA being due to capacity figures being quoted. The 20% I mentioned is actual generation in GWh. Yes the capacity factor for windmills ranges from 15 - >40% but the actual GWh is what counts and that's what the 20% figure relates to. bree.gov.au/documents/data/energy/.../TableO200910.xls will show the wing generation for SA at about 16% for 2009-10; it has since increased to 20%

PS If you want to keep abreast of energy developments read either Giles Parkinson's Renew Economy or Climate Spectator (which was part of Alan Kohler's Business Spectator (I'm waiting for the latter to 'go off' since its been bought by News Ltd)
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 17 August 2012 7:03:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is not part of the build up of the transmission system because of the need to handle the massive unregulated and irratic inflows of energy that Solar and Wind will be injecting into the system from virtually anywhere. By Government fiat, these sources of energy are required to increase hugely. A cloud covers the sun and all the solar panels in Sydney suddenly stop generating power and then clears so (in time) mega-watts surge back into the system just in time for gas turbine generators to have cut in.
Posted by McCackie, Friday, 17 August 2012 7:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wind does not work, not only for reasons to do with capacity factor but also because of the minute to minute unreliability which I also spoke of. Wind farm performance is measured in Australia here:

http://windfarmperformance.info/?date=2012-08-15

As I say, even when the wind is blowing, the output is so unreliable that it strains the capacity of the grid to maintain constant VA flow. This has been the universal experience of grid operaters all over the world. Backup plants — most often gas — have to be kept constantly spun up on warm standby ready to fill in on a minute’s notice.

Compounding this unreliability, turbine output varies as the cube of the wind speed. This means that a breeze gusting from 20 to 30 mph — a 50% variation, not at all uncommon — produces output that momentarily triples, then drops back unpredictably. There is no power grid in the world that could withstand this vacilation by even 25% of its generating units, let alone what that would do to the air conditioners, stoves, factories, and televisions of the end users.

This means special grid construction to handle these surges has to be undertaken which explains a lot of the new "poles and wires" infrastructure expense. And the cost of wind energy is frightful.

The incredible cost per MW of these towers is around $1 million US per MW to erect. The decommissioning cost per tower (regardless of capacity, at present) is also estimated at about $1 millon per MW. Apologists for wind have pointed out that these are of the same magnitude as nukes; which is true of the older-generation plants in the US and UK, but not of the newer designs common in France and planned for India. But this overlooks two points:

Firstly, at the end of their life, the nukes, like coal and gas plants, will have been producing at around 90% capacity for the entire period. Wind won’t even come close; as I say CF is about 20%.

And secondly the environmental damage of windfarms which is just starting to be appreciated.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 17 August 2012 9:24:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1 - your point "the AEMO has set capacity factors for wind at 3-7%' is nonsense".. sorry I didn't realise that you were not with this stuff..

Capacity factor in this case is simply the amount of the installed capacity which the AEMO will count towards the generating capacity they need to keep on hand at any time. Note, that's CAPACITY not the actual supply. The figure has nothing to do with the overall contribution of wind power to the power supply.

But as AEMO will only count 3-7 per cent of installed wind power towards the capacity they need (for fossil fuel plants the capacity factor is around 85 per cent), the figure means that wind farms supplying 20 per cent of power will replace only a tiny fraction of conventional capacity, although the conventional capacity MAY be used less at varuious points duing the typical day.. in other words, they are a straight additional cost. .

Cohenite - good stuff, but if I may take it one step further. One megawatt hour from a wind power will NOMINALLY replace one MWhr from a conventional plant, so the legislative requirements may be met, but with changes in the network, the need to run the existing plants less efficiently and increased spinnng capacity, ther is a real question in my mind as to whether they save much carbon at all..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 17 August 2012 1:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Curm; can you give me a link to AEMO paper describing their 3-7% capacity factor.

Regardless of the AEMO's figure, the fact remains that wind did in fact produce >20% of SA's electricity consumption in 2011-12. That's a lot of fuel saved and a lot of greenhouse gas reduction.

One reason the AEMO sees a need to have more fossil fuel capacity reserve is that we still have the old style centralized grid. If it were a dispersed state of the art 'smart' grid this would not be needed.

Also having fossil capacity is a lot different from actual spinning reserve. Coal fired units can be powered down or switched off most of the time. For example one of the large old SA coal plants is going to be turned off for more than half the year; it's still there as capacity but it's not working for most of the time. I've got nothing against keeping old coal plants in mothballs for this purpose until the grid is modernized (not repaired/ enlarged as is currently being done but really modernized).

So I don't dispute your figures, just your extrapolation of what they mean. You've got to be joking to imply that 20% renewable energy generation requires fossil plants powering away in the background churning out as much carbon as if there were no renewable generation.
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 17 August 2012 2:25:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses just googling greenie sights doesn't give you much true information it would seem.

Fossil fuel plants are not all the same. Coal can not be spun up to suit the variability of wind, or cloud cover for that matter. If coal is the back up for fairy floss power, it must be kept spinning.

Gas can be fired up more quickly, but not as quickly as wind goes up or down, so much of that must be on standby.

Interesting suggesting that a coal fired plant will be shut down. Please advise us when it has been, & for how long. If that requires power from Victorian brown coal generation to be imported, you won't forget to mention that now, will you.

Have you noticed that one of the prime movers in solar cell development, Germany, is building no less than 8 new coal fired plants, to meet their requirements. They said they were going to get rid of coal completely, so it's what is done, not said that matters. It is often much more interesting to look at actions, rather than listen to talk. As we now know, with our Julia, talks cheep.

If you are going to regale us with the production of your Google finger, I suggest you do a bit more study in less green areas first, so you have some understanding of the subject. That way you could avoid the worst, & most laughable assertions of the green movement.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 17 August 2012 2:59:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wind has a capacity factor of between 20-38% but, as I have said, that average output is unreliable from minute to minute; the unreliability factor of wind is between 2-6%; see Table 1 here:

http://aefweb.info/data/Wind%20farming%20in%20SE%20Australia.pdf

That unreliability is why wind can NEVER supply base load, and why money spent on wind is wasted.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 17 August 2012 4:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1
I have an apology .. I didn't mean capacity factor in my earlier posts that's the average output.. for a wind farm that is around 30 per cent.. I was talking about the contribution factor. Its in http://www.aemo.com.au/~/media/Files/Other/planning/0410-0079%20pdf.pdf

The table in chopped up form is below.. the first % is the figure for capacity factor, and the second two are the contribution factors for the summer and winter peaks respectively.

Region Average Capacity Factor (2010–11)
Contribution Factor Summer MD
Contribution Factor
Winter MD
New South Wales 25.6% 9.2% 0.4%
Victoria 29.2% 7.7% 3.9%
South Australia 32.6% 5.0% 3.5%
Tasmania 39.2% 1.0% 1.0%

confusing but never mind. As for the rest of your post.. at all times a certain amount of spinning reserve is kept off the grid - a practice that long predates wind.. the amount of reserve depends on quite arcane calculations which involve risk estimations. Even green groups agree that some increase in reserve is required for wind, the crucial question is how much extra? Green groups say very little; engineeers say a lot. At the moment nothing would be required in eastern Aus because wind's still just 3 per cent of total supply.

Hence your point about SA, where local production of wind is much higher. SA can import or export power from the rest of the grid so local reserving probably isn't necessary - the rest of the grid can absorb any changes

But, and this is my crucial pont..

Hardly any of this had been discussed by anyone with a show of independence. We don't know anything about the reconfiguration of the grid when serious amounts of wind power go on it.. will it actually save carbon?? At 3 per cent (20 per cent in SA) some might be saved as they probably adjust the power on the grid by that much quite routinely anyway.. But for heaven sake, what's the saving, if any, for larger amounts..

Hasbeen's points are quite correct.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 17 August 2012 4:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(sigh) Thanks Curm, I'll look up your link to this 'contribution factor' term. And cohenite you've added another - 'unreliability factor' - but you've provided a link so I'll dutifully look that one up too. This blogging can lead to more learning on the subject despite the tedium. But I will add that there are 'obfuscation factors' too that have led us off the point which is the cost of networks and whether they are suitable for the modern world of renewable energy

Hasbeen I don't feel so kindly toward your pompous assertion that I 'only google greenie sites'. S'pose I could assert that you only google sceptic sites but I wouldn't be so silly. At least the rest of us give links - yes I think most of us mortals get our info through Google or some other web search method these days.

