5 ms·

> The plan here for urban Australia I'm not sure they have a concrete plan beyond "don't shut down the fossil generation until we have installed a replacement"

> The plan here for urban Australia I'm not sure they have a concrete plan beyond "don't shut down the fossil generation until we have installed a replacement". Yes, currently they hope an huge uptake in EV's will make a lot of battery capacity available. Maybe it will. But right now, EV's with V2G are a rarity. If that doesn't work out, then maybe will be using a lot of the sites the Uni of Melbourne identified for pumped storage. (I'd be a lot more comfortable with that if they were subsidising building a few small ones to see how it worked out.). Or maybe all those transmission lines they are saying they need will save the day. Or maybe flow batteries are the go. I'm pretty sure their crystal ball isn't much better than ours. If they have a plan, it looks to "let the capitalists build what they see fit, and if it doesn't work the market will correct it". They probably don't have a lot of choice in that, but letting that happen while ensuring the network doesn't collapse when in the face of the inevitable failures isn't a tight rope I would want to be guiding the nation along. Which is probably why they want guard rails like "let us turn off solar" even if they don't have a plan to use it right now. The more guard rails the better. The one and only thing they look to have ruled out is nuclear. Not because it costs too much, but because by the time the first one is up and running it will all be over.

defrost 2y ago
> I'm not sure they have a concrete plan Which "they" .. the Coalition in Opposition, the Labor Government, the various multi billion dollar private sector players (Santos, Fortescue, Rio Tinto, et al)? In the time frame through until 2050 all will get a chunk of the decision making and execution. The greatest driver for massive large scale solar and battery (off peak energy storage for use) technology is already the mining industry - fleets that move a billion tonne per annum use a lot of guzzleline. > sites the Uni of Melbourne identified for pumped storage. https://energy.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1526592/Tim-Forcey-AESCE-2014.pdf https://energy.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/15... These form one type of battery that is viable to varying degrees in some locations; great in the Snowy mountains and Tasmania, more difficult to execute elsewhere and they have their own pros and cons - thankfully there's a spectrum of "batteries" to draw upon - thermal heat storage and less mass efficient (ie. not suitable for cars but great for fixed locations) iron and other non lithium variations still have untapped potential. > If they have a plan, it looks to .. Politically there's not much planning from either party .. what is more probable is the policies will flow from both industry and scientists in the public sector, the pollies on either side are flopping about like landed fish at the behest of various traditional mining and energy sectors. > The one and only thing they look to have ruled out is nuclear. If "they" is the current crop of pollies then they have the "ruling out" grandfathered in already: Nuclear power is prohibited in Australia, principally by two pieces of Federal legislation - the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act). These laws effectively prevent the construction or operation of nuclear facilities for power generation, as well as facilities for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of nuclear waste. It's been ruled out for more than a quarter of a century. The pragmatic economic feasibility of overturning that past legislation is twofold, both * it costs more than other options, and * by the time the first one is up and running it will all be over are both in play here (see the most recent CSIRO energy futures report)
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  > Which "they" .. the Coalition in Opposition, the Labor Government, the various multi billion dollar private sector players (Santos, Fortescue, Rio Tinto, et al)? AEMO. AEMO are the only ones who are tasked with keeping the grid running at the least cost. The private players are playing "how can I use this crisis to make money" game, the pollies are playing some game akin to "whats the best way to buy votes using the voters own money". AEMO handles the private players by attempting to create a market aligning the profit motive with their task. That's hard enough when the technology is stable. Right now it must be near impossible. I have no idea how they handle the pollies. It's probably a case of "keep your head down and hope they go away".
  - defrost 2y ago
    AEMO, here at least, outside of it's core Eastern and Southern regions, is reactive rather than leading with plans .. it manages what exists and comes into existance and functions as a reference for questions on energy policies that are set elsewhere. The private players have many goals, a sizable part of those goals are driven by "how can we save money that we are already spending" - hence the interest in R&D from the likes of Rio Tinto and Fortescue in Infinity trains, solar farms, electric and other renewable renewables etc. in a sectors with some serious draw down on fossil fuels. Other players, eg. Santos, are motivated by green washing existing practices .. having the worlds largest carbon capture and sequestration project is small beans given a) it's piddling success so far and b) tiny impact compared to the magnitude of the larger operation that's releasing greater amounts of carbon than are being captured. AEMO is one part of what I generally referred to as "policies will flow from both industry and scientists in the public sector", it serves to coordinate a multitude of schemes pushing forwards, some of those schemes being hollow tin cutouts of no real substance.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
You don't need V2G to soak up excess solar. You just need smart charging and/or pricing that reflects supply. And they ruled out nuclear both on cost and timescale. Cheap carbon free energy in a decade or two would be worth investing in. Expensive carbon free energy in a decade or two much less so.

defrost 2y ago

> I'm not sure they have a concrete plan Which "they" .. the Coalition in Opposition, the Labor Government, the various multi billion dollar private sector players (Santos, Fortescue, Rio Tinto, et al)? In the time frame through until 2050 all will get a chunk of the decision making and execution. The greatest driver for massive large scale solar and battery (off peak energy storage for use) technology is already the mining industry - fleets that move a billion tonne per annum use a lot of guzzleline. > sites the Uni of Melbourne identified for pumped storage. https://energy.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1526592/Tim-Forcey-AESCE-2014.pdf https://energy.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/15... These form one type of battery that is viable to varying degrees in some locations; great in the Snowy mountains and Tasmania, more difficult to execute elsewhere and they have their own pros and cons - thankfully there's a spectrum of "batteries" to draw upon - thermal heat storage and less mass efficient (ie. not suitable for cars but great for fixed locations) iron and other non lithium variations still have untapped potential. > If they have a plan, it looks to .. Politically there's not much planning from either party .. what is more probable is the policies will flow from both industry and scientists in the public sector, the pollies on either side are flopping about like landed fish at the behest of various traditional mining and energy sectors. > The one and only thing they look to have ruled out is nuclear. If "they" is the current crop of pollies then they have the "ruling out" grandfathered in already: Nuclear power is prohibited in Australia, principally by two pieces of Federal legislation - the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act). These laws effectively prevent the construction or operation of nuclear facilities for power generation, as well as facilities for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of nuclear waste. It's been ruled out for more than a quarter of a century. The pragmatic economic feasibility of overturning that past legislation is twofold, both * it costs more than other options, and * by the time the first one is up and running it will all be over are both in play here (see the most recent CSIRO energy futures report)

rstuart4133 2y ago
> Which "they" .. the Coalition in Opposition, the Labor Government, the various multi billion dollar private sector players (Santos, Fortescue, Rio Tinto, et al)? AEMO. AEMO are the only ones who are tasked with keeping the grid running at the least cost. The private players are playing "how can I use this crisis to make money" game, the pollies are playing some game akin to "whats the best way to buy votes using the voters own money". AEMO handles the private players by attempting to create a market aligning the profit motive with their task. That's hard enough when the technology is stable. Right now it must be near impossible. I have no idea how they handle the pollies. It's probably a case of "keep your head down and hope they go away".
- defrost 2y ago
  AEMO, here at least, outside of it's core Eastern and Southern regions, is reactive rather than leading with plans .. it manages what exists and comes into existance and functions as a reference for questions on energy policies that are set elsewhere. The private players have many goals, a sizable part of those goals are driven by "how can we save money that we are already spending" - hence the interest in R&D from the likes of Rio Tinto and Fortescue in Infinity trains, solar farms, electric and other renewable renewables etc. in a sectors with some serious draw down on fossil fuels. Other players, eg. Santos, are motivated by green washing existing practices .. having the worlds largest carbon capture and sequestration project is small beans given a) it's piddling success so far and b) tiny impact compared to the magnitude of the larger operation that's releasing greater amounts of carbon than are being captured. AEMO is one part of what I generally referred to as "policies will flow from both industry and scientists in the public sector", it serves to coordinate a multitude of schemes pushing forwards, some of those schemes being hollow tin cutouts of no real substance.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

You don't need V2G to soak up excess solar. You just need smart charging and/or pricing that reflects supply. And they ruled out nuclear both on cost and timescale. Cheap carbon free energy in a decade or two would be worth investing in. Expensive carbon free energy in a decade or two much less so.