future electricity strategy - AGL

[Shiraz (Ray)]

According to a report in the Advertiser, AGL has announced a strategy for the future. In summary:
- Mothball much of Torrens Island thermal in 2017
- No extension of Loy Yang thermal and all coal fired power to be shut down by 2050
- Launch a new home battery product and solar rental plans

"In the long term, energy markets will be transformed by new decentralised products and services, including solar PV, battery storage, connected appliances and smart grids...an organisational transformation will be required, including the creation of an anticipatory culture and a commitment to an orderly transition to a carbon constrained future"

this is the strategy of a mainstream base load supplier, so the transition to the future is underway.

thanks for reading. regards Ray

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

- Mothball much of Torrens Island thermal in 2017

So when the wind isn’t blowing, SA will be almost completely dependent on its connection to the Victorian grid, 90% of which is on one tower line from Heywood (near Portland).


Well I suppose that's a fair incentive to make sure you have battery banks at your home...

[glend (Glen)]

Get your battery bank, charge it off your roof, have a backup generator, and only use the grid off peak as a last resort. AGL will have to pay for that strategy off a dwindling customer demand as home storage spreads - they can only do that by reducing costs or increasing charges. The home storage market will get very competitive quicky, as soon as Tesla's Powerwall hits the market, prices will drop just like roof solar did in its most competitive phase.

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

So when the wind isn’t blowing, SA will be almost completely dependent on its connection to the Victorian grid, 90% of which is on one tower line from Heywood (near Portland).

The shift to renewable energy sources and domestic "micro-power" will require a lot of changes in the grid, besides the obvious ones of decommissioning thermal power stations. Energy storage will be a big issue for solar and wind power, so you can collect it when it's available, and release it when it's needed. Batteries are one solution, but are a bit limited when you're talking about GW.hr scale base-load power.

Pumped-hydro storage is capable of scaling a LOT bigger than battery technology for the foreseeable future. Wivenhoe Power Station in Queensland http://www.csenergy.com.au/userfiles...ril%202013.pdf can store and release 500 MW of power for about 6 - 8 hours at a time. (That's the equivalent of a 3 GW.hr "battery", with a 6-hour recharge time - just imagine what that would look like as a bank of lead-acid or Li-Ion batteries!) Similar units could be built anywhere that a "small" dam can be built with a bit of head above the main water reservoir - e.g. anywhere around the Australian coast-line.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

The inevitable response to falling demand and home generation is that distributors will start charging more for the actual connection, than they do for the electricity itself. Just like water companies often do.

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

The inevitable response to falling demand and home generation is that distributors will start charging more for the actual connection, than they do for the electricity itself. Just like water companies often do.

And LPG for home use - we have a 90 kg bottle for our stove, which lasts us about 18 months - 2 years. I pay about 3 times as much per year for the "facility fee" as I spend on the gas itself!

[Larryp (Laurie)]

I have my electricity and gas with AGL. I also have solar panels on my roof.
They used to give me 15% discount for paying my electricity bill on time, but they have reduced that to 7% now because I have solar power-so I get penalised for having it.

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

The inevitable response to falling demand and home generation is that distributors will start charging more for the actual connection, than they do for the electricity itself. Just like water companies often do.

We already do this. Most of the electricity "price" is transmission and distribution. What will need to happen is that this will be explicitly broken out and charged independent of the volume of electricity consumed. Under the current arrangement those without solar are basically subsidising the grid connection costs of those who do have solar because they are avoiding a fixed cost that is being paid for with a variable charge.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

This is why subsidising solar panels was a bad idea. If it’s not viable on large scale, then it definitely isn’t viable on a small scale, and the rest of us wear the cost.
If people want them, then they are welcome, but nobody else should have to pay for it.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

SA might yet go nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...yal_Commission

[Paul Haese]

The subsidy for the solar power was introduced to create an incentive for people to get involved. Solar power costs were very high before an economy of scale was established. Compared to now the prices were incredibly high. Those of us who wanted to do the right thing and expend the money ought not to be penalised either. Earlier adoption in this case was seen as requiring reward or at least some incentive. It does not last forever. Many people have invested 13-18k dollars to produce power, remove their bills and help the environment.

The sooner battery technology can come on board and provide real base load for many the better. Once the scheme is fully operational here and affordable I will be going off the grid for good.

I would support nuclear power too. If the world is serious about green house emission reduction then it has to be in the mix with gen 4 systems in place. We have plenty of desert here to install a system or two. Perhaps we could sell the power back to Victoria at a similar rate they are selling it to us. That would seem fair. SA has the highest prices for electricity supply and charge by a long margin. Someone is making a packet out of the supply and it cannot all be blamed on solar power.

