Wind Generation and the Electricity Grid

[drron]

If the business case doesn't stack up means Wind should not be used.It has been around for a long time and still needs massive subsidies.If it really is so cheap why do we still need subsidies for wind and solar plus quaranteed supply prices?Nuclear is a baseload power supply that from building to supplying electricity causes less carbon emissions than wind.It doesn't need to have a lot of expensive back up.
As to the Tesla battery you are joking aren't you.A capacity of 125MwH.that h is very important.It cant keep providing electricity when discharged.As wind can cease for 24 hours or more how is it going to be recharged?
I agree there is a lot of gaming of the system but because there is no free market.Companies like AGL obviously want to get rid of coal because it is so much easier to game the price with gas fired generators and it knows the more wind power we get the more gas we are going to need.

 

[equus]

I have done some sums after getting some (rubbery, initial, over the phone) quotes from a couple of solar installers in my area
Assumptions:

5) annual increase in electricity costs is 7%

"coughulative NPV" = essentially what my current financial position will effectively be now, if I installed said system assuming realistic contingency

Any comments appreciated.....

I will take a bash, - annual increase in electricity costs of 7% for the next 10 years seems way too high. Forecasts of retail electricity price increase is probably more like 2% or less over that period. There is also a bigger gotcha, in that retail price increases are now being delivered more as daily supply charge increases, rather than usage increases, hurting those shifting usage or generating (i.e. more certain income to the retailer). This will significantly impact the final total savings.

I would be considering in the alternative what you can do to cut down on usage. I think cove is correct, forget the batteries, and consider instead more energy efficient alternatives. Your total consumption is over 100kwh per day - which is huge. There has to be some substantial energy consumers there which may be able to be significantly reduced, rather than simply looking at ways to supply them with power more cheaply.

You say your energy consumption is largely in the afternoon, but there is huge chunk - over half - between 8pm and 7am. Presumably this is lights and heating (and possibly including water heating). Lighting can be replaced by more energy efficient, same for heating. If hot water, consider heat pump, and move consumption to daylight hours in the morning, or just go for a separate solar set up.

 

[TheRealTMA]

It's hilarious that Abbott thinks that any RET is "unconscionable". What a good job he and Peta are doing to lose the nxt election. The two of them, plus Alan et al, still have no comprehension that people didn't actually vote for them but against Labor.

900+ million to keep a coal power station operational beyond sanity is hilarious. Plus Malcolm's bid for a new coal plant in QLD ONLY if the LNP wins the next state election is sheer coughry. I though attempting to influence the electorate by partisan bribery was illegal but seems not for the PM.

 

[RAM]

You need to look at some of the links I have upthread.
Here is a good piece on nuclear power by people who know-
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association

And to repost some comment on the nuclear power shenanigans in the USA-
Climate Scientists Urge Gov. Jerry Brown to Let Legislature Not PUC Decide Diablo Canyon's Fate

Renewables Can't Save the Planet. Only Nuclear Can

And here a report on Greenpeace and their misinformation-
Greenpeace’s Dirty War on Clean Energy, Part I: South Korean Version

Surprise,surprise.Those campaigning against nuclear energy get a significant part of their funding from gas and renewable energy companies.

Quoting the Nuclear Energy association is akin to quoting the Tobacco companies - self-serving their own vested interests.

Taking current real world situations - 2 of the only three nuclear plants to be under construction in the US - two have been shelved due to continuous cost blow-outs and the third is only just continuing and reliant on $4bn in US Fed Govt subsidy.

That is not cost competitive.

The cost of dismantling a nuclear plant is not dealt with anywhere in the LCOE calculations in a substantive way. Having investigated first hand the cost of remediation for old coal plants vs the published 'assumption' of costs - the actual costs were greater than 10x what was allowed for.

No modern US sited nuclear plant commenced since 2005 is cost competitive - that is the real world fact. So it is interesting that the Nuclear association publishes that they are.

