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 3 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