I suspect Ray you would do the same as us?

[Hagar (Doug)]

AGL has a nice new CEO who is saying a lot but saying very little. Time will tell whether the energy companies are for real. With changing attitudes companies who do not make big changes and innovative changes will go to the wall.
AGL have already shutdown and mothballed a large part of Torrens Island Power Station, have reduced generation at Somerton Gas Turbines to almost nil because the cost of gas has sky rocketed to very high levels due to gas being exported and bringing a higher price than it does when converted to electricity. I will be interested to see how AGL manages these changing times. AGL and Snowy Mountains Hydro are the only remaining fully Australian Owned major Generating companies remaining. Their demise would spell a total melt down of the energy sector as we know it.

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

AGL and Snowy Mountains Hydro are the only remaining fully Australian Owned major Generating companies remaining. Their demise would spell a total melt down of the energy sector as we know it.

Why is not having fully Australian owned generators going to cause a melt down of the energy sector?

[Wavytone]

Before you all get too excited about solar power, a few sobering thoughts concerning NSW (for example) - from the publicly available annual reports of the network operators:

1. NSW annual electricity consumption for 2914 : 91,000 GWh
2. Net solar power into the grid: 850 MWh which is less than 0.001% of the demand;
3. Net wind power into the grid : 1,600 GWh which is about 1.5%.

And bear in mind both wind and solar are only produced because of a political interference (the subsidies) to distort what should have been a free market; without the subsidy neither are viable economically.

Wind power at least is capable of producing something significant but to scale it up 60x implies plastering most of the countrysude with windmills. Not really sure how acceptable that's going to be.

As for solar... It simply doesn't scale to anything useful unless you're prepared to cover most of the countryside with solar cells. Not really viable, actually.

The conclusion from an independent consultancy reviewing the governments solar program concluded it was no more than a "feel good" measure to pacify the greenies with no practical benefit of any significance to the electrical network. And it has also left a political legacy of domestic users having installed these things with the expectation of continuing to be subsidised to generate an insignificant amount power at artificlally inflated prices, attempting to bring these users back to reality is going to be unpalatable for any government.

The problem with both is what happens when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining - we still need base load power stations running with the full capacity to power the load at no notice. Unfortunately you can't just start/stop power stations with a flick of a switch. They take hours to start, and once running they stay running for months regardless of the load.

And before you armchair experts try to throw the theory at me, spare your fingers, the reality unfortunately shows a rather different picture.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Before you all get too excited about solar power, a few sobering thoughts concerning NSW (for example) - from the publicly available annual reports of the network operators:

1. NSW annual electricity consumption for 2914 : 91,000 GWh
2. Net solar power into the grid: 850 MWh which is less than 0.001% of the demand;
3. Net wind power into the grid : 1,600 GWh which is about 1.5%.

And bear in mind both wind and solar are only produced because of a political interference (the subsidies) to distort what should have been a free market; without the subsidy neither are viable economically.

Wind power at least is capable of producing something significant but to scale it up 60x implies plastering most of the countrysude with windmills. Not really sure how acceptable that's going to be.

As for solar... It simply doesn't scale to anything useful unless you're prepared to cover most of the countryside with solar cells. Not really viable, actually.

The conclusion from an independent consultancy reviewing the governments solar program concluded it was no more than a "feel good" measure to pacify the greenies with no practical benefit of any significance to the electrical network. And it has also left a political legacy of domestic users having installed these things with the expectation of continuing to be subsidised to generate an insignificant amount power at artificlally inflated prices, attempting to bring these users back to reality is going to be unpalatable for any government.

The problem with both is what happens when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining - we still need base load power stations running with the full capacity to power the load at no notice. Unfortunately you can't just start/stop power stations with a flick of a switch. They take hours to start, and once running they stay running for months regardless of the load.

And before you armchair experts try to throw the theory at me, spare your fingers, the reality unfortunately shows a rather different picture.

Wavey you pretty much sum it up. Having worked in the industry for 40+ years I have seen the changes made with regard to so called free energy and as yet nothing has happened without some form of subsidy. AGL actually reported a lowering of income when the Carbon Tax was cancelled. Funny I didn't think it was there to make the generation companies a profit. Renewable energy is still a very small part of Australian Generators commitment to energy delivery and until there is some very large leaps forward in the renewable generation and storage schemes it will remain so.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by bugeater

Why is not having fully Australian owned generators going to cause a melt down of the energy sector?

If all our generation is controlled off shore it is more than likely that collusion between companies will become more and more possible and likely. The energy regulator already investigates several possible collusion cases each year.
It's also very easy for OS companies to hold Australia to ransom to force change in their favour.
At least while there is a couple of Australian players in the market it is possible to keep all of us in the loop and keep the market honest.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Before you all get too excited about solar power, a few sobering thoughts concerning NSW (for example) - from the publicly available annual reports of the network operators:

1. NSW annual electricity consumption for 2914 : 91,000 GWh
2. Net solar power into the grid: 850 MWh which is less than 0.001% of the demand;
3. Net wind power into the grid : 1,600 GWh which is about 1.5%.

And bear in mind both wind and solar are only produced because of a political interference (the subsidies) to distort what should have been a free market; without the subsidy neither are viable economically.

Wind power at least is capable of producing something significant but to scale it up 60x implies plastering most of the countrysude with windmills. Not really sure how acceptable that's going to be.

As for solar... It simply doesn't scale to anything useful unless you're prepared to cover most of the countryside with solar cells. Not really viable, actually.

The conclusion from an independent consultancy reviewing the governments solar program concluded it was no more than a "feel good" measure to pacify the greenies with no practical benefit of any significance to the electrical network. And it has also left a political legacy of domestic users having installed these things with the expectation of continuing to be subsidised to generate an insignificant amount power at artificlally inflated prices, attempting to bring these users back to reality is going to be unpalatable for any government.

The problem with both is what happens when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining - we still need base load power stations running with the full capacity to power the load at no notice. Unfortunately you can't just start/stop power stations with a flick of a switch. They take hours to start, and once running they stay running for months regardless of the load.

And before you armchair experts try to throw the theory at me, spare your fingers, the reality unfortunately shows a rather different picture.

Are you really saying that the power generating industries have not bee subsidized
Don't make me laugh
One of the big problems as I see it is the grid system being used to supply places hundreds of kilometers away from the generation source.
Smaller towns and cities should have their own power generating systems.
Solar and wind can supply smaller communities,let the big cities have their big power stations
Hundreds of klms of power cables and poles could be done away with.
Seems funny that countries like the USA and Germany Spain etc are going down the renewable energy route.
It will take time to get this country upto a good % of renewable energy,
The delay is down to a large extent by the mining and energy companies undermining it and bent governments abetting them.
Cheers

[clive milne]

The following article can be read here:
http://theconversation.com/baseload-...ill-work-13210

Baseload power is a myth: even intermittent renewables will work





Mark Diesendorf


Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW at UNSW Australia


The future of civilisation and much biodiversity hangs to a large degree on whether we can replace fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – with clean, safe and affordable energy within several decades. The good news is that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures have advanced with extraordinary speed over the past decade.
Energy efficient buildings and appliances, solar hot water, on-shore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, concentrated solar thermal (CST) power with thermal storage and gas turbines burning a wide range of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels are commercially available on a large scale. The costs of these technologies have declined substantially, especially those of solar PV. In 2012, despite the global financial crisis, global investment in these clean, safe and healthy technologies amounted to US $269 billion. Denmark, Scotland and Germany and several states/provinces around the world have official targets of around 100% renewable electricity and are implementing policies to achieve them.
The principal barrier is resistance from vested interests and their supporters in the big greenhouse gas polluting industries and from an unsafe, expensive, polluting, would-be competitor to a renewable energy future, nuclear power. These powerful interests are running a campaign of renewable energy denial that is almost as fierce as the long-running campaign of climate change denial. Both campaigns are particularly noisy in the Murdoch press. So far the anti-renewables campaign, with its misinformation and gross exaggerations, has received little critical examination in the mainstream media.
The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base-load demand.
Renewable electricity is reliable

In a previous article for The Conversation I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. However at the time of the article I was still under the misconception that some base-load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.
Since then Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010. Our latest research, available here and reported here, finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems.
The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.
Renewable electricity is affordable

Our latest peer-reviewed paper, currently in press in Energy Policy journal, compares the economics of two new alternative hypothetical generation systems for 2030: 100% renewable electricity versus an “efficient” fossil-fuelled system. Both systems have commercially available technologies and both satisfy the NEM reliability criterion. However, the renewable energy system has zero greenhouse gas emissions while the efficient fossil scenario has high emissions and water use and so would be unacceptable in environmental terms.
We used the technology costs projected to 2030 in the conservative 2012 study by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). (In my personal view, future solar PV and wind costs are likely to be lower than the BREE projections, and future fossil fuel and nuclear costs are likely to be higher.) Then, we did thousands of hourly simulations of supply and demand over 2010, until we found the mix of renewable energy sources that gave the minimum annual cost.
Under transparent assumptions, we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs.
Thus 100% renewable electricity would be affordable under sensible government policy, busting another myth. All we need are effective policies to drive the transition.
Thread: future electricity strategy - AGL Reply to Thread

Logged in as clive milne
Title: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/clear.gif

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Before you all get too excited about solar power, a few sobering thoughts concerning NSW (for example) - from the publicly available annual reports of the network operators:

1. NSW annual electricity consumption for 2914 : 91,000 GWh
2. Net solar power into the grid: 850 MWh which is less than 0.001% of the demand;
3. Net wind power into the grid : 1,600 GWh which is about 1.5%.

And bear in mind both wind and solar are only produced because of a political interference (the subsidies) to distort what should have been a free market; without the subsidy neither are viable economically.

Wind power at least is capable of producing something significant but to scale it up 60x implies plastering most of the countrysude with windmills. Not really sure how acceptable that's going to be.

As for solar... It simply doesn't scale to anything useful unless you're prepared to cover most of the countryside with solar cells. Not really viable, actually.

The conclusion from an independent consultancy reviewing the governments solar program concluded it was no more than a "feel good" measure to pacify the greenies with no practical benefit of any significance to the electrical network. And it has also left a political legacy of domestic users having installed these things with the expectation of continuing to be subsidised to generate an insignificant amount power at artificlally inflated prices, attempting to bring these users back to reality is going to be unpalatable for any government.

The problem with both is what happens when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining - we still need base load power stations running with the full capacity to power the load at no notice. Unfortunately you can't just start/stop power stations with a flick of a switch. They take hours to start, and once running they stay running for months regardless of the load.

And before you armchair experts try to throw the theory at me, spare your fingers, the reality unfortunately shows a rather different picture.

This thread started out with a quote from the CEO of AGL and presumably he represents the view of at least some of his board - hardly "armchair experts" and probably not a pinko greenie in sight..

The view that renewables are minor contributors is just not true of SA - we have on occasion generated 100% of our power from renewables and the goal is for an average of 50%, up from the current 33%. The sky didn't fall when most of the thermal generators were taken off line for almost a week late last year. Presumably we used the network as a buffer, but surely that is what it was built for.

I agree that solar does not seem to be all that competitive for base load at present, but power storage is coming as the AGL CEO said - and that will change things. In the meantime, I have just put a new solar system on my house and the first bill was almost exactly half that from last year - this is with no FIT government assistance (I get 5c per kWh), this is just reduced consumption because we are not taking energy from the grid (even on cloudy days). PV may not be practical for the big end of town, but it is now so cheap that it is a very good investment in the end user environment, with or without any FIT assistance. Previous government help worked well in encouraging the industry in the early days and it is now paying off big time for us small users. PV may not help "the electrical network", but why should I care about that - it helps me a lot. I suspect that the "independent consultacy" that advised the government possibly did not consult with many household users or small businesses.

I am amazed at how quickly the tide seems to be turning. A couple of years ago it seemed like we were on the Titanic and headed for the iceberg, but many new technologies are powering ahead and a long term energy future now seems much more do-able.

[clive milne]

What I would like to see (globally) is the introduction of a scheme where people could elect to pay (upfront) the deferred costs associated with their lifestyle choices .... OR .... secure insurance to the value required to indemnify the rest of us, proportional to the full extent of the consequences of inaction.... Or... when the SHTF, be down on record as being one of the individuals principally complicit in enabling the conflagration, and submit to complete forfeiture of assets and earning capacity until such time as the operating system of the planet - (that would be the biosphere) has been restored to its optimal condition.. the statute of limitations should be defined by the terms imposed by nature (as opposed to the legal system- which in comparison is somewhat arbitrary)

Furthermore, I posit that if reasonable compensation for a premeditated action is assumed as a priory.
Then it naturally follows that anyone who has knowingly engaged in obfuscation, solicitation, or manipulation of public opinion for the purpose of benefiting or profiting from the destruction of the planet's life holding capacity should likewise be held financially and materially accountable to the extent that it compensates any and all individuals affected by those actions, be they living, deceased or future generations. A 100% shill/fraud levy should also be applied as punishment, separate and above any compensation payment.


Is that not reasonable?