No matter that you've made me cross; here is the link you requested re coal power stations closing down.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/carbon-price-claims-sas-largest-coal-fired-generator-95197. I suggest you read this site to keep abreast of energy matters. That is of course if it's not too green for you.

So how about a link to the coal fired power stations in Germany? A link to what Germany is doing to their networks to accommodate their 8% and rising component of wind generation would be useful too.

PS I actually occasionally read 'The Australian' although it's certainly too brown for my liking. Don't find much useful information on energy in there; maybe they censor it out.
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 17 August 2012 9:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 90% reliability factor at Table 1 in the link I provide is to do with the % of times that the CF % can be achieved; so the capacity of wind to supply power is worse than thought.

CF is the actual power supplied, averaged over a reasonable period of time, usually a 1/4, peferably a year, and expressed as a % of the Installed Capacity.

The CF of wind is 20-38%, actually 20% world-wide. The reliability factor tells us the % of any time when that CF will be provided. So, at any one moment wind will be supplying power about 3% of its CF; that's 3% of 20%, not the 100% of the IC.

Wind and solar, which is worse, are dead-ends. If you are serious about challenging the fossils, you have to, in the short term, go 3rd generation nuke and Thorium, and for the long term really start looking at Fusion.

Although, if you want to look outside the square, forget the microbes and algae and geothermal, and look at this:

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2299
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 18 August 2012 9:34:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your links cohenite. Re the article by Miskelly and Quirk, it has some interesting graphs showing big variations in wind generation output over time and significant periods of low generation across the whole of the SE. None of this is new to me.

Of course wind isn't a reliable base load electricity source, but that doesn't alter the fact that it already supplies 20% of some grids' electricity and has the potential to supply over 30% without loss of grid stability.

Note: Spinning reserve is much less than base load; the two are not the same. With base load supplied by modern 'smart, distributed' grids and turbines driven by gas, stored heat or water, spinning reserve would be even less.

Of course other sources are needed for base load; here is a quote form the AEMO: http://www.aemo.com.au/~/media/Files/Other/planning/0410-0079%20pdf.pdf. (section 8.3.2; thanks for the reference Curm).

'For a $50/t CO2-e carbon price, both solar thermal and geothermal technologies are near the technology frontier ... As they obtain income from Large scale Generation Certificate sales, they may become competitive with Combined Cycle Gas Turbine technology and are, therefore, interesting options for base load applications when this technology matures".

PS Like most scientists I'm skeptical about all information I read and always check out the source. Sadly the sites you inked to don't cut the mustard. Australian Environment Foundation is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. By its own description, it actually refutes science / policy that may threaten certain industry groups, from fossil fuel to fishing. The other - 'Wind Farm Performance' is of similar ilk, with unexplained graphs that show variablity in wind performance and the fact that wind is a very small part of total generation at present (as cars were of transport in 1900; it was 99% horses).

Both take real data and state their own conclusions (or spin, as there is no peer review). They masquerade as 'scientific', aiming to sow doubt and confusion by appealing to the time poor / uneducated section of society and turn them against real peer reviewed science.
Posted by Roses1, Saturday, 18 August 2012 5:14:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1, you keep missing the point; what wind produces is energy NOT usuable electricity; it is not usable for the reasons I have given; it is implacably unreliable.

The lie is that the energy wind produces is misleadingly included in the electricity supply figures; it is misleading because it is not taken up; the conventional electricity sources still are.

Please prove me wrong on this point; if you can't then this is just a scandal and fraud on the taxpayers who are subsidising what is an inherently unusable energy source.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 18 August 2012 9:46:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1,

The issue is that due to the lack of reliable supply from renewables, even if wind and solar were able to provide 30% of electricity generated, almost the entire infrastructure of base load would have to be maintained for when renewable generation was low at peak period. As the majority of cost of these units is not replaced, but duplicated.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 19 August 2012 12:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Dirty power generators know that power consumption is down, due to wind and solar being fed into the grid. 750,000 houses with solar on the roof, and increasing greatly. The winners are the houses with solar, and those buying green power. Dirty power generators will get the message, and transform, as their dirty power will continue to decline.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 19 August 2012 1:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579; you contribute nothing to this debate; your comments are rubbish:

"dirty power"

Are you 12?
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 19 August 2012 1:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The winners are those with panels on the roof alright. The losers are the children not showered daily, elderly using candles and other unsafe ignition methods and in general, ordinary people.
As currently constituted, Solar is immoral being a huge transfer from the Battlers to the Vanity Classes; those who have their snouts in the trough of public money so they can show off should be ashamed. When it works it won’t need rivers of gold from the Public purse.
Posted by McCackie, Sunday, 19 August 2012 5:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course CO2 is a pollutant, Cohenite, the same way salt can be a pollutant. Salt, the stuff we put on our scrambled eggs - yes and we'd die if we didn't have any of it - is very bad for health and is indeed toxic if its concentration in drinking water is too high. The adjective usually used for pollutants is 'dirty', so cohenite its you who's being infantile.

I think you and Shadow know that excess CO2 is a pollutant, but you try to kid the gullible (through such means as those weird AEM and 'wind farm' websites) that it's no problem, it's really just a plant nutrient. You see renewable energy as a threat to your comfort and or cash flow (real of perceived), as do the fossil fuel industries that fund this crap.

Shadow - you claim you are an engineer but refuse to acknowledge that x% of energy generated by renewables means x% less fossil fuels used and nearly that percentage less CO2 emitted. You also know that while some base load infrastructure is needed on standby it will not be near 100% of what is already there. You also know that it can be generated by other technologies such as biomass and solar thermal with storage. These are already commercial and the price will fall, as it will for batteries and fuel units. The system is CHANGING, as intended by the RET and carbon price.

PS I couldn't give a fig how many old coal plants they keep in mothballs; they'll only be needed in the interim until renewable baseload and storage comes on stream and then only for a few weeks or months a year. Just look at Playford and Northern in SA
Posted by Roses1, Sunday, 19 August 2012 7:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cackie: I acknowledge that as you say those who have got rooftop PV to date have got middle class welfare in the form of excessive FITs.

Don't worry though, those have been reduced and the subsidies are going down; it won't have a big impact on the public purse. And it's had the desired effect, helping to bring down the cost of rooftop solar generation to 'parity' with grid power even without any subsidies.http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-pv-its-cheaper-than-you-think-58689 . We will be seeing more homes and businesses going 'off grid' with PV and batteries / plug in hybrid vehicles. Much to the consternation of fossil generating companies.
Posted by Roses1, Sunday, 19 August 2012 7:28:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Of course CO2 is a pollutant, Cohenite, the same way salt can be a pollutant. Salt, the stuff we put on our scrambled eggs - yes and we'd die if we didn't have any of it - is very bad for health and is indeed toxic if its concentration in drinking water is too high. The adjective usually used for pollutants is 'dirty', so cohenite its you who's being infantile."

Gibberish; define "too high"; below 220 ppm plants don't grow; the idea that current levels of CO2 are geologically high is problematic because the ice-core records used to establish lower levels in the past show the same or less levels today than in the past:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/vostok_ice_core_nature1999.png

Like every aspect of the 'science' of AGW the CO2 record is fraudulent and tainted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/24/dr-ray-bradleys-amazing-photo/#more-28243

If directors of public companies played around with the data like the pro-AGW scientists do they would be prosecuted.

At current levels CO2 is NOT a pollutant; it has never been a pollutant at any level in the history of the planet and today's levels are lower than most other periods.

The science of AGW is a scam and the solutions, particularly renewable energy, to AGW are a fraud on the public.

This comment by you:

"You see renewable energy as a threat to your comfort and or cash flow (real of perceived), as do the fossil fuel industries that fund this crap."

Marks you as nothing more than a member of a cult: the end of the world caused by AGW cult.

And I'll take my comfort over the ravings of a cult member any day of the week thank you.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 19 August 2012 8:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite - and denialism is not a cult? I suggest your ego and delusion has lead you and all denialists into a sort of fairyland - you know better than the hundreds of mainstream university science institutes, space organizations and science publications. Not one of these bona fide bodies agrees with your wacky claims.
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 20 August 2012 7:11:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only a cult needs to use dodgy data, hide trends and suppress the opposition. The only group that fits the bill are the Global Warmists who are marinating in upper and middle-class welfare (please no "points of order" that it is climate change).

Dear Rosy1 it is not mothballs that matter but the undead spinning reserves required by the these highly immature generation technonlogies. X renewables is minus Y for spinning reserves less Z for hardening of the distribution system for irratic supply. The core weakness is energy storage, which is on top of the great weakness of unstable generation. Till there is, there can be no effective solar or wind; the only "problem is" such technologies mean that coal or gas systems then could be run at peak efficiency all the time significantly cutting their costs even further.
Posted by McCackie, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:13:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Roses1, in response to my claim that AGW is a cult you resort to authority and the mythical consensus to rebut the claim that you belong to a cult; you believe in AGW which is secretive, seeks to oppress individual rights and has regular brainwashing meetings of its adherents [see Al Gore's 'training' for instance]; all characteristics of cults.

AGW uses magical instruments, computer modelling, to interpret reality, and when actual observations of reality contradict the models, AGW discards or changes the observations.

AGW, like all cults also takes the high moral ground and invests its adherents with a noble and grand mission and vision, in this case saving the world.

Cults also derive their ideology from past cults and religious forms; AGW, for instance is a re-run of the Eden myth; Eden said the world was a stable paradise until man learnt too much; AGW says the world was a paradise until man used fossil fuels. In both the Eden myth and AGW man has to renounce the evil methods he has used to arrogantly rise above God's/nature's wise limits.

Like all cults AGW demands complete obedience and especially financial support to achieve its goal; its goal is a perfect balance between nature and man; since that goal is unrelisable it is the perfect business model; AGW will be making demands for money to solve the unsolvable forever.

AGW is a cult; it's scientists are its high priests, governments like the current corrupt Australian one are in on the racket, and people like you are just saps.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 20 August 2012 9:15:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1,

What is clear from your feeble response is that you have very little concept of power engineering nor have sufficient comprehension abilities to provide a cogent response.

For example:"Shadow know that excess CO2 is a pollutant, but you try to kid the gullible (through such means as those weird AEM and 'wind farm' websites) that it's no problem"

Rubbish, I made no such comment. I am fully aware of AGW and its consequences, however, as a power systems engineer I find your renewables crusade technically and economically ineffectual.

Also: "Shadow - you claim you are an engineer but refuse to acknowledge that x% of energy generated by renewables means x% less fossil fuels used and nearly that percentage less CO2 emitted"

Also complete bollocks, I said nothing of the sort. I said that the base load plant will still have to be run and maintained. Comments such as "I couldn't give a fig how many old coal plants they keep in mothballs" show a complete naivety as to what is required to keep a plant on standby.

PS, Other than hydro electric plants (or small scale remote stations), there are no renewable power plants in the world that are commercially competitive without huge dollops of taxpayers' money.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 20 August 2012 12:50:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I gave the wrong take up figures a couple of days ago. The real figure for residential solar is 1.5 million in operation. Turnbull set this in motion, and Costello backed it up with thousands in subsidy.
Cheap as chips now for panels. Industrial rooftop arrays will come into being, makes economic sense. Whether that is rented space for an investor or private owned
Posted by 579, Monday, 20 August 2012 3:07:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Cheap as chips now for panels. Industrial rooftop arrays will come into being, makes economic sense."

579; you are obviously from another planet; for anyone who is interested in how wrong 579 is about the economics of solar panels and FITs, read this:

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/residential-rooftop-solar-power/
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 20 August 2012 3:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow my apologies if I lumped you in with the denialist pillocks. Now they've shown their true abusive colours I'll not bother to have further correspondence with them.

Re my other comment that offended you - so you do in fact "acknowledge that x% of energy generated by renewables means x% less fossil fuels used and nearly that percentage less CO2 emitted"? If so then I apologize for assuming you don't.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the following from an engineering perspective:
- About what percentage of baseload generation is 'spinning reserve' that is not actually use to generate electricity into the grid? The graph you'll find in the article (link below) shows Northern operating at 40-95% capacity. So coal power stations are obviously responsive to demand, albeit slowly (several hours to ramp up)?

- Northern coal power station in SA, will be closed down for half the year and used only in summer (that's what I meant by mothballed). Why would this not be feasible for more old coal fired plants?

- Playford coal fired plant in SA has been closed down permanently. Does this not belie claims that all or most of the coal generation will need to be retained even with 20% renewables? (I know new gas plants may do this job in the interim, as they are quick to respond to load and much lower emitting, but very expensive to build and use for a few weeks a year)
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/carbon-price-claims-sas-largest-coal-fired-generator-95197.