Their credibility is nearly as high as that of the tobacco companies who kept rolling out from their 'experts' reports stating smoking cigarettes DID NOT cause cancer.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Nuclear projects being shelved due to being uneconomical despite the sunk costs suggests the World Nuclear Association have problems.

The largest nuclear power plant builder going bankrupt also suggests some problems.

BTW - Greenpeace and several other well-known NGOs seem to have a history of pay-to-play. The McDonald's campaign was revealing - all those donations from the largest paper companies when McD was about to replace paper/cardboard with a special 100% recyclable replacement. Amazing what you can find buried in the back of company's regulatory filings.

 

[drron]

And quoting renewable energy companies and organisations is even worse than the tobacco companies.
Again James Hansen says that wind and solar generation are failed technologies.He is known as the father of climate change-definitely not as you would say a denier.
And you are wrong on the economics of nuclear.=
Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants - ScienceDirect
Nuclear beats solar easily on energy returned on investment.
And why is Bill Gates investing $40 billion in nuclear programs in China if it is so uneconomic.
If you had bothered to read my links you would have seen facts like this-

Over the last few years, South Korea’s state-owned nuclear company KEPCO has justly earned an international reputation for being the Southwest or Ryanair of nuclear power plant builders.

KEPCO’s intense focus on reducing costs through standardization and efficient supply chains allowed it to beat far-larger rivals, including the Japanese-owned and US-based Westinghouse, France’s Areva, and Russia’s Rosatom to win the contract to build a new nuclear plant in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) that will come online next year.

Then there is pollution-

And you mention subsidies to nuclear.They pale into insignificance with the subsidies to wind.In the words of warren Buffet-

"I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."

 

[RAM]

And quoting renewable energy companies and organisations is even worse than the tobacco companies.

drron - you make groundless accusation after accusation - please ACTUALLY respond to what I have written not perhaps what you would like to read.

I have not quoted any renewable energy companies in theses last few posts - merely the bankruptcy/news reports which you can download the official company filings (Nuclear power company filings NOT renewable company they are). ==> Debunked 'fake claim'

Again James Hansen says that wind and solar generation are failed technologies.He is known as the father of climate change-definitely not as you would say a denier.

Please do not pretend to know what I would or would not say - perhaps you may say that - I do not know and I would never be so presumptuous to assume so.

Have you researched how much he has earnt/gained in grants for his findings? Please detail the sources.

Past research from when I worked at the largest Australian based "Ethical" fund manager - found that of the top 100 quoted 'Global Warming' international experts - 47% were ex-lawyers or Y2K experts, fewer than 6% had any qualifications remotely linked to the science of climate, physics or actually any hard science. I traced 7 back to the late 1970 early 1980s "Ice age" crew.
==> Debunked 'fake claim'

Needless to say we turned down their requests for funding.

BTW - in a much earlier post I detailed how one 'association' forced S&P to falsify their presentation's figures to show the 'environmentally' invested funds out-performing when they had under-performed.

Honesty in short supply - hypocrisy abundant

And you are wrong on the economics of nuclear.=
Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants - ScienceDirect

He said, she said...

Right in theory, broke in practice. If they are so profitable why are they being shelved as un-profitable?

Fact - two of the only 3 nuclear power plants under construction in the US have been shelved due to being uneconomic DESPITE the sunk costs of over $10bn. The cost to complete them (not build from scratch) is greater than their future potential earnings - download the reports.

==> Debunked 'fake claim'

I prefer real world to 'he who pays the piper' reports.

Nuclear beats solar easily on energy returned on investment.
And why is Bill Gates investing $40 billion in nuclear programs in China if it is so uneconomic.

Sorry but that is FAKE news - Bill Gates has not invested $40 billion, and the company he and other investors provided seed funding to has a 'theoretical' design only. Its share price has dropped roughly 70% in the last 2 years btw.
==> Debunked 'fake claim'

If you had bothered to read my links you would have seen facts like this-

I did read the links you provided and then went a couple of levels past those ones to dig somewhat deeper actaully.
==> Debunked 'fake claim'

Then there is pollution-

In case you are unaware - Carbon dioxide is not scientifically designated pollution. That title is given to it by the non-science experts.


==> Debunked 'fake claim'

And you mention subsidies to nuclear.They pale into insignificance with the subsidies to wind.In the words of warren Buffet-

Having had first hand dealings with Warren - well let's just say self-serving comes to mind. Have a look into his investment into coal haulage...

 

[drron]

First James Hansen is not a lawyer but a genuine climate scientist.Google him.
I did not say CO2 is a pollutant.that graph is the total environmental load-such as what do you do with defunct solar panels.
Google niobium production in China-a major element of wind turbines.

 

[RAM]

First James Hansen is not a lawyer but a genuine climate scientist.Google him.

Please stop with the fake claims.

Yet again - it is you who call him a lawyer - I did not. ==> Debunked another FAKE claim

I asked you to provide details (going back some years for completeness) of who and how he is being funded. Source of funds is a good revealer.

I did not say CO2 is a pollutant.that graph is the total environmental load-such as what do you do with defunct solar panels.
Google niobium production in China-a major element of wind turbines.

I look closely at what I read. No you did not say it - just presented a graph that does, from the IPCC NGO experts no less. The same ones that edited multiple chapters and were subsequently sued by one of the lead authors demanding they remove any reference to him from the report.

Have a look at your graph. The vertical axis is labeled CO2. The heading at the top says Pollution. 1 + 1 DOES = 2.

==> Debunked another FAKE claim

BTW the CO2 emissions from building a nuclear plant are immense, let alone the emissions from dismantling and decontaminating one. Burying the contaminated material does not really seem like decontamination to me. More like out of sight out of mind.

 

[RAM]

"But these so-called “third-generation” reactors have been mired in financing problems and building delays, deterring all but the most enthusiastically pro-nuclear nations.

The challenges of financing and building large, expensive reactors contributed to the bankruptcy of Toshiba Inc’s (6502.T) nuclear unit, Westinghouse, and to the financial problems that forced France’s Areva AREVA.PA to restructure"

U.S. nuclear reactors face uphill challenge, despite lower emissions

So in real world (read US) nuclear plants already built CANNOT COMPETE on price with ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY.

"In the past five years, operators have shut six reactors amid stagnant electricity demand and low natural gas and power prices, and plan to shut another six reactors in deregulated states over the next five years, in part because they cannot compete with gas-fired plants.

Most states in the U.S. Northeast and Midwest are deregulated. Merchant plants receive the same money for energy they sell as gas-fired and renewable plants, which are less expensive to operate.

If 12 already built (sunk cost) nuclear power plants are uneconomical to operate vs gas, solar, wind - then a to-be-built plant being financially viable is fantasy land material.

==> Debunked another FAKE claim

Or please explain that conundrum?

...they provide a 'premium' product so should be paid more for their MW hours produced than anyone else - REALLY!

BTW - the CEO of TerraPower (the tiny cap company Bill Gates put a million or two (not $40 billion as you posted about above) - is on the Board of the Nuclear Association.

BTW - Bill Gates record as an investor is one to be avoided. But then again he can afford to throw money away.

 

[drron]

Sorry RAM but to me it seems obvious that you along with the majority of the population have an irrational fear of anything to do with nuclear.
I have worked as a nuclear physician so have at least a little understanding.
I never said Bill Gates invested $40 billion-he is putting that amount over time into research of nuclear power.A lot of that is going to China.
Just as the USA put up $82 million into next generation nuclear reactors whilst the UK has put in 250 million GBP.
Bill Gates And Other Billionaires Backing A Nuclear Renaissance | OilPrice.com

 

[wandering_fred]

After some communication with a party involved with wind generation in WA, my opinion of AEMO reporting (and perhaps other procedures) has not been improved. His comment:

The AEMO website does not say much. At all.

In particular, time delays and unavailability of ("critical"?) network information. Seems that both Denmark and Mount Barker wind farms are seriously limited by the local capability of the network to absorb/use the power generated. And the combination of "higher quality" wind and more modern turbines make the Denmark wind farm much more efficient than the larger Albany farm but hindered by a medium voltage feeder connection and the distance (46 km) from the main sub-station.

All of this supports my experience that SCADA support of utilities in WA is many years behind the level of the technology. Couple that with political expediency and we have the blind leading the blind and under-reporting to the people paying for the infrastructure.

Just wandering
Fred

Seems the following website has been updated recently

SkyFarming Pty Ltd

 

[RAM]

Sorry RAM but to me it seems obvious that you along with the majority of the population have an irrational fear of anything to do with nuclear.
I have worked as a nuclear physician so have at least a little understanding.

Working as a nuclear physician provides you with expertise in analysing the financial viability of nuclear projects? That holds even less water.

What is your explanation for the 6 existing US Nuclear plants that have shut down and the next 6 scheduled to do so as they cannot compete against ALL OTHER generators? Nothing to do with Nuclear medicine but everything to do with operating costs. Uncompetitive is uncompetitive.

Once more with feeling - it's debunking time.

I never said Bill Gates invested $40 billion-he is putting that amount over time into research of nuclear power.A lot of that is going to China.

Better have a look at exactly what you wrote.

And why is Bill Gates investing $40 billion in nuclear programs in China if it is so uneconomic.

To which I replied - Sorry but that is FAKE news - Bill Gates has not invested $40 billion, and the company he and other investors provided seed funding to has a 'theoretical' design only. Its share price has dropped roughly 70% in the last 2 years btw.
==> Debunked 'fake claim'

Please at least be accurate in misrepresenting what you have typed!

The facts do not support any of it about Gate's plans unfortunately. Quality of some of your links for proof does cause concern. Oilprice.com is such a well-known and oft-quoted source - NOT!

The article itself is full of factual errors - TerraPower is not owned by Bill Gates, for example. He just put a small amount of money into it some years back and apparently nothing since but he remains listed on its web site AND nowhere else.

Bill Gate's estimated wealth is around $70bn currently (been falling somewhat). He has pledged most of it for philanthropy - not investing in Chinese Nuclear projects. His filings (and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's) show less than $48m invested in any energy related items.

Please provide EVIDENCE of his investment proposal of USD 40 billion into Chinese nuclear projects - until then ==> Debunked another FAKE claim

Just as the USA put up $82 million into next generation nuclear reactors whilst the UK has put in 250 million GBP.
Bill Gates And Other Billionaires Backing A Nuclear Renaissance | OilPrice.com

The US putting 82 m over 5 years into nuclear research is NOTHING. A current US Nuclear reactor looks like costing north of USD 18bn. That is just the construction cost of ONE plant - and does not include decommissioning nor operating costs.

Are you really claiming that some pork barrelling deal pushed through late one night to put 0.09% of the cost of ONE Nuclear plant into research per year for 5 years PROVES anything positive?

The only thing it proves is that the US is seriously against pouring good money after bad on Nuclear Plants.

The reality of the $82m is even further from what the article implied - here is the actual US Gov announcement. TerraPower and friends get zero btw. The largest component goes to improving some existing facilities,

Energy Department Invests $82 Million to Advanced Nuclear Technology

"In total, 93 projects were selected to receive funding that will help push innovative nuclear technologies toward commercialization and into the market. These awards provide funding for nuclear energy-related research through the Nuclear Energy University Program, Nuclear Science User Facilities, and Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology programs. In addition to financial support, a number of recipients will receive technical and regulatory assistance through the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) initiative."

==> Debunked another FAKE claim

A drowning man will clutch at straws.

 

[RAM]

A few times I have posted about the various Australian generators gaming the power price.

I even posted the links to the AEMO reports on several severe cases such as the 5 month period the Qld generators ripped off the state's power consumers. That in a state that had ZERO wind farms and ZERO utility PV farms - nothing to do with renewable energy - all to do with gouging for profits' sake.

Seems Malcolm Turnbull may have become a reader of this thread...
Nocookies
Malcolm Turnbull has described Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk as living in a “parallel universe” for saying Queenslanders were paying the higher power prices because other states had privatised their electricity assets.

The Prime Minister said this morning that Queensland’s state-owned power generators CS Energy and Stanwell had been “gouging their customers” even more than privately owned companies in other states had.

“The generators that have been gaming the system the most and have been gouging their customers the most, have been the ones belonging to the Queensland state government,” Mr Turnbull told ABC radio.

“Whatever your views may be on privatisation, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that the Queensland state government utilities have been run in a more public-spirited way than the privatised ones. They should have been, but they haven’t been and that’s a fact.”

The Australian reported in June that wholesale electricity prices in Queensland have been the most expensive in the National Energy Market for most of this year as its state-owned generators more than doubled the dividends it paid to the debt-riven Palaszczuk government.

 

[cove]

We did solar and LED lighting in our QLD office and warehouse and this quarter our electricity account was under $300 for our 6500 square metre building. Naturally we are delighted.

 

[RAM]

We did solar and LED lighting in our QLD office and warehouse and this quarter our electricity account was under $300 for our 6500 square metre building. Naturally we are delighted.

Down from approximately what previously?

 

[cove]

Used to be between $4000 and $6000 per quarter and we are now trying to get our national power use on our 7 office/warehouse buildings down to $25000 a year from almost $200000.

 

[whatmeworry]

Trying to convince my Mum to install solar panels. At least a 5kw package. Looks like it will be tough sell. Probably will pay it self off in 3 years, considering they are retired and use the majority of energy during the day. I might just pay for it myself and then recoup the cash in money saved later on.

Poll finds batteries are the solution for the electric grid.

More than half said they expected large-scale batteries like the one being built by Elon Musk in South Australia would also become common in the next 10 years.

"It shows that Australians do understand that renewables — particularly solar and increasingly battery storage — provide a solution to high power prices," the Climate Council's Andrew Stock said.

"I think it's very encouraging that Australians really do get the importance of new technology. There is very little appetite for keeping aging coal fire stations running in the Australian populace, frankly," he said.

Australians see future in solar batteries, poll finds

 

[amaroo]

With the FIT it was a no brainer. We're pumping 7KW of panels into a 5KW inverter (max allowed) and haven't regretted it. Each KW is sold at $0.54 so it's happy days at the amaroo resort.

 

[cove]

Our home bill was $458 down from a peak of $1600 every 2 months. Our two sons left and were replaced by their grandma so it is three of us in our home now. We have a large solar system to cover a very electric home which has a bore pump , a pool with a heat pump , many split system air conditioners, all electric kitchen and chandeliers in two rooms.
There will be a case for a battery system but we are waiting for the price to halve as a 7 to 10 year pay back is too long. The less than 3 year payback on solar was easy but not so easy if it were a couple at work away from home 5 days a week.
By the early 2020s we will most likely be running rechargeable electric cars instead of our two hybrids now so we are looking forward to reducing the petrol we buy.
Going a bit greener has not really hurt us over the last 4 years as financially the payback has been better than we expected

 

[RAM]

For those interested in nuclear and current research (and timelines) this is a good article to get some idea of what timelines are involved turning an idea into possible reality - 50+ years and counting = hoping it MAY be commercially viable by 2037. The "Holy grail" of fusion reactors.

Hotter than the Sun: JET – Earth’s biggest fusion reactor, in Culham

So far the 'tiny' demo reactor can only produce 67% energy output per energy input.