Falling renewable costs 'chilling' for fossil fuels   :)

Canberra Times
March 30 2018 - 10:40PM

The rapidly falling cost of renewable energy and batteries is "chilling" for the future of the fossil fuels sector, raising doubts about the viability of new coal power stations.

A Bloomberg New Energy Finance report has found the price of renewables has fallen by almost a fifth over the last year, with wind and solar generators becoming cheaper than both coal and gas-fired power stations.

Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF, said the rapidly falling cost of renewable generation and battery power is changing the game for the electricity sector.

"The conclusions are chilling for the fossil fuel sector," she said.

The cost of electricity supplied by lithium-ion batteries, like the Tesla installation in South Australia, has fallen nearly 80 per cent, from $US1000 ($1308) a kilowatt hour in 2010 to only $US209 a kilowatt hour in 2017.

Wind and solar are proving cheaper because their cost of electricity has fallen significantly, while that for coal, gas, nuclear and large hydro projects has only slightly decreased.

"We are seeing record-low prices being set for wind and solar, and then those records being broken again and again on a regular basis. This is having a powerful effect – it is changing perceptions," BNEF head of Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Seb Henbest, said

BNEF said Australia had one of the world's lowest levelised cost of electricity for onshore wind and solar.

The Australian National University forecast future prices of new renewable energy generators would fall to $50 a megawatt hour in the 2020s.

The ASX forward prices for NSW between the 2020 March quarter and 2021 December quarter run to an average of $75.73 a megawatt hour for coal-fired power.

Globally, the levelised cost of electricity for wind farms was $US55 per megawatt hour for the first half of 2018, down 18 per cent from the same time last year, while solar power has also fallen 18 per cent to $US70 per megawatt hour. Only offshore wind generation failed to fall significantly, dipping 5 per cent in costs year on year

EY believes Australian renewable energy will cost the same or be cheaper than fossil fuels as soon as 2020.

This parity is forecast to happen as the Renewable Energy Target - a government scheme designed to support building renewable generation like wind and solar - comes to an end.

However, Ms Giannakopoulou said despite the rapidly falling costs of renewables it does not spell the end for fossil fuels.

"Some existing coal and gas power stations, with sunk capital costs, will continue to have a role for many years, doing a combination of bulk generation and balancing, as wind and solar penetration increase," she said.

"But the economic case for building new coal and gas capacity is crumbling, as batteries start to encroach on the flexibility and peaking revenues enjoyed by fossil fuel plants."

Australia has been putting wind and solar through its paces to see if it can provide both more stable, instantly available energy to the grid, overcoming the issues of how to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun doesn't shine.

The government recently announced new trials to improve the accuracy of the renewable systems’ self-forecasting ability, which allows them to predict the weather in their immediate area and know how much electricity they can provide into the grid, ensuring there is no sudden shortfall when the weather changes.

There are also trials to use wind farm-generated electricity to provide power that smooths out demand and supply to make sure it is balanced.

Neoen Australia’s South Australian Hornsdale 2 wind farm also carried out trials providing intermittent energy into electricity markets under a wide range of operating conditions, saving the market about $3.1 million due to the lower cost of energy

Good find Whiteknight.

I applaud all renewable energy ideas.
In 2018 we should be able to do better than burning stinking coal.

whiteknight wrote on Mar 31^st, 2018 at 7:05am:

A Bloomberg New Energy Finance report has found the price of renewables has fallen by almost a fifth over the last year, with wind and solar generators becoming cheaper than both coal and gas-fired power stations.

Now if only the could generate power when needed.

And then of course build them so they use a smaller footprint.

"This study examines power plant performance at elevated demand requirements during the explosive cyclogenesis cold weather event, now known as the “Bomb Cyclone (BC),  ” the winter storm that highlighted a period of deep freeze blanketing much of the eastern half of the United States from December 27, 2017, through January 8, 2018.
Fossil fuels, particularly coal, responded to the system’s needs during this event (Exhibit ES-1 )

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ne-power-graph.png

https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/temp/Power%20System%20Reliability_Report_Published.pdf

page 11 of the pdf.

Cost is merely one parameter.

If only this can translate into falling petrol prices.

whiteknight wrote on Mar 31^st, 2018 at 7:05am:

Falling renewable costs 'chilling' for fossil fuels   :) Canberra Times March 30 2018 - 10:40PM The rapidly falling cost of renewable energy and batteries is "chilling" for the future of the fossil fuels sector, raising doubts about the viability of new coal power stations. "The conclusions are chilling for the fossil fuel sector," she said. The cost of electricity supplied by lithium-ion batteries, like the Tesla installation in South Australia, has fallen nearly 80 per cent, from $US1000 ($1308) a kilowatt hour in 2010 to only $US209 a kilowatt hour in 2017. Wind and solar are proving cheaper because their cost of electricity has fallen significantly, while that for coal, gas, nuclear and large hydro projects has only slightly decreased.

So that SA Tesla battery cost $100 million, and it provide one single hour of electricity to on 30 000 household at the cost stated above.


Multiply $100 million by at least 12 and you get a night's worth of power. = $1.2 billion

Now there are 9 million households in Australia, so multiple $1.2 bill by 300. = 360 billion dollars

Or about one third of Australia's GDP


And that does not include industry or commercial needs.


Nor does it include the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to build the massive solar farms need to run and charge everything.


I doubt anyone in the real world is too worried about how 'cheap' renewables are.



In the words of the great Daryl Kerrigan, "Tell them they're dreamin".  ;D ;D ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2018 at 8:14pm:

whiteknight wrote on Mar 31st, 2018 at 7:05am: Falling renewable costs 'chilling' for fossil fuels   :) Canberra Times March 30 2018 - 10:40PM The rapidly falling cost of renewable energy and batteries is "chilling" for the future of the fossil fuels sector, raising doubts about the viability of new coal power stations. "The conclusions are chilling for the fossil fuel sector," she said. The cost of electricity supplied by lithium-ion batteries, like the Tesla installation in South Australia, has fallen nearly 80 per cent, from $US1000 ($1308) a kilowatt hour in 2010 to only $US209 a kilowatt hour in 2017. Wind and solar are proving cheaper because their cost of electricity has fallen significantly, while that for coal, gas, nuclear and large hydro projects has only slightly decreased. So that SA Tesla battery cost $100 million, and it provide one single hour of electricity to on 30 000 household at the cost stated above. Multiply $100 million by at least 12 and you get a night's worth of power. = $1.2 billion Now there are 9 million households in Australia, so multiple $1.2 bill by 300. = 360 billion dollars Or about one third of Australia's GDP And that does not include industry or commercial needs. Nor does it include the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to build the massive solar farms need to run and charge everything. I doubt anyone in the real world is too worried about how 'cheap' renewables are. In the words of the great Daryl Kerrigan, "Tell them they're dreamin".  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Big ol does what for a living?

::)

Quote:

A growing number of US cities and states have proposed or even passed legislation that would require producing all electricity from renewable energy sources like solar and wind within a few decades. That might sound like a great idea. But a growing body of evidence shows it’s not. It increasingly appears that insisting on 100 percent renewable sources—and disdaining others that don’t produce greenhouse gases, such as nuclear power and fossil-fuel plants with carbon-capture technology—is wastefully expensive and needlessly difficult. In the latest piece of evidence, a study published in Energy & Environmental Science determined that solar and wind energy alone could reliably meet about 80 percent of recent US annual electricity demand, but massive investments in energy storage and transmission would be needed to avoid major blackouts. Pushing to meet 100 percent of demand with these resources would require building a huge number of additional wind and solar farms—or expanding electricity storage to an extent that would be prohibitively expensive at current prices. Or some of both. The basic problem is that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. The study analyzed 36 years’ worth of hourly weather data and found there are gaps in renewable-energy production even on a continental scale. Relying on these intermittent sources alone would requiring building many more solar and wind farms to produce excess energy during particularly sunny and windy periods, plus huge storage systems that can bank hours’ or even weeks’ worth of power (see “Serial Battery Entrepreneur’s New Venture Tackles Clean Energy’s Biggest Problem”). Another possibility is to build long-distance transmission routes that could ship the electricity around the country at just the moment it’s needed. Storage systems are incredibly expensive in the case of batteries—and geographically limited in the case of pumped hydroelectric, which requires a set of water reservoirs at varying heights (see “Why Bad Things Happen to Clean-Energy Startups”). Long-distance transmission lines are also pricey and can take decades to get approved and built (see “How to Get Wyoming Wind to California, and Cut 80% of US Carbon Emissions”). Just getting to 80 percent of demand reliably with only wind and solar would require either a US-wide high-speed transmission system or 12 hours of electricity storage. A storage system of that size across the US would cost more than $2.5 trillion for a battery system. Sign up for the The Algorithm News and views on the latest in artificial intelligence Manage your newsletter preferences To meet all the nation’s annual electricity needs with 99.97 percent reliability, utilities would have to build 12 hours of storage plus at least twice the amount of renewable-energy generation, the study found. Or businesses could deploy slightly more wind and solar coupled with more than a month’s worth of storage.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610366/relying-on-renewables-alone-would-significantly-raise-the-cost-of-overhauling-the-energy/

So are you suggesting not using renewables?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 2:23pm:

So are you suggesting not using renewables?

Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems.

There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 2:28pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power.

AT the moment, anyway.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 31^st, 2018 at 9:10am:

Good find Whiteknight. I applaud all renewable energy ideas. In 2018 we should be able to do better than burning stinking coal.

Unfortunately the falling  resources market will not help the environment. All this means is we can expect more power stations in India  Brazil, Pakistan and the countries of west Africa.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 2:30pm:

lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. AT the moment, anyway.

How do you see it changing in future?

Better batteries? They are an old technology. There will only be incremental increases.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:30pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. AT the moment, anyway. How do you see it changing in future? Better batteries? They are an old technology. There will only be incremental increases.

Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:10pm:

lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:30pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. AT the moment, anyway. How do you see it changing in future? Better batteries? They are an old technology. There will only be incremental increases. Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible.

--> lee has no brains!

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:30pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. AT the moment, anyway. How do you see it changing in future? Better batteries? They are an old technology. There will only be incremental increases.

lee doesn't even know what incremental means  :D

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:26pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:10pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:30pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. AT the moment, anyway. How do you see it changing in future? Better batteries? They are an old technology. There will only be incremental increases. Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible. --> lee has no brains!

Seriously, shut up.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 2:28pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power.

No one said you can't have coal or nuclear!

;D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:10pm:

Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible.

That doesn't solve the problem of intermittentcy.

Crescent Dunes is a 110Mwh Solar salt facility. The salt allows a 10hr backup period. If it gets full sun all day.

It occupies 296 acres. According to wiki in 2016 between January and October it generated 127,308MW. It was shut in November for an extended period.

So 127308/304 = 418.77MWh per day. At that rate it generated 110Mw for only 4 hours per day.


Solar history -
"Though solar power as we know it is no more than 60 years old, the discoveries that led to the solar cell began nearly 200 years ago."

https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/a-history-of-solar-cells/
.
I would say at 60 years it is also a fairly mature technology.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:49pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:10pm: Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible. That doesn't solve the problem of intermittentcy. Crescent Dunes is a 110Mwh Solar salt facility. The salt allows a 10hr backup period. If it gets full sun all day. It occupies 296 acres. According to wiki in 2016 between January and October it generated 127,308MW. It was shut in November for an extended period. So 127308/304 = 418.77MWh per day. At that rate it generated 110Mw for only 4 hours per day.

Your point being?

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:27pm:

lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. No one said you can't have coal or nuclear! ;D

Except the "green" groups. ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 3:53pm:

lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:49pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:10pm: Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible. That doesn't solve the problem of intermittentcy. Crescent Dunes is a 110Mwh Solar salt facility. The salt allows a 10hr backup period. If it gets full sun all day. It occupies 296 acres. According to wiki in 2016 between January and October it generated 127,308MW. It was shut in November for an extended period. So 127308/304 = 418.77MWh per day. At that rate it generated 110Mw for only 4 hours per day. Your point being?

The Solar salt concept doesn't seem to be delivering on its promises.

Of course if you have a different view; you could expand on your concept. ;)

"SolarReserve’s flagship project is Crescent Dunes, a US$1 billion, 110MW first-of-its-kind project located, perhaps appropriately, near Las Vegas. Ground was broken in 2011 on the project.

The project has 10 hours molten salt storage but the relevant statistic is its design capacity factor of 51 per cent.
Not enough evidence that Crescent Dunes works

Production from the facility was first reported in October, 2015, and out of 26 months since then the facility has been completely offline for 9 months. On only 3 months has it met the annualized design goal.

Figure 1 Crescent Dunes operating history. Source EIA, Wikipedia

SolarReserve management stated that the reason the facility was closed down for 8 consecutive months in 2016/2017 was a leak in the molten salt tank.

Leaving aside any questions of how that could happen, or why it should take 8 months to repair, we note that having started up again in July 2017 the facility did not reach design goal and as of November 2017, on the last data available, it appears to have virtually shut again.

It did not meet its design goal in any month after being restarted.

Leaving aside any questions of project economics we would simply say there is not enough positive evidence to suggest the technology works to the extent advertised."

http://reneweconomy.com.au/solarreserve-still-falling-short-at-flagship-solar-tower-project-13928/

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 5:02pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:27pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:28pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 2:23pm: So are you suggesting not using renewables? Nope. But you can make your own mind up about its problems. There needs to be a mix. And if you can't have coal and you can't have nuclear; you can't have reliable power. No one said you can't have coal or nuclear! ;D Except the "green" groups. ;)

link, thanx!

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 5:04pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:53pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:49pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 3:10pm: Isnt there something about salt? Also, increases in solar cell efficiency are possible. That doesn't solve the problem of intermittentcy. Crescent Dunes is a 110Mwh Solar salt facility. The salt allows a 10hr backup period. If it gets full sun all day. It occupies 296 acres. According to wiki in 2016 between January and October it generated 127,308MW. It was shut in November for an extended period. So 127308/304 = 418.77MWh per day. At that rate it generated 110Mw for only 4 hours per day. Your point being? The Solar salt concept doesn't seem to be delivering on its promises. Of course if you have a different view; you could expand on your concept. ;) "SolarReserve’s flagship project is Crescent Dunes, a US$1 billion, 110MW first-of-its-kind project located, perhaps appropriately, near Las Vegas. Ground was broken in 2011 on the project. The project has 10 hours molten salt storage but the relevant statistic is its design capacity factor of 51 per cent. Not enough evidence that Crescent Dunes works Production from the facility was first reported in October, 2015, and out of 26 months since then the facility has been completely offline for 9 months. On only 3 months has it met the annualized design goal. Figure 1 Crescent Dunes operating history. Source EIA, Wikipedia SolarReserve management stated that the reason the facility was closed down for 8 consecutive months in 2016/2017 was a leak in the molten salt tank. Leaving aside any questions of how that could happen, or why it should take 8 months to repair, we note that having started up again in July 2017 the facility did not reach design goal and as of November 2017, on the last data available, it appears to have virtually shut again. It did not meet its design goal in any month after being restarted. Leaving aside any questions of project economics we would simply say there is not enough positive evidence to suggest the technology works to the extent advertised." http://reneweconomy.com.au/solarreserve-still-falling-short-at-flagship-solar-tower-project-13928/

RenewEconomy is an independent website founded and owned by Giles Parkinson, a journalist of 30 years experience, a former Business Editor and Deputy Editor of the Australian Financial Review, a former columnist for The Bulletin magazine and The Australian, and the founder and former editor of Climate Spectator.

Giles is joined by Deputy Editor Sophie Vorrath and other contributors. These include David Leitch, an independent energy analyst with decades of experience in the energy markets with a high profile investment bank.

<<

Doesn't even mention the effects of government intervention!

What kind of independant analyst does he think he is!!

:o

I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ?
What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:16am:

What is the alternative ?

Nuclear? No the greenies don't like it.

Hydro? No the greenies don't like the drowned earth for the dams.


DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:16am:

Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one

Why? Do you think the CO2 will kill you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:16am:

I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one

Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty.

The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by.

$100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ


It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :)

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 12:26pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:16am: I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty. The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by. $100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :)

Well if because I think we need to address pollution makes me a extreme socialist greeny, I guess I'm guilty

Instead of personal attacks and talking about the cost of completely changing a system, maybe u could suggest positive actions we could take to stop polluting our country.

reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-is-already-bringing-australias-gas-cartel-to-heel-39541/

The big gas generators – even though they have 10 times more capacity than is required – have systematically rorted the situation, sometimes charging up to $7 million a day for a service that normally comes at one-tenth of the price.
(You can read our reports on how they do it here, here and here, and for a more detailed explanation at the bottom of this story).
The difference in January was that there is a new player in the market: the Tesla big battery, officially known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve, which bid into the market to ensure that prices stayed reasonable, as we predicted last year.
Rather than jumping up to prices of around $11,500 and $14,000/MW, the bidding of the Tesla big battery – and, in a major new development, the adjoining Hornsdale wind farm – helped (after an initial spike) to keep them at around $270/MW.
This saved several million dollars in FCAS charges (which are paid by other generators and big energy users) in a single day.
And that’s not the only impact. According to state government’s advisor, Frontier Economics, the average price of FCAS fell by around 75 per cent in December from the same month the previous year. Market players are delighted, and consumers should be too, because they will ultimately benefit.

ouch the old 30000 ppl for 1 hour seams silly when that's not how it works, 7million saved in one day for a 110 million investment seams pretty good to me.
When it works as a peaker plant its so fast at keeping power stable that the monitors r not able to register when its working because a gas fired one still takes minutes instead of micro seconds to respond.
I see your frustrations and I sympathise.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 12:26pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:16am: I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty. The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by. $100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :)

Sydney morning herald reported
The 100-megawatt battery system provides 129-megawatt hours of energy, reduces intermittency issues, and manages increased demand during summer peak loading periods, potentially providing enough energy to power 30,000 homes for eight hours, or 60,000 homes for four hours.

I see one hour sounds so much better than 8 hours or 240000 houses for 1 hour just ruins the whole thing.
If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power.
Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves.
ok how about 50000 houses and every house usually pays $1200 a year (300 a quarter) ok thats 60 million dollars
so if the battery does 8 hours a day and the possible lowest price it will receive  that's 20 million dollars a year.
So thats 200 million in 10 years, that looks like to me pay off in 5 years then a 100 million profit over 10 years.
Some days saving everyone 7 million overall its far higher.

I'm glad u mentioned I should get out my calculator you have helped me greatly , because of u i feel like a champ  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 2:18pm:

If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power. Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves.

What about when the power is NOT available for more than 1 hour? Do you think the punter will feel dudded?

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 2:38pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 2:18pm: If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power. Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves. What about when the power is NOT available for more than 1 hour? Do you think the punter will feel dudded?

.
?? Huh herb kept quoting the battery was only good for 30000 houses for one hour and not sustainable, I don’t know what it has to do the punters

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:21pm:

?? Huh herb kept quoting the battery was only good for 30000 houses for one hour and not sustainable, I don’t know what it has to do the punters

Well the punters want a reliable supply. A backup  for one hour when the power is out for 3 or 4 hours, isn't going to make them happy. And that is only if you can limit supply to those 30000 homes.

You're only talking about dollar value not emotional value.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 2:18pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 12:26pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:16am: I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty. The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by. $100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :) Sydney morning herald reported The 100-megawatt battery system provides 129-megawatt hours of energy, reduces intermittency issues, and manages increased demand during summer peak loading periods, potentially providing enough energy to power 30,000 homes for eight hours, or 60,000 homes for four hours. I see one hour sounds so much better than 8 hours or 240000 houses for 1 hour just ruins the whole thing. If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power. Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves. ok how about 50000 houses and every house usually pays $1200 a year (300 a quarter) ok thats 60 million dollars so if the battery does 8 hours a day and the possible lowest price it will receive  that's 20 million dollars a year. So thats 200 million in 10 years, that looks like to me pay off in 5 years then a 100 million profit over 10 years. Some days saving everyone 7 million overall its far higher. I'm glad u mentioned I should get out my calculator you have helped me greatly , because of u i feel like a champ  ;)

Musk stated that his battery is good for 30 000 households for 1 single hour, so I don't know what bullsh1t you just made up but it is not based on anything that exists in this country.

So 1 x 12 x 3000 x $ 100 mil does just the houses, maybe double or triple that for commercial and industrial if you are lucky.  :) :)

I think you guys have got it wrong.

A battery supply is very handy to give an uninterupted changeover
when say a power staion goes down briefly or
if a boiler is fired up -
it takes time to do such things and the battery
can give that time.

That depends on the load on the battery as to how  much time.

Any day now, any day there will be a breakthrough in battery technology.

Maybe nano batteries?

I just think of all those mining camps , outback towns, Aboriginal remote communities burning shirt loads of diesel.

It will be great when they can use the sun with decent battery backup storage.

miketrees wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

Any day now, any day there will be a breakthrough in battery technology. Maybe nano batteries? I just think of all those mining camps , outback towns, Aboriginal remote communities burning shirt loads of diesel. It will be great when they can use the sun with decent battery backup storage.

Co-generation demands it!

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 2:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 12:26pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:16am: I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty. The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by. $100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :) Sydney morning herald reported The 100-megawatt battery system provides 129-megawatt hours of energy, reduces intermittency issues, and manages increased demand during summer peak loading periods, potentially providing enough energy to power 30,000 homes for eight hours, or 60,000 homes for four hours. I see one hour sounds so much better than 8 hours or 240000 houses for 1 hour just ruins the whole thing. If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power. Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves. ok how about 50000 houses and every house usually pays $1200 a year (300 a quarter) ok thats 60 million dollars so if the battery does 8 hours a day and the possible lowest price it will receive  that's 20 million dollars a year. So thats 200 million in 10 years, that looks like to me pay off in 5 years then a 100 million profit over 10 years. Some days saving everyone 7 million overall its far higher. I'm glad u mentioned I should get out my calculator you have helped me greatly , because of u i feel like a champ  ;) Musk stated that his battery is good for 30 000 households for 1 single hour, so I don't know what bullsh1t you just made up but it is not based on anything that exists in this country. So 1 x 12 x 3000 x $ 100 mil does just the houses, maybe double or triple that for commercial and industrial if you are lucky.  :) :)

Ok I cant post links yet
Sydney morning herald and the arrival I quoted

History in the making': Tesla switches on world's largest battery in SA

If they where wrong well I stand corrected but as it’s a stabilizer  power source it’s a mute point

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 9:47pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:56pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 2:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 12:26pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:16am: I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty. The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by. $100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :) Sydney morning herald reported The 100-megawatt battery system provides 129-megawatt hours of energy, reduces intermittency issues, and manages increased demand during summer peak loading periods, potentially providing enough energy to power 30,000 homes for eight hours, or 60,000 homes for four hours. I see one hour sounds so much better than 8 hours or 240000 houses for 1 hour just ruins the whole thing. If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power. Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves. ok how about 50000 houses and every house usually pays $1200 a year (300 a quarter) ok thats 60 million dollars so if the battery does 8 hours a day and the possible lowest price it will receive  that's 20 million dollars a year. So thats 200 million in 10 years, that looks like to me pay off in 5 years then a 100 million profit over 10 years. Some days saving everyone 7 million overall its far higher. I'm glad u mentioned I should get out my calculator you have helped me greatly , because of u i feel like a champ  ;) Musk stated that his battery is good for 30 000 households for 1 single hour, so I don't know what bullsh1t you just made up but it is not based on anything that exists in this country. So 1 x 12 x 3000 x $ 100 mil does just the houses, maybe double or triple that for commercial and industrial if you are lucky.  :) :) Ok I cant post links yet Sydney morning herald and the arrival I quoted History in the making': Tesla switches on world's largest battery in SA If they where wrong well I stand corrected but as it’s a stabilizer  power source it’s a mute point

Yes it is a battery and it is stable

It is still $100 mil to build and it is still good for 30 000 for 1 single hour according to the bloke who built it.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 9:47pm:

reduces intermittency issues,

Yep. Doesn't overcome. ;)

whiteknight wrote on Mar 31^st, 2018 at 7:05am:

Falling renewable costs 'chilling' for fossil fuels   :)

I hope so...

I will be visiting a home today who believes in sustainable living...

it's something we all should be doing....

stop crying to the government to fix all of your woes and start manning up for yourselves...

I already run on solar and get huge returns..

but what about when those idiotic subsidies run out??

what if I move home???

I will be looking at living "off grid" and sustainable gardening etc...

I would also be interested in running my own chickens...

I just need a few things to fall in place and I'll be on my way to a more sustainable living way of life...

y'all need to be thinking of doing the same thing.. IMO...

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 9:52pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 9th, 2018 at 9:47pm: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:56pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 2:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 12:26pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8th, 2018 at 8:16am: I think its great that the renewable costs r steadily going down and worldwide renewable is taking over fossil fuel. I'm not sure why there is opposition to it, yes there will be lots of mistakes and money wasting even govt help outs but if makes less pollution what's the problem ? What is the alternative ? Keep burning coal, i know i would rather be downwind of a solar farm or windfarm than a coal plant or a LPG one Well the main 'opposition' is the fact solar doesn't fkking work at night time, or when it s cloudy or when the panels are dirty. The cost of building batteries for 9 000 000 households and all of the commercial and industrial needs would be astronomical if the south Australian battery is anything to go by. $100 mil for 30 000 households for 1 single hour; get out your calculator champ It would only taken you a minute or two to work that out if you weren't an extreme socialist greenie.  :) :) Sydney morning herald reported The 100-megawatt battery system provides 129-megawatt hours of energy, reduces intermittency issues, and manages increased demand during summer peak loading periods, potentially providing enough energy to power 30,000 homes for eight hours, or 60,000 homes for four hours. I see one hour sounds so much better than 8 hours or 240000 houses for 1 hour just ruins the whole thing. If that hour is when power is charged at $1000 MWH at peak time instead on the average $79 an hour for cost of coal power. Hmmmm 129 x $1000 = $129000 a day times 350 (16 days with no wind or solar) is $45 million a year. Ok so sounds to good, 10 years is 3650 days into 100 million is $27400 a day the battery have to make a day to pay for themselves. ok how about 50000 houses and every house usually pays $1200 a year (300 a quarter) ok thats 60 million dollars so if the battery does 8 hours a day and the possible lowest price it will receive  that's 20 million dollars a year. So thats 200 million in 10 years, that looks like to me pay off in 5 years then a 100 million profit over 10 years. Some days saving everyone 7 million overall its far higher. I'm glad u mentioned I should get out my calculator you have helped me greatly , because of u i feel like a champ  ;) Musk stated that his battery is good for 30 000 households for 1 single hour, so I don't know what bullsh1t you just made up but it is not based on anything that exists in this country. So 1 x 12 x 3000 x $ 100 mil does just the houses, maybe double or triple that for commercial and industrial if you are lucky.  :) :) Ok I cant post links yet Sydney morning herald and the arrival I quoted History in the making': Tesla switches on world's largest battery in SA If they where wrong well I stand corrected but as it’s a stabilizer  power source it’s a mute point Yes it is a battery and it is stable It is still $100 mil to build and it is still good for 30 000 for 1 single hour according to the bloke who built it.

Yes I was wrong
128 kWh into 30000 hours is 4 kWh each that sounds right

Now average passenger vehicle in aus uses 10l for 100 km and everage distance is 40kms a day so average car in aus uses 4 liters of fuel a day, 4 x $1.3 a liter of fuel is $5.20
The electric car with more than 200kms or range use 7kwh for 40 km (USA govt figures  28 kWh. For 100 miles)
I pay 27 c a kWh so 7*27 =$1.89
Now the SA battery is 128000 kWh
So 12800 devided by 7 is 18200
Therefore the battery can recharge 18200 cars a day for the amount a average car is used in Australia .
18200 vehicals average fuel would be  72000L a day with a cost of $90000 if fuel is $1.30 a L
That’s 26.5 million liters of fuel a year that this battery could replace
I suppose 30000 houses for a hour looks bad but there r many uses this battery could have thats profitable besides the very profitable use it has now as a stabilizer and  has already saved  SA govt approx 7 mil in one day
It only Needs to do that 3 times every 2 years to pay for itself

I don’t see anyone saying we need  a 1000 of them to replace the existing power plants, yet that seams to be the argument against it

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Therefore the battery can recharge 18200 cars a day for the amount a average car is used in Australia .

It is so easy when you use averages. ;)

While you are recharging those car batteries there is none for home consumption when the power fails.

If it saves the SA government $ 7m in one day just look at how much they can save in a year. No need for high taxes.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

Yes I was wrong 128 kWh into 30000 hours is 4 kWh each that sounds right Now average passenger vehicle in aus uses 10l for 100 km and everage distance is 40kms a day so average car in aus uses 4 liters of fuel a day, 4 x $1.3 a liter of fuel is $5.20 The electric car with more than 200kms or range use 7kwh for 40 km (USA govt figures  28 kWh. For 100 miles) I pay 27 c a kWh so 7*27 =$1.89 Now the SA battery is 128000 kWh So 12800 devided by 7 is 18200 Therefore the battery can recharge 18200 cars a day for the amount a average car is used in Australia . 18200 vehicals average fuel would be  72000L a day with a cost of $90000 if fuel is $1.30 a L That’s 26.5 million liters of fuel a year that this battery could replace I suppose 30000 houses for a hour looks bad but there r many uses this battery could have thats profitable besides the very profitable use it has now as a stabilizer and  has already saved  SA govt approx 7 mil in one day It only Needs to do that 3 times every 2 years to pay for itself I don’t see anyone saying we need  a 1000 of them to replace the existing power plants, yet that seams to be the argument against it

Well everyone who argues for renewables and demand that coal is so last century is ether demanding constant black out or massively expensive batteries.

Renewable power is unreliable / intermittent power unless it can be stored, and that my friend costs money, more money that we actual have to spend on such things.

We are being driven into third world energy outcomes due to fear and ignorance. And you segue to 'refueling' electric cars that don't exist is not really relevant.


We as a country produce about 1% of the world's CO2, there is no need to bankrupt ourselves over dodgy technology and fear.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 10:07pm:

We as a country produce about 1% of the world's CO2, there is no need to bankrupt ourselves over dodgy technology and fear.

Actually that is wrong.

Humans are responsible for about 3% of the world's CO2. The rest is naturally occurring.

Australians are responsible for about 1.5% of that 3%. So 0.045% of the world's CO2.

lee wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 12th, 2018 at 8:54pm: Therefore the battery can recharge 18200 cars a day for the amount a average car is used in Australia . It is so easy when you use averages. ;) While you are recharging those car batteries there is none for home consumption when the power fails. If it saves the SA government $ 7m in one day just look at how much they can save in a year. No need for high taxes.

Umm build 2.................

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 10:07pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 12th, 2018 at 8:54pm: Yes I was wrong 128 kWh into 30000 hours is 4 kWh each that sounds right Now average passenger vehicle in aus uses 10l for 100 km and everage distance is 40kms a day so average car in aus uses 4 liters of fuel a day, 4 x $1.3 a liter of fuel is $5.20 The electric car with more than 200kms or range use 7kwh for 40 km (USA govt figures  28 kWh. For 100 miles) I pay 27 c a kWh so 7*27 =$1.89 Now the SA battery is 128000 kWh So 12800 devided by 7 is 18200 Therefore the battery can recharge 18200 cars a day for the amount a average car is used in Australia . 18200 vehicals average fuel would be  72000L a day with a cost of $90000 if fuel is $1.30 a L That’s 26.5 million liters of fuel a year that this battery could replace I suppose 30000 houses for a hour looks bad but there r many uses this battery could have thats profitable besides the very profitable use it has now as a stabilizer and  has already saved  SA govt approx 7 mil in one day It only Needs to do that 3 times every 2 years to pay for itself I don’t see anyone saying we need  a 1000 of them to replace the existing power plants, yet that seams to be the argument against it Well everyone who argues for renewables and demand that coal is so last century is ether demanding constant black out or massively expensive batteries. Renewable power is unreliable / intermittent power unless it can be stored, and that my friend costs money, more money that we actual have to spend on such things. We are being driven into third world energy outcomes due to fear and ignorance. And you segue to 'refueling' electric cars that don't exist is not really relevant. We as a country produce about 1% of the world's CO2, there is no need to bankrupt ourselves over dodgy technology and fear.

Please , please sit n your car in a closed garage and tell me all about how good the air is.
Well a million plug in cars sold last year weren’t invisible
The old co2 argument, coal power plants have no other smoke stack poisons going into the air in Australia ?
Don’t google lead
I was pointing out ways that the batteries could be used and be profitable, sorry if that makes me wanting 3rd world conditions
Or heaven forbid better air conditions in big cities.

if you dont want any emissions then go Nuclear...

if you don't want to go Nuclear then pipe down....  ::)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Umm build 2.......

Good economic theory. Build 8 they then won't have to tax South Australians at all. /sarc

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 5:27pm:

Please , please sit n your car in a closed garage and tell me all about how good the air is.

Aren't you going to turn the motor on first? ;)
DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 5:27pm:

Don’t google lead

What about lead?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

if you dont want any emissions then go Nuclear... if you don't want to go Nuclear then pipe down....  ::)

Looks like any generation 4 station still at least 10 years away  closer to 20 and I’m weary of any claims that this time we got it right, everything is safe