Victorian Power Crisis

 
Topic moved from Victoria by dthead on 03 Feb 2020 21:35
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Dependence on coal when no wind and sun - of course! Because gas is so inordinately expensive, other sources of lower cost power are sort and hence SA gas based power as a % will drop. This is why an adequate and functional interconnector system is so important.
$11000 per Mw - beware of conflating 30 min spot prices with longer term prices. The bidding system is such that it lends itself to manipulation and some power suppliers exploit this. EG, withholding power at high demand periods to force up spot prices! If you look at the NEM overall you will find high spot prices in every jurisdiction.
January is a known low month for wind power. Large highs sit over Australia for long periods. The NEM factors this in advance. More gas than usual is used and the price goes up accordingly. In Australia we have the scandalous situation where we pay very high prices for domestic gas while exported gas is much lower. Most, if not all, large gas exporting countries have a set and lower gas price cf export prices.
Investment in RE stalled in SA? Talk to the other states as well, especially NSW and Vic where new and in construction solar farms have had their production curtailed by up to 50%. Why? Because of the mendacity, incompetence and greed of the LNP re planning sound policies and funding for the provision of an adequate rural grid to move the production based on the old central grid system. [See article in ABC News today] We currently subsidise coal to the tune of $1050/person/annum. This money could be better spent expanding the RE industry.  No wonder they don't want a Federal ICAC!
I understand that all States are committed to net zero emissions by 2050. While progress will undoubtable be made by the States, to do it in the most efficient and effective way, talking into account the financial, economic, social and environmental factors requires Commonwealth participation and commitment! Transitioning needs to start early to minimise wastage, loss of
investment and minimise negative social impacts.
Changing the technology for RE to better manage the stability of the grid - absolutely. Note that it was not a requirement when these plants were designed and commissioned.
No existing alternative to the current coal fired power stations. Precisely - that is the problem that those who understand the issues have been pressuring the Commonwealth Govt to get off their butt and stop propping up coal because of the donations. It is the tobacco industry problem all over again, with the same playbook being used.
Andrewdr
More points of order

- Yes the spot prices are due to lack of demand and affect all states, however you cannot expect industry to migrate to a country where power prices can be allowed to become so excessive, even for brief periods. Yes I agree with organised curtailing of demand to deal with short falls, but not this way.

- the power grid decentralization costs are the backbone of the rise in power prices over the years. If I build a base load operation I can justify running a HV cable to it knowing that it will be uterlised 24/7/365 for 40 years, likely always above 75%. Costs are easily diluted. A solar farm is 6-12h/day hence the cost is not as easily diluted also the cost of building a line to a 100MW solar farm is not that much less than a 1000 MW coal power station. The coal power stations are mostly build near their demand so short transmission costs, solar and wind is not and distributed across the country side. So yes the cost of servicing the distributed RE network is higher, alot higher.  

Moral of the story, don't blame any one political party for basics physics and why the RE suppliers are basically jumping onto reserve capacity of existing HV lines to minimize their start up costs.

My comment about the reduction of RE capital investment was not limited to SA, and its alot more than 50% unless you are referring to 50% of not much.

How is coal subsidised?
The coal mines are mostly privately owned, operated and pay taxes as do the workers.
The workers rail system that feeds the coal power stations pay for rail access fees
The power stations are now mostly privately owned south of the Tweed and partly nth side all contributing under the law to their obligations.
Most are the same power stations formerly owned by the states and in some cases sold to simply avoid decommissioning costs by the state.

Your figure of $1000/person/year is $25B a year more than the entire power sector revenue, obviously a BS number from no where.

Note, the Qld govt treasury has been doing quite nicely from the high power prices induced into the Qld grid from shortages in the south.

Commitment to stop doing something in 30 years time is not a commitment, its an ideology.  

No solar farm investment is stopping because during the middle of the day the grid has too much power and the returns are not worth the investment with wind adding to the variable with one day getting $100/MWh when there is light wind and being told to turn off when the wind is up.

The coal fleet cannot simply cycle up and down excessively to suit the variation, so that the grid is being mostly balanced by hydro and gas.