579 - quite right re solar PV/ hot water; those facts and figures were recently published in RenewEconomy.
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 20 August 2012 7:26:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The resident alarmist/cultist pillock cannot read her own link; it makes no sense; it shows that wind energy has no SMRC before and after the carbon tax compared with the coal power stations.

How wonderful; wind costs nothing. Delusional.

The cultist also says this:

"x% of energy generated by renewables means x% less fossil fuels used and nearly that percentage less CO2 emitted"

No, what it means is LESS energy produced period; and has been noted by everyone with 1/2 a brain, because renewables are so unreliable, fossils need to be kept running continuously to cover the unreliability of the renewables, which means that wind plus backup produces more CO2 than fossils by themselves:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/18/mcintyres-talk-in-london-plus-the-uks-tilting-at-windmills-may-actually-increase-co2-emissions-over-natural-gas/#more-69484
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 20 August 2012 11:16:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Humph

Logged in, went to article and note once again that the OLO author and his OLO tag engages in ad hominem.

No surprise since the author/tag hypocritically cries foul when tables are reversed.

As to 'gold-plating' - yep. Since my last bill ...

'Energy supply' component has gone up 45%
'Energy usage' component has gone up 41%

The latter component specifies the carbon tax as 9.6%

ACCC and IPART have been made aware, I have since changed provider - without a termination fee.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 12:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1,

Thanks for the recognition.

As for coal fired power stations, (or any steam based generation system), the turbines and boilers need at least 24hrs to slowly warm up and stabilize before they can be put in operation. Once they are in operation and spinning, the turbines can change load from 0% to 100% in 10 minutes (this can vary between turbines). The limit is really on the ability of the boilers supplying the steam, and this can take 30 mins to go from 40% load to 100% (Pulverized fuel boilers are faster). However, the boilers generally cannot operate much below 40% capacity.

As far as selling power into the grid, the 10 minute time slices that the generators bid for vary in price from $10/MWhr off peak to $4000 for peak generation (typically 6pm to 7pm). The generators make a loss off peak, and a profit at peak. The running at off peak is really to keep the boilers running so that they are ready. Whether they generate power or not below this minimum only gives a slight reduction in coal burnt.

So as far as 1MW of renewable energy replacing 1MW of carbon emissions, this is true at off peak or partially true in shoulder periods, but makes little difference off peak.

Gas powered stations can ramp up to peak from nothing in a short time, but the fuel and stress on the turbines makes this very expensive, and peak supply gas turbines cannot be run in a cogen configuration, making them not hugely less emission intensive than coal.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 3:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Shadow, you've shone a bit of light for me on the questions of steam turbine performance vs gas single cycle.

No comment on Playford and Northern though? (former to be closed and latter to work half the year). The graph in the link I posted earlier shows Northern working from 40% - about 100% of capacity before it was closed down. this would support your statement 'the boilers generally cannot operate much below 40% capacity'.

But I still have a lot of questions on my mind re this issue of base load power required for intermittent renewables. Reckon I might ask Giles Parkinson on Renew Economy if he can get an expert to write an article focusing on this issue, as it has been confusing informed debate.
Posted by Roses1, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 7:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses,

The economics of the plants closing down depend on many factors such as, the cost of extracting the coal, labour, the age and cost of maintenance of the equipment etc, so without detailed information, I can't comment.

The system needs to cope with peak demand, which typically occurs between 6pm and 7pm. Standard solar power here is useless, and wind is unpredictable. I saw a CSIRO paper about 7 years ago calculating that if present day renewables were capable of 100% of generation, base load cover would be 80% to 90%
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 August 2012 6:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM your argument is based on everything staying as is, Power plants as now, peak demand as now. Maybe some thought has to be put outside of normal. This area dairy farmers are on a staggared start up time, every one used to hit the start button a 4 PM, and constantly, the system failed.
I say everything can be overcome, with some thought.
Posted by 579, Friday, 24 August 2012 9:10:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

The problem with maximum demand has been with us from when they first started generating, or building roads etc. Peak demand is driven by human behaviour. People all eat (in or out), shower and watch Tv in the early evening, which is when maximum demand occurs.

If you can find a way to change this, you probably can also cure cancer.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 August 2012 12:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy