The Great Battery Conjob Exposed

Enable JavaScript to get the best experience.

Search Subscribed Topics Active Topics

Created by

Crusoe > 9 months ago, 2 Feb 2019

Chris6791

3271 posts

4 Feb 2019 1:20pm

^^Mains power.

paulyNOR

58 posts

4 Feb 2019 2:05pm

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
I'd just be happy if the could keep the power supply at 50 hertz so my bedside clock isn't now running 7 minutes fast.

I Just checked the data, WA System HZ average 5 min for the last 6 months (Min 49.92, Max 50.11), shouldn't make your clock faster.

Are you in an area with a high uptake of solar ?

boofta

NSW

179 posts

4 Feb 2019 5:21pm

Select to expand quote

nnnbrewery said..

boofta said..
Thanks for the figures
The cost has more than doubled over the past 10 years as intermittent power has come on line.
What does that prove
It's stupid costly, and unsustainable to rely on intermittent power sources.

correlation != causation

The effects of privatisation have come on line over the last decade also. I would look there for your large increase in prices rather than renewables. Privatising a natural monopoly never ends well for the consumer.

Renewables + storage are cheaper than new coal generation. In some markets they are cheaper than existing coal generation. Eventually it will be just be too damn expensive to run those coal generators and they will all shut. That may be multiple decades away, or just 1. Don't be afraid...

I am afraid of impractical idiots suggesting the world is ready for renewables plus storage, i.e. all the AGW brigade.
I hope that at some future time there is a cleaner greener way forward, but it does not exist today or in our lifetimes.
It's again a completely nebulous argument to suggest either privatisation or the state of old generators is causing prices to rise.
Prices are rising because the current mix of renewable plus no longer replaced or maintained generation provides too little stable power.
There is nowhere on earth where renewables plus storage are cheaper, the oft quoted German model relies on French NUCLEAR power.
It's good to dream, don't be frightened of grown up reality!

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

4 Feb 2019 5:52pm

@hardcarve, a couple of quick electrical engineering facts:
- generators run most efficiently at or near their rated capacity
- if big generators with large rotating mass are heavily loaded in order to get maximum efficiency, they will not like big step loads because they cannot react quickly enough to maintain the frequency as they have very high inertia and they can be quickly overloaded with a big step load if run near rated capacity
- small generators can react very quickly but because they have small rotating masses (low inertia) they do not like step loads because they struggle to supply the step and stall

So in order to keep everyone happy and free of brownouts and maintain frequency stability, the big power stations run multiple big machines lightly loaded at lower efficiencies (more emmissions) so they can easily cover big step loads when they arrive. SA is trying to power itself with lots of small machines and limit it's import of power from a big machine elsewhere. This leaves them open to potential problems if there are fluctuating loads that these smaller machines and their lower inertia in the system cannot overcome easily.

So this is where the battery comes in, it effectively bridges the gap so to speak and helps the system overcome fluctuations by giving it a bit of a kick when frequency drop is detected so all the rotating mass in the system has a little more time to change speed. Obviously when the steps are huge, the network needs a little more help so the diesels kick in, but the diesels are not supposed to be running much because they are less efficient than bulk generation from a big machine. The batteries can also theoretically make big machines run more efficiently too by allowing less machines to be running at much higher loads and then using the battery to help the big machines chase the frequency.

I'd urge anyone to at least understand the design concept before they jump on their soap box and declare that the batteries are being used to actually supply power and replace generators, they are in fact being used to make generators work more efficiently

tarquin1

954 posts

4 Feb 2019 3:58pm

Nuclear is good! Put some wind turbines in front of it and paint kids playing on the side of it.
France is over 70% nuclear. No way of changing that anytime soon. The govt just said no way of meeting the 2025 date of shutting down about 17 reactors and pushed it back to 2035.
It's going to cost crazy amounts too shut the reactors down.

kato

VIC

3513 posts

4 Feb 2019 8:07pm

An interesting read of all the different options when it comes to making power. Read it if you really want to know .

reneweconomy.com.au/how-did-wind-and-solar-perform-in-the-recent-heat-wave-40479/

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

4 Feb 2019 8:06pm

Top article Kato, and quite obviously authored by a fellow with some engineering credibility

I believed that the load shedding was due to network issues and would be interested to see what the effect of domestic battery systems would be on network issues (ie they take load off the network), remembering unlike the big Tesla battery these aren't for network stability and are for energy storage to be discharged when needed.

bobajob

QLD

1535 posts

4 Feb 2019 8:53pm

Select to expand quote

boofta said..

nnnbrewery said..

Sure,

reneweconomy.com.au/how-did-wind-and-solar-perform-in-the-recent-heat-wave-40479/

If we invested $1 billion in coal, it may buy a single 250-330 MW brown coal HELE plant but won't provide any money to fuel, operate or maintain it. For an extra $50-60 million per year it will supply about 1,400 GWh/yr and output will be zero for an average of 300 hours per yearFor $1 billion you can build 250 MW of wind 250 MW of tracking solar and 220 MW of pumped hydro which will provide between 400 and 600 MW peak power on a hot day and 1,600 GWh per year. Output will never be zero, and annual operating and maintenance costs will be around $30 m per year.

But I'm guessing the author just hasn't read your works yet.

Ian K

4164 posts

4 Feb 2019 9:42pm

All this peak demand nonsense but nobody is addressing the cause. Air-conditioning. Is there anyone else out there who doesn't have an air conditioner?

The human race survived for a million of years without them ( myself for 56 and counting ). Of course it is getting a little hotter these days. Why? All the coal burnt to run air conditioners! Classic example of positive feedback. If nothing else the human race is entertaining.

theconversation.com/the-global-impact-of-air-conditioning-big-and-getting-bigger-62882

Crusoe

QLD

1197 posts

5 Feb 2019 5:00am

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
All this peak demand nonsense but nobody is addressing the cause. Air-conditioning. Is there anyone else out there who doesn't have an air conditioner?

The human race survived for a million of years without them ( myself for 56 and counting ). Of course it is getting a little hotter these days. Why? All the coal burnt to run air conditioners! Classic example of positive feedback. If nothing else the human race is entertaining.

theconversation.com/the-global-impact-of-air-conditioning-big-and-getting-bigger-62882

Yeah, if you've got air-conditioning, or a pool or more than one television set or more than one fridge and you vote green and want to save the planet, then you need to have a good hard look at yourself. What's the old saying. "Clean up your own back yard first"

You and the likes of you, are why they built more of the coal fired power stations in the first place.

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

5 Feb 2019 6:14am

Yep Ian, we deliberately don't have a/c because we wanted to be acclimatized a bit to the heat. The only reason we could get away with this though is because we deliberately designed our house to be naturally ventilated and not need a/c. I believe a contributor to the root cause (and is possibly Adriano's pet subject) is simply housing design. Simple things like wide eaves to shade walls just don't fit in when "fashion" is telling you the "Mediterranean Facade" looks best

I did get talked into putting a pool in, but don't worry Crusoe, I installed a solar system to offset that. In fact I sell my energy to those who like to live in a/c during the day and then buy it back at half price to run my pool pump early morning and late evening when I'm not generating

It's true Crusoe, we built coal fired power to satisfy consumer demand. But like a lot of resources, the pricing of electricity didn't reflect the true cost (plus a bunch of corporate profit now) and consumers became addicts. Now they're hooked and it's time to pay full price.

FormulaNova

15090 posts

5 Feb 2019 4:33am

Wasn't there something surprising where the total demand for electricity fell over the last few years? I think with the use of CFL and LED lights, energy use for lighting has dropped dramatically. LCD TVs have probably dropped it a bit too.

I am sure I was reading this in an article, yet power prices went up and I think the excuse used was that the base load demand still needed to be enough to cater for peaky demand.

I think its just a symptom of privatization, if you sell these systems to people that need to make profit, guess what they are going to do?

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

5 Feb 2019 7:52am

You might be right FN, if that's the case then increasing the number of generators to increase competition amongst the generators might be the only thing that helps keep prices down. But you're right, businesses must make profit and the shift to privatised generation was sold to the community as a means of increasing competition to keep prices down, however maybe no-one factored in that prices must increase to cover the environmental cost that maybe no-one could measure properly at the time. Increased regulation/offset of emissions and also increased subsidisation of low emission generation was always going to push prices up in real terms. We just need to hope that the technology becomes cheap and the current generation monopolies get broken down, and prices go back the other way one day.

Harrow

NSW

4521 posts

5 Feb 2019 8:57am

Unfortunately the price signal is not there to make people behave in the correct manner. People should be paid more to send their solar power out to the grid in the middle of the day when it is needed, but they aren't. That would make people think of shifting their pool pumps to early morning, and also running dishwashers, washing machines, whatever at better times.

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

5 Feb 2019 9:32am

That's absolutely right Harrow, the original solar scheme (which I'm still on) was like that. The long term economics are always pushed aside for politics, but hey that's democracy. In the end everyone pays more for electricity anyway because of the environmental cost being added in, the price increase doesn't simply go away.

Mr Milk

NSW

3120 posts

5 Feb 2019 10:55am

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
Unfortunately the price signal is not there to make people behave in the correct manner. People should be paid more to send their solar power out to the grid in the middle of the day when it is needed, but they aren't. That would make people think of shifting their pool pumps to early morning, and also running dishwashers, washing machines, whatever at better times.

How much more? I get 15c/kWh and pay about 26c/kWh. Why would I cut back my a/c on a hot day to export power?

Bara

647 posts

5 Feb 2019 8:38am

It's interesting reading some of the points of view on this but alot are way off the mark.

After 16 years in the energy game at a pretty high level the reality is this-

1. Privatisation led to approx a 30% drop in energy prices across gas and electricity making us the cheapest advanced economy for energy by quite a margin. More importantly than the cost of living advantage that gave us it allowed high energy use industry to be internationally competitive creating in excess of 300000 jobs in the process.

2. Prices then rose due to 3 main drivers -

1. The remaining regulated portion of the market mainly being the distribution and transmission was gamed to garner outsized profits from the regulator via gold plating the assets. At one stage this accounted for nearly half of energy price rises but has since fallen back to be overall around 25%.

2. The recombination of the privatised generators and retailers into an oligopoly of large "gentailers" was allowed on the ACCC watch and with state govts blessing as it provided them with a windfall lift to their budgets. ( long since wasted) again roughly 25% of the price increases can be accounted for by a lessening of competition here on average. More so in some states.

3. The big one is our emmissions reduction ambitions and theres no sugar coating it though it does amaze me the truth is often hidden here. It accounts for over half of the increase in the cost of energy bills this century and still has quite a way to go.

From the various emission reduction taxes to subsidies to renewables installers both big and small, to the remote network upgrades to plug in wind and solar farms to the system stability mitigation like the big battery. These costs eventually wind up on both residential and commercial power bills as well as state and federal tax bills.

We all pay for it one way or another even if you have solar and a battery. The only way to avoid a decent portion of it is to go offgrid and we will reach the point soon where this is actually economic for the individual household. Thats not a good thing by the way thats a sad indictment on just how inneficient and bloated our situation has become.

What makes me laugh in all this twisting and turning though that has resulted in a serious dent in our international competitiveness is that it won't make the slightest measurable difference to climate change.

Everything we have done and will do in Australia on this front is eaten up in ONE WEEK by the combined commissioning of electricity generation in China and India. One week and just look at the mess we are lumping ourselves with for no measurable impact.

You have to laugh.

Poida

1922 posts

5 Feb 2019 9:12am

for the conspiracy theorist:
the brownouts occur purposefully to manipulate the energy market, and has done so successfully over the last few years, just look at the price.

Have a look at "Damages" on Stan, season 2.

Poida

1922 posts

5 Feb 2019 9:12am

rod_bunny

1089 posts

5 Feb 2019 10:10am

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
@hardcarve, a couple of quick electrical engineering facts:
- generators run most efficiently at or near their rated capacity
- if big generators with large rotating mass are heavily loaded in order to get maximum efficiency, they will not like big step loads because they cannot react quickly enough to maintain the frequency as they have very high inertia and they can be quickly overloaded with a big step load if run near rated capacity
- small generators can react very quickly but because they have small rotating masses (low inertia) they do not like step loads because they struggle to supply the step and stall

So in order to keep everyone happy and free of brownouts and maintain frequency stability, the big power stations run multiple big machines lightly loaded at lower efficiencies (more emmissions) so they can easily cover big step loads when they arrive. SA is trying to power itself with lots of small machines and limit it's import of power from a big machine elsewhere. This leaves them open to potential problems if there are fluctuating loads that these smaller machines and their lower inertia in the system cannot overcome easily.

So this is where the battery comes in, it effectively bridges the gap so to speak and helps the system overcome fluctuations by giving it a bit of a kick when frequency drop is detected so all the rotating mass in the system has a little more time to change speed. Obviously when the steps are huge, the network needs a little more help so the diesels kick in, but the diesels are not supposed to be running much because they are less efficient than bulk generation from a big machine. The batteries can also theoretically make big machines run more efficiently too by allowing less machines to be running at much higher loads and then using the battery to help the big machines chase the frequency.

I'd urge anyone to at least understand the design concept before they jump on their soap box and declare that the batteries are being used to actually supply power and replace generators, they are in fact being used to make generators work more efficiently

Its like a big Real Time UPS...

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

5 Feb 2019 12:23pm

I agree with everything you state Bara, and it makes perfect short term engineering and economic sense. However the one thing you haven't addressed is that we as a nation have to decide whether we can accept the economic loss in the short term and also accept that in the short term we may not actually cause a measurable improvement in worldwide emissions, but take the long term view that we may create change and hope that other nations will follow. We can't simply stand back and say "it's all too hard because China and India don't give a sh!t". But you're right, it's a difficult decision to make and normally these things happen with global treaties being signed such that there is unilateral agreement amongst the developed nations to take the economic hit. Of course treaties become hardly worth the paper they're written on when countries like the USA pull out of them so easily.

Rod, in engineering respect yep it's similar to a battery storage type UPS, it's a battery with a bunch of power electronics that create an AC output. But operationally, it's primary function is not to necessarily supply bulk power but to buy time for generating machines to adjust to changes in the load/frequency.

Adriano

11206 posts

5 Feb 2019 10:53am

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
The battery isn't meant to cover the shortfall in generation when there is no wind.
It is there to provide grid stability.
The interconnector to Vic is supposed to provide the backup when SA runs low on generation.

Exactly.

Adriano

11206 posts

5 Feb 2019 10:53am

Select to expand quote

kato said..

Crusoe said..
Read this in another place. But WTF is going on in SA. Do they still think the king has clothes on.

To keep the subsidies flowing and the public hoodwinked, green-rent-seekers have peddled the delusion that the intermittency of solar/wind can be solved with ''big batteries''.

This conjob was first sold in South Australia, as with their experiment of a 50% Renewable Energy Target descending into a costly farce, and to cover-up the fact they needed spend several hundred million on emergency diesel generators to keep the lights on just before the state election, with Hollywood fanfare SA announced they were installing ''the world's largest battery'' to save the day. And unsurprisingly, the green useless idiots of the left have swallowed this hook, line and sinker - as rent seekers continued to go laughing to the bank to cash their millions from subsidies.

Well the performance of the ''world's largest battery'' last Thursday exposed what a complete con job it's been - and delusion that we can power our economy on solar panels, wind turbines and big batteries is as dangerous to the economy as rabies is in a dog. Let's look at the evidence from 24th Jan ...As wind power collapsed into the afternoon, prices in South Australia surged to $14,500 Mwh (they averaged around $40 Mwh before all these 'cheap' renewables flooded into the grid) at around 4.30pm ''the world's biggest battery'' started to dribble in 30MW to the grid.

The 30MW was less than 1% of South Australia's total demand, and less than 0.1% of the National grid's demand. The world's biggest battery continued to dribble out around 30MW until 7.30pm, then it ran flat, rendering it completely useless as peak demand hit at 7.30pm.

Meanwhile the emergency diesel generators (chewing through a reported 80,000 litres of diesel an hour) were doing the real work in SA, pumping out over 400MW at a time on demand - and they continued to so as demand peaked at 7.30pm, when the world's largest battery had given up the ghost. So at peak demand, in the renewables paradise of South Australia, 97% of their electricity was coming from fossil fuels.

Over the afternoon, I estimate the ''world's biggest battery'' delivered only around 100 Mwh of electricity - compared to 2000Mwh by the diesel generators. The facts should be clear from the evidence that it's a dangerous delusion that Australia can run the economy with solar/wind backed up by big batteries. But sadly once leftists have been radicalised by green propaganda - evidence, engineering & economics no longer matter, because their belief is a semi-religious one based on feelings and emotions and their minds are closed to rational thoughts and logic.

By this rant you just don't understand how a battery system or a de centralised network functions. Probably never will. Understand this. If the Right is wrong the result is we kill this planet.
If the left is wrong we change to a sustainable energy source and jobs will disappear in the coal/oil industry.
Make ya bets but remember your betting your planet

Exactly

Adriano

11206 posts

5 Feb 2019 10:54am

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Problem is Kato, those diesel generators produced more CO2 running for a short period to produce back-up power than the gas ones that got shut down do all year.

By shutting down the gas generators simply to lift the relative % of renewables solely for political one-up-manship and to claim you have delivered a higher % of renewables than anyone else, the end result has been not only more expensive and less reliable power, but also more CO2, not less.

Shutting down your gas generator and then relying on diesel and dirty brown Victorian coal isn't "changing to a sustainable energy source". It is just producing more pollution than you did before but hiding it behind a picture of a shiny giant battery.

Not when you actually do the math over time and stop eating Cocopops for breakfast.

Adriano

11206 posts

5 Feb 2019 10:57am

Select to expand quote

Bara said..You have to laugh.

The planet's not laughing at the cost.....it's telling us to get our act together....but some are still fixated on cost...

Tell me Bara, what good is low cost when the planet's faarked and millions of refugees are applying to enter Australia?

Bara

647 posts

5 Feb 2019 11:00am

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
I agree with everything you state Bara, and it makes perfect short term engineering and economic sense. However the one thing you haven't addressed is that we as a nation have to decide whether we can accept the economic loss in the short term and also accept that in the short term we may not actually cause a measurable improvement in worldwide emissions, but take the long term view that we may create change and hope that other nations will follow. We can't simply stand back and say "it's all too hard because China and India don't give a sh!t". But you're right, it's a difficult decision to make and normally these things happen with global treaties being signed such that there is unilateral agreement amongst the developed nations to take the economic hit. Of course treaties become hardly worth the paper they're written on when countries like the USA pull out of them so easily.

Rod, in engineering respect yep it's similar to a battery storage type UPS, it's a battery with a bunch of power electronics that create an AC output. But operationally, it's primary function is not to necessarily supply bulk power but to buy time for generating machines to adjust to changes in the load/frequency.

Ok I'll address the virtue signalling / treaty obligation aspect as well then paddles-

We have an over inflated perception of our international importance in all this. Ask pretty much anyone from other parts of the world what they think about what we have done on climate change action and you will get a resounding silence. They don't know and don't care.

The more informed ones may mention that it's cost us a few prime minister's due to the political turmoil but thats about it.

On the treaty front we will meet our agreed targets easily so no damage there. Given going further will do nothing measurable to global emmissions reductions then that is just political pointscoring done for domestic consumption and sadly with little regard to the facts of what it will cost.

My point on this is basically that if we had really wanted to do something measurable about emissions reductions we would have taken the 10s of billions of dollars we have wasted domestically doing basically nothing other than lining the pockets of the renewables rent seekers and spent it in Africa and India on low emmissions generation. That would have made a measurable difference in the real physical world.

Instead we have created a bloated false economy of renewables rent seekers making outsized profits while doing little of measurable impact. We aren't the only country that fell into this trap but it is where we are at nonetheless and just like Einstein's insane person we are determined to do more of the same and somehow get a different result.

Bara

647 posts

5 Feb 2019 11:22am

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

Bara said..You have to laugh.

Per my previous reply we only have a finite amount of resources that our economy can throw at this issue so of course cost matters. We have to be efficient in how we tackle the problem if we ever want to actually make an impact not just waste it endlessly virtue signalling which sadly is all we seem capable of doing.

We could start by admitting just how much what we have done so far has cost and how much we plan on spending on it going forwards rather than continuing to pretend it's all free and that our energy bills went up for some other reason. That might start a more informed discussion.

Harrow

NSW

4521 posts

5 Feb 2019 3:18pm

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
How much more? I get 15c/kWh and pay about 26c/kWh. Why would I cut back my a/c on a hot day to export power?

Very true with your a/c, but it might get people to think about other things could be shifted to another part of the day. Pool pump would be the biggest culprit for power usage at critical times on a summer afternoon that could easily be moved.

Paddles B'mere

QLD

3586 posts

5 Feb 2019 2:23pm

They're all fair points Bara, so where to from here? Say we meet our existing emissions reduction obligations, and assuming that the world community agrees to reduce emissions associated with electricity generation, where does the world (or Australia) go next to achieve this?

Harrow

NSW

4521 posts

5 Feb 2019 3:24pm

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
You might be right FN, if that's the case then increasing the number of generators to increase competition amongst the generators might be the only thing that helps keep prices down.

And that is the fundamental flaw in the competitive energy market. You need to build more generators than you need to have competition. Build just the right amount that you need, and you have monopoly pricing. Build enough for a decent amount of competition, and then somehow the cost for all that unnecessary capital expenditure has to be recovered through higher energy prices.

Add a few transmission constraints, and you don't just need to build more generation than is required, you need to do it several times over in each different region. Of course you can fix that by building more interconnectors betweeen states....great another few BILLION dollars of capital expense that needs to be recovered from consumers. Competition is great for getting milk and band-aids distributed into stores in the right amounts, but there are unavoidable flaws in an energy market that is as shallow and geographically spread out as the Australian one.

Loading more posts...

Please Register, or first...

Topics Reply