No existing alternative to the current coal fired power stations. Precisely - that is the problem that those who understand the issues have been pressuring the Commonwealth Govt to get off their butt and stop propping up coal because of the donations. It is the tobacco industry problem all over again, with the same playbook being used.

So whats your plan to replace coal. Do you not think that globally there is not billions being spent to do just this?

The brains trust will say "pumped hydro", I like pumped hydro, alot, but as we see it needs a massive subsidy to make it work.
Snowy 2.0 enables Liddel to close, nothing else and does not required controversial new dams. There are 7 - 9 more coal power stations to follow. You may get 1-3 of these stations with some other pumped hydro projects that are acceptable to the community and expansion of Basslink.

Chemical batteries will not be the answer for at least another decade or more, if ever in our lifetime.

Solar thermal is a good option and can be combined with gas turbines for extra boost but has its issues and its biggest opposition is like all things RE, THE GREEN MOVEMENT!

As far as curtailing gas, no, it will be with us for years to come and some of the older plants need modernisation.

Increasing interstate inter-ties helps with geographic averaging of RE power, but again comes at a cost.


If it was my govt I'd throw $10-15B at the problem as a grant not requiring commercial payback, but thats $10-15B out of peoples pockets regardless.
- Snow 2.0 - 2000 MW - closure of Liddel and half another
- Bass link 2.0 - 1000 MW - this plus above closure of 2nd large coal power station, older one in Vic.
- NSW - SA HV link 1000 MW - enable closure of aging gas generators in SA.
- 1000 MW of additional wind and 250 MW of solar in Tasmania (would see all Tas gas turbines closed)
- 2000 MW more solar farm in western NSW
- 2000 MW more solar farm in western Vic
- 1000 MW more solar farm in central SA
- 1000 MW more solar farm in western Qld
(Go west to catch the setting sun for peak demand)

The projects all above are still privately built with guarantee min rates of return and profit sharing.

Wind is ok, but without hydro to buffer it starts to become a pain in the neck to deal with if there is too much.

To close more coal you need solar thermal.

I would also not be afraid of building one new modern cleaner coal power station to enable aging ones to be closed and enable both a reduction in emissions and security of supply and price.

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Yes I was surprised you were used as a source when you didn't attribute a cause to the outage. Given that the only mention of load shedding has been in the Murdoch press I'd be interested to know if it is true.
Fatty
There was a tweet from AMEO before the incident at Cressy saying conditions were the most challenging in Victoria since 2014 and that people should shut off appliances such as dishwashers and pool filters to help them out - also that they would be load shedding if conditions required it.

But what would I know, I'm just a liar.
  Fatty Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
There was a tweet from AMEO before the incident at Cressy saying conditions were the most challenging in Victoria since 2014 and that people should shut off appliances such as dishwashers and pool filters to help them out - also that they would be load shedding if conditions required it.
don_dunstan

Yep, I saw that. Did conditions require it?

edit: To answer my own question - no they didn't according to the AEMO load shed notices: https://aemo.com.au/market-notices?marketNoticeQuery=&marketNoticeFacets=LOAD+SHED#mnsr

But what would I know, I'm just a liar.


If you say so.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
There was a tweet from AMEO before the incident at Cressy saying conditions were the most challenging in Victoria since 2014 and that people should shut off appliances such as dishwashers and pool filters to help them out - also that they would be load shedding if conditions required it.
Yep, I saw that. Did conditions require it?
Fatty
Well I'm just a liar but in case you didn't read it properly they said "most challenging conditions since 2014". But then they're probably liars too.

We're all telling you lies you know.
  Fatty Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
There was a tweet from AMEO before the incident at Cressy saying conditions were the most challenging in Victoria since 2014 and that people should shut off appliances such as dishwashers and pool filters to help them out - also that they would be load shedding if conditions required it.
Yep, I saw that. Did conditions require it?
Well I'm just a liar but in case you didn't read it properly they said "most challenging conditions since 2014". But then they're probably liars too.

We're all telling you lies you know.
don_dunstan
Might want to wipe away your tears and read my edited post above.

edit:

This AEMO market notice from should remove all doubt:

Non-credible contingency event - Vic region - 31/01/2020 AEMO ELECTRICITY MARKET NOTICE. Non-credible contingency event - Vic region - 31/01/2020 Update to Market Notice 73172 At 1324 hrs the Moorabool - Mortlake 500 kV Line and the Moorabool - Haunted Gully 500 kV Line tripped resulting in South Australia separating from Victoria. AEMO did not instruct load shedding. The cause of this non credible contingency event is not known at this stage. Manager NEM Real Time Operations
AEMO
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
There was a tweet from AMEO before the incident at Cressy saying conditions were the most challenging in Victoria since 2014 and that people should shut off appliances such as dishwashers and pool filters to help them out - also that they would be load shedding if conditions required it.
Yep, I saw that. Did conditions require it?
Well I'm just a liar but in case you didn't read it properly they said "most challenging conditions since 2014". But then they're probably liars too.

We're all telling you lies you know.
Might want to wipe away your tears and read my edited post above.
Fatty
I'm not crying, you are. You're having a little weep into your lunchbox because yet again you're wrong.

So AMEO are liars then because they asked people to turn off appliances to help them out. Power goes out in Central VIC on a day that they advised of possible load shedding and you're still unsure if it was a load-shedding event or not.

It's safe to say they're liars then isn't it.
  Fatty Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
There was a tweet from AMEO before the incident at Cressy saying conditions were the most challenging in Victoria since 2014 and that people should shut off appliances such as dishwashers and pool filters to help them out - also that they would be load shedding if conditions required it.
Yep, I saw that. Did conditions require it?
Well I'm just a liar but in case you didn't read it properly they said "most challenging conditions since 2014". But then they're probably liars too.

We're all telling you lies you know.
Might want to wipe away your tears and read my edited post above.
I'm not crying, you are. You're having a little weep into your lunchbox because yet again you're wrong.

So AMEO are liars then because they asked people to turn off appliances to help them out. Power goes out in Central VIC on a day that they advised of possible load shedding and you're still unsure if it was a load-shedding event or not.

It's safe to say they're liars then isn't it.
don_dunstan
See the AEMO notice above.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
See the AEMO notice above.
Fatty
And yet earlier on the very same day they were saying they were going to resort to load-shedding if necessary.

Lo and behold the Cressy incident made the decision for them about what to shed - the smelter.

Why are you still banging on about this - the fact remains that it was an extremely challenging day for the grid completely independent of what happened to the HV lines at Cressy.
  Fatty Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
And yet earlier on the very same day they were saying they were going to resort to load-shedding if necessary.
don_dunstan


Yes, if necessary. You have continuously insisted that load shedding was already happening before the Cressy incident and this clearly isn't the case.

Lo and behold the Cressy incident made the decision for them about what to shed - the smelter.


We'll never know what would have happened if the supply to the smelter hadn't been damaged. There may have been a need for load shedding but that's hypothetical.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Problem solved boys.
People get absolutely hysterical when you suggest we should be doing this, I've been called every name under the sun.
All they (the general Green-Left) have managed to achieve is making Australians pay more for electricity for no actual meaningful decrease in emissions.
New power stations utilising coal or nuclear power would produce power at significantly greater cost, the former producing greenhouse gases and the latter long term radioactive waste which we are yet to find a safe long term means of disposal.
Renewable energy is ideally suited to a decentralised grid which is, by its very nature, more robust and cheaper in the longer term.

The world's major investors will bring about the necessary shift to renewable energy as the risks of stranded assets associated with traditional generation are too great
Andrewdr
Nuclear maybe, due to the regulations, but coal, without market distortions or political uncertainty around carbon pricing like we have in Australia, is still cheap. That's why the worlds biggest investors in new power capacity....in China and India are installing coal fired capacity.

You cant beat coal on price if everything is left to the free market.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Nuclear maybe, due to the regulations, but coal, without market distortions or political uncertainty around carbon pricing like we have in Australia, is still cheap. That's why the worlds biggest investors in new power capacity....in China and India are installing coal fired capacity.

You cant beat coal on price if everything is left to the free market.
Mr. Lane
Renewables are all about collecting extremely diffuse and irregular sources of energy and trying to concentrate them enough so that they can produce electricity on a mass industrial scale and a reliable basis. They're really not fit for that purpose and they probably never will be. Hydrocarbons are really good at what they do - releasing huge amounts of energy when required to do so. That's why we fill our cars and trucks up with them and that's how we developed and powered a modern industrial society to date.

It's a measure of how stupidly anti-hydrocarbon we've become that Ireland's only coal-fired power plant is going to be converted to burn wood-chips harvested from places like Australia or Brazil, shipped from the other side of the planet using diesel-spewing bulk shipping and then burnt inefficiently in a power plant releasing ash and carbon in the belief that it's somehow better than coal.

People keep saying "coal is dead" and yet all over the world new plants are being built all the time - the latest is Japan with an announcement that they'll be building 22 brand new coal-fired power plants to ensure future stability of electricity supply: The Independent.

What harm would it do if we had two or three new large high-efficiency coal-fired plants to ensure stability of supply?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Problem solved boys.
People get absolutely hysterical when you suggest we should be doing this, I've been called every name under the sun.
All they (the general Green-Left) have managed to achieve is making Australians pay more for electricity for no actual meaningful decrease in emissions.
New power stations utilising coal or nuclear power would produce power at significantly greater cost, the former producing greenhouse gases and the latter long term radioactive waste which we are yet to find a safe long term means of disposal.
Renewable energy is ideally suited to a decentralised grid which is, by its very nature, more robust and cheaper in the longer term.

The world's major investors will bring about the necessary shift to renewable energy as the risks of stranded assets associated with traditional generation are too great
Nuclear maybe, due to the regulations, but coal, without market distortions or political uncertainty around carbon pricing like we have in Australia, is still cheap. That's why the worlds biggest investors in new power capacity....in China and India are installing coal fired capacity.

You cant beat coal on price if everything is left to the free market.
Mr. Lane
The three who disagreed with this statement need to accept that coal is still one of the cheapest sources of dispatch able power in the world and hence why so many coal power stations are still being built in emerging and developing nations where which don't have artificial costs added to coal power. As well as some developed countries that have replaced aging coal with more efficient coal in recent years as a mechanism to reduce emissions and provide both stability and reliability to their respective grids.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
Just thought I'd pop by and let you all know that the power is out again here tonight. Luckily the Butcher is long gone home and the Milk Bar has shut for the evening leaving just little old me trying (and failing) to order stock from OS.

Top little power grid this one!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Nuclear maybe, due to the regulations, but coal, without market distortions or political uncertainty around carbon pricing like we have in Australia, is still cheap. That's why the worlds biggest investors in new power capacity....in China and India are installing coal fired capacity.

You cant beat coal on price if everything is left to the free market.
Renewables are all about collecting extremely diffuse and irregular sources of energy and trying to concentrate them enough so that they can produce electricity on a mass industrial scale and a reliable basis. They're really not fit for that purpose and they probably never will be. Hydrocarbons are really good at what they do - releasing huge amounts of energy when required to do so. That's why we fill our cars and trucks up with them and that's how we developed and powered a modern industrial society to date.

It's a measure of how stupidly anti-hydrocarbon we've become that Ireland's only coal-fired power plant is going to be converted to burn wood-chips harvested from places like Australia or Brazil, shipped from the other side of the planet using diesel-spewing bulk shipping and then burnt inefficiently in a power plant releasing ash and carbon in the belief that it's somehow better than coal.

People keep saying "coal is dead" and yet all over the world new plants are being built all the time - the latest is Japan with an announcement that they'll be building 22 brand new coal-fired power plants to ensure future stability of electricity supply: The Independent.

What harm would it do if we had two or three new large high-efficiency coal-fired plants to ensure stability of supply?
don_dunstan
Agree,
we need a coal power station, probably around 1200 MW to replace some of the output lost from the upcoming Liddle closure and something in Vic to improve reliability, either gas or coal to stabilise and improve reliability.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Just thought I'd pop by and let you all know that the power is out again here tonight. Luckily the Butcher is long gone home and the Milk Bar has shut for the evening leaving just little old me trying (and failing) to order stock from OS.

Top little power grid this one!
BrentonGolding
Terrible, just terrible. And the VIC government wants Melbourne people to move to regional VIC - AND start businesses and the like. As you say, who is responsible for that chronic un-reliability, Dan Andrews says "no"...
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Power Crisis in Victoria this is the first I've heard of it. Fake News.
The Same Pro-Coal and Anti-Climate Nuffties pushing an their agenda and ideals. Mods lock this Cringe thread or merge it with the Power thread.

Oh and before someone asks 'buT JuST bEcAUse yOUr PoWeR hAsN't GoNe'. It has on multiple occasions and does fairly regularly.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Power Crisis in Victoria this is the first I've heard of it. Fake News.

The Same Pro-Coal and Anti-Climate Nuffties pushing an their agenda and ideals. Mods lock this Cringe thread or merge it with the Power thread.

Oh and before someone asks 'buT JuST bEcAUse yOUr PoWeR hAsN't GoNe'. It has on multiple occasions and does fairly regularly.
"Dangersdan707"
If you're prepared to accept regular power outages as normal, you're a more easy going man than me. it has already been commented upon that these outages are costing businesses money which they can't afford. Years of neglect are taking their toll.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
Power Crisis in Victoria this is the first I've heard of it. Fake News.
The Same Pro-Coal and Anti-Climate Nuffties pushing an their agenda and ideals. Mods lock this Cringe thread or merge it with the Power thread.

Oh and before someone asks 'buT JuST bEcAUse yOUr PoWeR hAsN't GoNe'. It has on multiple occasions and does fairly regularly.
Dangersdan707
Did you actually read the thread or is this just 'The Same Anti-Coal and Pro-Climate Nufftie' in you typing without engaging your brain? As for asking for Mods to lock the thread yoU HaVE sPeNT wAY tOo mUcH TiMe rEadiNg mAO's liTTle rED bOoK!

I am certainly NOT Anti-Climate - I reckon climate is fantastic and I for one certainly wouldn't want to live without one!

Oh and i'm not pro-coal either BTW.......
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Power Crisis in Victoria this is the first I've heard of it. Fake News.
The Same Pro-Coal and Anti-Climate Nuffties pushing an their agenda and ideals. Mods lock this Cringe thread or merge it with the Power thread.

Oh and before someone asks 'buT JuST bEcAUse yOUr PoWeR hAsN't GoNe'. It has on multiple occasions and does fairly regularly.
Dangersdan707
So,
Whats your plan to save Vic from both higher power prices and lack of power supply reliability?
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
To close more coal you need solar thermal.
RTT_Rules
Correct, and the corollary to that is to close ALL coal you need nuclear.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
To close more coal you need solar thermal.
Correct, and the corollary to that is to close ALL coal you need nuclear.
Aaron
A few nuc's in the mix certainly wouldn't do any harm.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
We currently subsidise coal to the tune of $1050/person/annum.
Andrewdr
smeg, you don't actually have a source for that impossibly high number do you? I wish it were true. That'd pay for 3GW of new nuclear power plants every year. In three and a bit years we would have Australia's ENTIRE electrical energy capacity supplied by nuclear. Within six and a half or so years of that (so say 10 years from today) we would have 200% oversupply (33% demand) meaning we would have near literally 'energy too cheap to meter'. All without needing to go out and find every atom of lithium (even those we don't currently know the whereabouts of) in the joint.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
We currently subsidise coal to the tune of $1050/person/annum.
smeg, you don't actually have a source for that impossibly high number do you? I wish it were true. That'd pay for 3GW of new nuclear power plants every year. In three and a bit years we would have Australia's ENTIRE electrical energy capacity supplied by nuclear. Within six and a half or so years of that (so say 10 years from today) we would have 200% oversupply (33% demand) meaning we would have near literally 'energy too cheap to meter'. All without needing to go out and find every atom of lithium (even those we don't currently know the whereabouts of) in the joint.
Aaron
I'm always stunned at the level of stupidity the Greens must think the voting public are when they quote coal subsidies. Yet back in the era when coal was seen as an asset to the Australian economy and the states owned the power stations. Some of the states were frequently bank rolling their treasuries from the profits made from their generating assets and that's with much lower power prices.

So how can an industry deemed needing a subsidy also provide a profit?
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

RTT, a brilliant post. It eloquently illustrated why privatisation is F*****.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

A bit of context - the vast majority of subsidy is taxed based. That $1050/pp figure is overblown. It's more like half that amount.

Still, it raises questions of where are the big profits going, and are those tax based subsidies based on tax breaks that other industries get?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.