The climate change debate continues.

[nomadpete]

Here is a map showing the grid and the major state interconnectors. These have been upgraded from time to time to meet demand. Media has made hysterical claims about 10,000k of grid required for renewable energy. However, most of this comes from progressive upgrades of existing transmission. IMHO it's a misrepresentation.

The AEMO produce annual maps of planned grid development. Note that only a minority of the stuff on it is totally new pathways (land, towers,etc). Most is simply upgrading existing feeders. Eg most of the feeders on the second map (fromAEMO) are already there. Yes it costs to grow. It has always done so for the 40 years I was involved in the industry.

Edited 7 hours ago by nomadpete
added a map

[Siso]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

I disagree:-

I disagree- I disagree:-https://www.re-alliance.org.au/where_are_the_lines_to_be_built plus the transmission lines needed from each farm to the closest major line. all these projects will be over budget as well. This is all extra because of the intermittency of our new generation. But at least we are being told the actual electricity is the cheapest form of electricity generation. Just the extras that make it expensive. We can see the price of coal fired generation rise as the capacity factor decreases. Do you reckon the same thing will happen with the intermittent generation as the overbuild eats into their capacity factors. During the months of high generation we can expect these generators to bid higher prices as their CF decreases due to oversupply. There is only so much extra energy that can be stored. This will also change during the year, pushing up the price of stored energy. Basic economics.

[Siso]

The new stuff is huge, 330KV, possibly 500kV- Very expensive to build to only be used at low capacity factors. Remember, underutilised equipment is expensive. You don't see Qantas just having aircraft sitting around. An intermittent grid is going to have a lot of plant "laying" around for that once or twice a year when needed.

[facthunter]

Supplying Power to remote farms etc can never PAY.   There's extra strength in Aircraft structures for the Occasional Turbulence too and you often carry extra fuel just in case you  need it. Water and sewage systems don't run at full flow either.  AIRLINES would have aircraft sitting around but as few as can be  organised. If there's a 'Plane on the ground" Common Term there must be a replacement or Passengers don't go where they were booked to go and that doesn't win customers. Just in Time, runs risks carrying stock costs money also. Reserve stocks of Fuel. It's all part of the show, and the SHOW MUST GO ON. Nev

[octave]

32 minutes ago, Siso said:

. Remember, underutilised equipment is expensive. You don't see Qantas just having aircraft sitting around. An intermittent grid is going to have a lot of plant "laying" around for that once or twice a year when needed.

The comparison with Qantas aircraft is misleading, because traditional coal-fired power stations already rely on vast amounts of underutilised equipment. Coal plants cannot ramp quickly, they cannot turn off at night, and they must run even when demand collapses — meaning the whole plant is burning fuel simply to stay online. This is the definition of expensive underutilisation.

[facthunter]

Not suitable for Purpose. Goes back to the "BASELINE POWER" argument STILL trotted out by the Naysayers.  Older Coal fired Power stations can't be relied on and IF one fails it's a BIG  problem.  to fix because it an out of date thing. .Nev

[onetrack]

In rural W.A., the State Govt electricity system provider and maintainer, Western Power, has been pulling out long rural power lines to distant farms, and installing stand-alone, off-grid power plants to the farms.

 

The stand-alone power plants are a combination of solar, battery and backup diesel power. WP says the stand-alone systems are cheaper than the cost of installing and maintaining long power lines with only a handful of customers.

 

With this change, there's also the benefits that less trees are required to be cut down for poles, farming operations are easier when they don't have to work around poles, blackouts from storm damage to poles and wiring is reduced, and fire outbreaks from fallen power lines are eliminated.

