Adani Carmichael Approved

 
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
.............and then Vic did the same bloody thing and lost Hazellwood (which needed replacement) and now Vic's power price is roughly the same as SA for 2018 and 2019 since Hazellwood closed!
Victoria didn't close Hazelwood. It's owners did. It's a privatised industry.
kitchgp
I agree but I I never said Vic closed it.  Hazellwood closed because it needed to close, that part I agree with, its the lack of a ready replacement solution that was the key issue.

Sponsored advertisement

  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

The Victorian Government can't build a replacement or order private industry to do such. It's now a privatised national grid. It's up to the Commonwealth Government to do something about it, including gas. (It bought Victoria's share of the Snowy.) It would seem that the terms 'cheap electricity' and 'privatised power industry' are mutually exclusive.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
But, you are not allowed to do that in a deregulated market! Northern was uneconomical to operate. It could have been mothballed, I guess, but that would have required mothballing the mine and the railway as well, with the chances of reactivation being next to nil.

The die has been cast. Any time that the cost of electricity looks likely to fall another power station will prove uneconomical to operate, until there are none left. Then the only remaining markets for thermal coal will be overseas - where the same process will occur, with the unlikely exception of totalitarian states and, more likely, their vassal states.
allan
Because you are not allowed to do it, doesn't mean the rules should remain unchallenged, especially when they achieved the exact opposite of what was supposed to happen. We need to get a state Premier stand up with a big set of gonads and state "this BS will not continue, we are doing X because its the right thing to do to get my voters jobs".

Northern was only made uneconomical because it was faced with unfair competition, ie subsidised and given preferential treatment for wind. Base load economics is that it runs most of the time, not some of the time. However you can see what happened once Northern closed, the whole sale power price near doubled and has stayed that way since, and got worse after the closure of Hazellwood, which means the traditional longterm cheap off-peak power from Vic is no longer available.

The former SA govt was not banking on the closure of Hazellwood in their plans towards pushing SA onto more and more RE.

Yes, Northern should have been mothballed, but the mine and railway still closed. Coal could have been railed in from NSW if needed.

With the power price set to remain at around $100/MWh for years to go, the remaining coal power stations will continue to operate until life expired and making a fortune along the way with the prices well above whats needed to replace with new coal.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The Victorian Government can't build a replacement or order private industry to do such. It's now a privatised national grid. It's up to the Commonwealth Government to do something about it, including gas. (It bought Victoria's share of the Snowy.) It would seem that the terms 'cheap electricity' and 'privatised power industry' are mutually exclusive.
kitchgp
There is nothing stopping the Vic govt building its own or calling for tender to build any type of power station to bid into the market with a minimum guarantee on price.
  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

The price (pun intended) of privatisation. Any attempt to build a state power station could open up investor-state dispute provisions in the various free trade agreements. Private industry needs to fund and build a replacement.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The price (pun intended) of privatisation. Any attempt to build a state power station could open up investor-state dispute provisions in the various free trade agreements. Private industry needs to fund and build a replacement.
kitchgp
Qld and Tas still own the bulk of their power generation assets, there is nothing stopping the, expanding what they have and they have.

The issue would only be if the state tried to undermine the private base load operators, surely a subsidy wouldn't attract any attention.

For example if you invited a coal/CSP/CCGT/Nuclear power station rated at say 800MW with 75% reliability to stablise the whole sale price, provide security of supply and improve the competitiveness of the state for business with a minimum guaranteed average price of $75MW/h thats a revenue of around $400Mpa. The current price is averaging $100, so the price will undoubtedly drop. If the price drops too much then the state would be liable but at $75/MWh, the existing coal operators are still very much profitable.  If someone wants to close, then fine, get a replacement.
  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

So why isn't a private operator doing all this? Supposedly a competitive market.
  allan Chief Commissioner

Because the economics do not add up. Renewables are cheap to build, and cheap to run, and the electricity sells for the same price as that from any other powerhouse.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
RTT - can you point me to some info that explains in brief how the current market works ?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Because the economics do not add up. Renewables are cheap to build, and cheap to run, and the electricity sells for the same price as that from any other powerhouse.
allan
The old argument RE's (excluding hydro) are cheaper argument usually falls over when they are required to provide despatchable power, so lets not waste our time on this.

Your comment on price is also not true, as two CSP projects have now been cancelled because they didn't have price guarantees for their lenders. The same will apply to any longterm bass load generation source, I did say before, coal, CCGT, nuclear, CSP etc.

https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

Annual price tables clearly show the loss of northern and Hazellwood lead to 30-50% rise in wholesale power prices which 2-3 years later still haven't been curtailed despite more generation capacity being added. What happens when Liddel closes in 2-3 years? NSw is already in a power deficit, Vic is on the line. Yes when the sun is up and the wind blows, things maybe good.

Today, the stupidity continues with SA exporting Open Cycle Gas Turbine generated power into Vic, is this not a wake up the system is broken?

The current market encourages fast turnaround low capex high opex projects.

Now delete the remaining coal power stations in Vic and NSW and what would you have? Darkness because there isn't a solution to deal with the loss of this capacity. Surely this based on the learnings from Vic and SA should dictate, base load power generation needs protection, not extinction.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT - can you point me to some info that explains in brief how the current market works ?
james.au

start with AEMO.com.au

https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

OpenNEM.org.au

https://opennem.org.au/#/all-regions/energy

This also a link to individual power station turbine output or for wind and solar, total output, its on a Fed govt website on infrastructure, lost the link but trying to find. It was in a post by another in RP last year.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
It’s 1am where I am right now - what price is RE solar selling for?
  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

It'll be resting, after pumping the water back uphill in the Snowy.
  kitchgp Deputy Commissioner

Qld and Tas still own the bulk of their power generation assets, ..........................
RTT_Rules
plus the Commonwealth Government's Snowy Hydro.
  michaelgm Deputy Commissioner

Qld and Tas still own the bulk of their power generation assets, ..........................
plus the Commonwealth Government's Snowy Hydro.
kitchgp
Fortunately Johnny stepped in to prevent that sale.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It'll be resting, after pumping the water back uphill in the Snowy.
kitchgp
On technical level, Snowy 2.0 + NSW , I love it.

On economic level, Snowy 2.0, its a disaster. It needs high power prices to be viable, worse its more viable if more coal closes thus driving peaking power prices higher.

The NSW/SA HV link is pretty much on the same boat. It will reduce SA domestic power prices by 1c/kWh and NSW by half that. The Feds get creamed when they introduce tax cuts that achieve 10 x this amount. Its alot of money to achieve not alot apart from helping to off-set the closure of Liddel.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It’s 1am where I am right now - what price is RE solar selling for?
Aaron
Well, OPENNEM says industrial Solar is selling for $51/MWh, just that there is none to sell! Price actually went up to $80/MWh during the night. I think whats happening is that contribution is listed as negative -0.01MW, so something must be pulling power and hence being charged grid price.

But again two days in a row SA is exporting OCGT power, the madness continues all in the name of no more coal which would be selling the same power for half the price.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Right now, RE is looking good! Lots of lights off in SA if we couldn’t import energy, or burn gas.

229MW of wind, 1507MW of gas for a 2150MW demand so approx 1/10 homes are being supplied to by wind - we are EXTREMELY fortunate to have eastern states coal to do the heavy lifting for us.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
The negative supply on solar is the ‘cost’ of keeping the Port Augusta CSP (aka Sundrop) in an unproductive state overnight.

Not unlike Ivanpah, when it’s not producing (which is most of the day) it presents as a load. When your solar needs gas to burned to function you really have to wonder if it’s doing everything possible to reduce atmospheric CO2 - turns out it isn’t.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Climate Change will be addressed by implementing known viable solutions, not chasing ghosts and exporting industry while taxing the rich for driving modern clear cars and rewarding the poor for driving their older more polluting cars.
Except with this government, for example the Joyce/Taylor payments to Eastern Australian, I don't trust them to put the payment to where the viable solution is and not, just coincidentally, make the payment to a party donor or an old school mate who supports LNP interests etc.  We have no real protections at the Federal level that make sure they do the right thing with the funds we entrust to them.  And the more exposure i have to the Federal level of government, the more I don't like what i see.  NSW is better in quite a few respects, which scares me considering where NSW was a few years ago with Ibeid/Tripodi et. al.

Agreed, our carbon system wasn't perfect and all cars, trucks etc need to be included.

I think your comments about taxing the rich and rewarding the poor are flipped so assume you mean tax the poor and reward the rich, but the exact same argument can be made about GST - the poor pay more proportionally than the rich and so im not sure your point is uniquely valid to a carbon trading system.  Though the carbon price wasn't a tax if we want to be technical, and wasn't levied at individuals, rather carbon emitters who then had a direct incentive to reduce carbon which in many cases meant a reduction in cost too through finding efficiencies.  These no doubt would pass onto all in the economy.




Now look at power generation, Aluminium uses 7-8t CO2 in coal power generation per tonne of aluminium produced. The two bigger smelters in Oz Tomago and Boyne receive power generated from 100% black coal. If you tax the power generated, they will likely close at end of power contract, if not before. There is no practical alternative to coal to run an aluminium smelter in Australia short of someone building a nuclear power station. So their production will be replaced with aluminium production in India and China, the worlds growth zones in aluminium production, all on coal and from personal experience in India, it makes the crap coal in Vic look good, so more CO2 per tonne!

RTT_Rules
You are confusing quality of coal with efficiency of the power plant - while there is some relationship, it is not a large one. Many, many newer India coal fired plants, burning "poor" Indian coal run at higher efficiencies than the best performing plant in Australia. So lower CO2 per tonne in this case from the India plant.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE


Now look at power generation, Aluminium uses 7-8t CO2 in coal power generation per tonne of aluminium produced. The two bigger smelters in Oz Tomago and Boyne receive power generated from 100% black coal. If you tax the power generated, they will likely close at end of power contract, if not before. There is no practical alternative to coal to run an aluminium smelter in Australia short of someone building a nuclear power station. So their production will be replaced with aluminium production in India and China, the worlds growth zones in aluminium production, all on coal and from personal experience in India, it makes the crap coal in Vic look good, so more CO2 per tonne!
You are confusing quality of coal with efficiency of the power plant - while there is some relationship, it is not a large one. Many, many newer India coal fired plants, burning "poor" Indian coal run at higher efficiencies than the best performing plant in Australia. So lower CO2 per tonne in this case from the India plant.
arctic
No, not confusing, just referring to coal in general.

Yes, simply replacing Australia's aging coal power stations with higher efficiency ones burning better coal we can reduce emissions by 20-25%.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich


Now look at power generation, Aluminium uses 7-8t CO2 in coal power generation per tonne of aluminium produced. The two bigger smelters in Oz Tomago and Boyne receive power generated from 100% black coal. If you tax the power generated, they will likely close at end of power contract, if not before. There is no practical alternative to coal to run an aluminium smelter in Australia short of someone building a nuclear power station. So their production will be replaced with aluminium production in India and China, the worlds growth zones in aluminium production, all on coal and from personal experience in India, it makes the crap coal in Vic look good, so more CO2 per tonne!
You are confusing quality of coal with efficiency of the power plant - while there is some relationship, it is not a large one. Many, many newer India coal fired plants, burning "poor" Indian coal run at higher efficiencies than the best performing plant in Australia. So lower CO2 per tonne in this case from the India plant.No, not confusing, just referring to coal in general.

Yes, simply replacing Australia's aging coal power stations with higher efficiency ones burning better coal we can reduce emissions by 20-25%.
RTT_Rules
Your claim was that due to the coal in India CO2 emissions would be higher. I am contesting this.

Also and once again, you dont need "better coal" to get higher efficiency. It barely makes a difference. The only real exception is the high moisture coals and even then the difference is not huge.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Your claim was that due to the coal in India CO2 emissions would be higher. I am contesting this.

Also and once again, you dont need "better coal" to get higher efficiency. It barely makes a difference. The only real exception is the high moisture coals and even then the difference is not huge.
arctic

So 50% ash generates as much CO2/MW as
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Your claim was that due to the coal in India CO2 emissions would be higher. I am contesting this.

Also and once again, you dont need "better coal" to get higher efficiency. It barely makes a difference. The only real exception is the high moisture coals and even then the difference is not huge.

So 50% ash generates as much CO2/MW as
RTT_Rules
something missing here?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Your claim was that due to the coal in India CO2 emissions would be higher. I am contesting this.

Also and once again, you dont need "better coal" to get higher efficiency. It barely makes a difference. The only real exception is the high moisture coals and even then the difference is not huge.

So 50% ash generates as much CO2/MW as
something missing here?
arctic
MMM?

So 50% ash coal generates the same CO2/MW as

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, Big J, fzr560, james.au, RTT_Rules

Display from: