6 ms·

Australia pays the natural gas companies to steal our natural gas then we run out of natural gas and pay them to buy it back from them.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Won’t the rising cost of fossil gas due to these issues speed electrification? Behold the death spiral, embrace the death spiral! (As more fossil gas consumers electrify, an ever smaller population must support the network fixed costs, driving up costs and continuing to more rapidly push consumers to electrify; like bankruptcy, it happens slowly, and then all of a sudden) https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-blow-to-fossil-gas-as-regulator-shifts-death-spiral-risk-to-new-connections/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-blow-to-fossil-gas-as-regula... https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/energy-blog-are-gas-utilities-about-to-enter-a-death-spiral https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/energy-blog-ar...
- guidedlight 2y ago
  It will particularly in Victoria, which has highest number of residential gas connections (90%). However, the primary dispatchable electricity generation comes from gas fired power plants. To say, Australia has a dependance on gas is an understatement. Unfortunately, there has been considerable in-action and lack of investment mainly due to the main political parties having competing energy policies. The conservatives previously had a "gas led" generation plan, but due to the gas crisis they have switched to a nuclear-led proposal (Australia has no nuclear power plants, and no expertise in them). The current government is pushing renewables and storage, however progress has been slow due to land owners being unwilling to allow new transmission lines and environmental concerns about offshore wind infrastructure. Meanwhile about half of Australia's energy comes aging coal power plants, whose live has been extended, all of which are due for phased retirement in the near future.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 ("Australia electricity grid with 100% renewables and 120GWh batteries") https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-coal-power-in-australia-means-a-boom-for-battery-makers-like-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.") https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.")
    - guidedlight 2y ago
      Yep. This is the current direction. As I said, investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal, issues with transmission lines, and environment issues for wind projects are the main barriers.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal I think it is a stretch to say that the nuclear proposal is creating any investment uncertainty. What is there to be uncertain about? Optimistically the coalition has to win government then the plant will take >10 years to be designed and constructed (probably much longer assuming that something goes wrong politically). The power produced by such a plant will almost certainly be expensive. Unless Labor makes more supportive sounds it'd be quite reckless to invest in the project as a private investor. That is far enough out and a small enough commercial risk that it probably doesn't change the investment landscape in the here and now. We could see any number of similar policies as we feel the political backlash from mismanaging our energy infrastructure.
- XorNot 2y ago
  I've had gas service removed from my house and the pipes taken out - but that was for environmental reasons - I'm committed to only using electrical (i.e. fuel independent) appliances.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I salute your efforts, onward.
  - bhickey 2y ago
    At my last house, I removed the gas stove and replaced it with induction. I had two motivations: * Gas stoves are awful for indoor air quality * Compared to induction, they're awful to cook on
    - tmnvix 2y ago
      If only manufacturers would use knobs instead of those horrible and often unintuitive touch interfaces. Here's hoping the slow acknowledgement that touch controls in vehicles are usually a bad idea makes its way to other appliances.
      - ericd 2y ago
        Yeah, options are limited, but there are a few. We got an LG one from Costco with knobs (was a major filter for us).
      - dzhiurgis 2y ago
        Not gonna happen. Touch interface is cheaper, more reliable and easier to clean. Maybe someone will make one with pot motion sensor where turning pot around controls levels. But I’m not holding hope.
        XorNot 2y ago
        Samsung make one with a magnetic knob for controlling it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OhGdPjmc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OhGdPjmc4 So the underlying surface is smooth but you can have a physical control.
ars 2y ago
I thought you were exaggerating, but that really is what happening (except for the steal part - your comment would be better without exaggerating). So instead of selling the gas externally (because they are contractually bound to do so) and then import other gas, I would suggest buying gas from elsewhere to deliver to fulfill the contract and then use the local gas locally. It would need an analysis of costs. The reason for all this trouble is apparently the gas field production has gone down faster than predicted.
- guidedlight 2y ago
  The challenge is that Australia is big, really big. The population is sparse and mainly lives in a few coastal areas. The parts of Australia that have gas and are exporting it (the west and north), are quite distant from the parts of Australia that are running out of gas and need it locally (the east and south). In this scenario, it's easier and cheaper to use existing export terminals to send ships to those other parts of the country that need the gas. Unfortunately the optics of doing this is bad.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Are you saying that Australia is extracting the gas in the North and West then shipping it to the South and East directly (using ships instead of laying pipes) or that they are exporting to whomever buys it and then importing from anyone selling it (buying foreign gas)? There's a lot of joking/confusion around US oil being sold to foreign countries while buying foreign oil. However, a lot of that has to do with the fact the refineries are built to use heavy crude oil while the US oil is light/sweet crude so that they aren't really compatible. Sometimes, the export/import practices sound dumb on face value, but turn out to have some logic once the surface is scratched.
    - _s 2y ago
      My understanding is that it’s a bit of both. The best analogy for USA equivalent is that imagine Alaska is where we have a bunch of oil / gas, but we need it in New York and Miami. We can’t lay pipes because of terrain / distance, and the road infrastructure is pretty spotty too. The companies extracting / producing / selling the oil/gas off in Alaska are private and separate to the companies wanting to buy it in NYC or Miami. There’s minimal government oversight. It might work out cheaper for the companies to buy gas coming from eg Europe or Canada or Mexico for NYC/Miami vs Alaska (in our instance it would be SE Asia / China). Or from Alaska.
ozim 2y ago
You do understand that world is much more complicated? Having natural gas in the ground is not really that lucrative - having technology to extract that gas and later sell it is. You might argue as much as you want but try to heat up a house with gas that is far below the ground, good luck
grecy 2y ago
Same thing with electricity - some of the highest prices in the world on one of the sunniest continents in the world. Australia was sold a long time ago, and regular people are now paying the price.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Won’t the rising cost of fossil gas due to these issues speed electrification? Behold the death spiral, embrace the death spiral! (As more fossil gas consumers electrify, an ever smaller population must support the network fixed costs, driving up costs and continuing to more rapidly push consumers to electrify; like bankruptcy, it happens slowly, and then all of a sudden) https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-blow-to-fossil-gas-as-regulator-shifts-death-spiral-risk-to-new-connections/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-blow-to-fossil-gas-as-regula... https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/energy-blog-are-gas-utilities-about-to-enter-a-death-spiral https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/energy-blog-ar...

guidedlight 2y ago
It will particularly in Victoria, which has highest number of residential gas connections (90%). However, the primary dispatchable electricity generation comes from gas fired power plants. To say, Australia has a dependance on gas is an understatement. Unfortunately, there has been considerable in-action and lack of investment mainly due to the main political parties having competing energy policies. The conservatives previously had a "gas led" generation plan, but due to the gas crisis they have switched to a nuclear-led proposal (Australia has no nuclear power plants, and no expertise in them). The current government is pushing renewables and storage, however progress has been slow due to land owners being unwilling to allow new transmission lines and environmental concerns about offshore wind infrastructure. Meanwhile about half of Australia's energy comes aging coal power plants, whose live has been extended, all of which are due for phased retirement in the near future.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 ("Australia electricity grid with 100% renewables and 120GWh batteries") https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-coal-power-in-australia-means-a-boom-for-battery-makers-like-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.") https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.")
  - guidedlight 2y ago
    Yep. This is the current direction. As I said, investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal, issues with transmission lines, and environment issues for wind projects are the main barriers.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal I think it is a stretch to say that the nuclear proposal is creating any investment uncertainty. What is there to be uncertain about? Optimistically the coalition has to win government then the plant will take >10 years to be designed and constructed (probably much longer assuming that something goes wrong politically). The power produced by such a plant will almost certainly be expensive. Unless Labor makes more supportive sounds it'd be quite reckless to invest in the project as a private investor. That is far enough out and a small enough commercial risk that it probably doesn't change the investment landscape in the here and now. We could see any number of similar policies as we feel the political backlash from mismanaging our energy infrastructure.
XorNot 2y ago
I've had gas service removed from my house and the pipes taken out - but that was for environmental reasons - I'm committed to only using electrical (i.e. fuel independent) appliances.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I salute your efforts, onward.
- bhickey 2y ago
  At my last house, I removed the gas stove and replaced it with induction. I had two motivations: * Gas stoves are awful for indoor air quality * Compared to induction, they're awful to cook on
  - tmnvix 2y ago
    If only manufacturers would use knobs instead of those horrible and often unintuitive touch interfaces. Here's hoping the slow acknowledgement that touch controls in vehicles are usually a bad idea makes its way to other appliances.
    - ericd 2y ago
      Yeah, options are limited, but there are a few. We got an LG one from Costco with knobs (was a major filter for us).
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      Not gonna happen. Touch interface is cheaper, more reliable and easier to clean. Maybe someone will make one with pot motion sensor where turning pot around controls levels. But I’m not holding hope.
      - XorNot 2y ago
        Samsung make one with a magnetic knob for controlling it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OhGdPjmc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OhGdPjmc4 So the underlying surface is smooth but you can have a physical control.

ars 2y ago

I thought you were exaggerating, but that really is what happening (except for the steal part - your comment would be better without exaggerating). So instead of selling the gas externally (because they are contractually bound to do so) and then import other gas, I would suggest buying gas from elsewhere to deliver to fulfill the contract and then use the local gas locally. It would need an analysis of costs. The reason for all this trouble is apparently the gas field production has gone down faster than predicted.

guidedlight 2y ago
The challenge is that Australia is big, really big. The population is sparse and mainly lives in a few coastal areas. The parts of Australia that have gas and are exporting it (the west and north), are quite distant from the parts of Australia that are running out of gas and need it locally (the east and south). In this scenario, it's easier and cheaper to use existing export terminals to send ships to those other parts of the country that need the gas. Unfortunately the optics of doing this is bad.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Are you saying that Australia is extracting the gas in the North and West then shipping it to the South and East directly (using ships instead of laying pipes) or that they are exporting to whomever buys it and then importing from anyone selling it (buying foreign gas)? There's a lot of joking/confusion around US oil being sold to foreign countries while buying foreign oil. However, a lot of that has to do with the fact the refineries are built to use heavy crude oil while the US oil is light/sweet crude so that they aren't really compatible. Sometimes, the export/import practices sound dumb on face value, but turn out to have some logic once the surface is scratched.
  - _s 2y ago
    My understanding is that it’s a bit of both. The best analogy for USA equivalent is that imagine Alaska is where we have a bunch of oil / gas, but we need it in New York and Miami. We can’t lay pipes because of terrain / distance, and the road infrastructure is pretty spotty too. The companies extracting / producing / selling the oil/gas off in Alaska are private and separate to the companies wanting to buy it in NYC or Miami. There’s minimal government oversight. It might work out cheaper for the companies to buy gas coming from eg Europe or Canada or Mexico for NYC/Miami vs Alaska (in our instance it would be SE Asia / China). Or from Alaska.

ozim 2y ago

You do understand that world is much more complicated? Having natural gas in the ground is not really that lucrative - having technology to extract that gas and later sell it is. You might argue as much as you want but try to heat up a house with gas that is far below the ground, good luck

grecy 2y ago

Same thing with electricity - some of the highest prices in the world on one of the sunniest continents in the world. Australia was sold a long time ago, and regular people are now paying the price.