 

A farmer friend in the W.A. wheatbelt accidently bumped a pole in his paddock with a seeding unit, and the pole promptly fell over - and it took 6 other poles down with it! The holes for the poles are oversized and the dirt refilled around the pole is not compacted, so it doesn't take a lot to make them fall over, especially when the ground is wet.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-02/thousands-of-renewable-standalone-power-systems-to-be-rolled-out/101479136

 

However, the changeover is not without its problems, and primarily, the problems relate to WP inflexibility and faulty planning. Some farmer customers are not happy with the standalone systems, due to limitations, rules about resetting circuit breakers, and what may happen when the stand-alone systems are worn out and a future cash-strapped State Govt refuses to replace them.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-12/farmers-question-western-power-push-standalone-regional-units/103549708

[facthunter]

We'll ALL be RUNED said Hanrahan. They HATE Power poles but still want electricity available. Bl@@Dy whingers. Get REAL! Nev

[kgwilson]

It is not surprising that the right wing of politics are heading down hill. They keep rabbiting on about how they will make electricity cheaper but have no plans on how this will happen. They keep harping on about "base load" power a term from last century when everything was coal. It is "peak demand" that is the issue now and during heat waves with the huge demand for air conditioning etc brown outs are a reality. These have happened even before there was much renewable energy around.

 

We are awash with energy in the middle of the day now with so much commercial solar and wind and the huge amount of rooftop solar on homes and businesses so storing that energy is just common sense. Many early solar farms are switching off during peak production when the spot price goes negative as they never envisaged they would need to store energy.

 

In NSW home owners are limited to exporting a maximum of 5 kW to help prevent grid overload. So if you are producing more and have no storage the excess is dissipated as heat.

 

Storage is what we need. Batteries are expensive though but fast to deploy. Pumped hydro is a great way to do this as well but costly & time consuming to set up.

 

One part of the puzzle is State & Federal subsidised batteries for home owners. My installer said to me that up until June it was all new rooftop solar. From July on it has been all new batteries, most on properties that already have large solar systems & some like me installing both. These do not need any new infrastructure at all and reduce the load on existing poles & wires so the subsidies are paying for them selves.

[Siso]

2 hours ago, octave said:

The comparison with Qantas aircraft is misleading, because traditional coal-fired power stations already rely on vast amounts of underutilised equipment. Coal plants cannot ramp quickly, they cannot turn off at night, and they must run even when demand collapses — meaning the whole plant is burning fuel simply to stay online. This is the definition of expensive underutilisation.

If the whole grid is running on several synchronous generation it gets the capacity factor up and they aren't underutilised. If it needs to ramp quickly every plant just needs to change a little bit and the system load follows quickly. It also has a large amount of inertia. Obviously they can ramp back at night as has been done for many years with controled loads like hot water.. Intermittent generation can't ramp up if there is no extra wind or sun. This is where the batterys come into it as long as they have charge and the people that trade the electricity haven't made a wrong call and emptied them previously. Remember the companys that generate our powers number 1 priority is to make money, not to keep power on to our homes and workplaces. There is definitely a place for batterys in a modern grid for sure as there is for some intermittent generators. We also need to remember these people that are selling this type of grid also convinced the government that the power was going to $275 cheaper. Definitely not dearer. 37% this year I heard. Luckily I have solar and don't feel it yet. I still standby "No-one anywhere in the world has run a large grid on intermittent weather dependent generation." Australia is running an experiment. It may work but at what cost and what help will it do to the environment.(make absolutely no difference.) We saw what happened in Spain when a solar inverter started to fail and put stupid frequencys on the grid. Are we willing to risk it.

[Siso]

Batterys paid for by subsidies, all well and good if you can afford it. Catastrophic if you can't! And there is a lot more people around that can't even buy a house let alone worry about solar and batterys!

[facthunter]

Each Battery no Matter who Owns it Helps the system. You trotted out the OLD 275 Dollar thing from years ago. THAT'S not science Based. NOW I Know you aren't fair Dinkum and the Spanish situation has NO bearing on what happens Here. Free Power for people at certain times.  Lower cost than would be otherwise because of other people's SOLAR. Nev