Fossil fuel subsidies

Planet Earth
90

That is correct and one of the reasons why the grid was expanded from local boards with one or two main generators. It is also why Australia and some other countries have been fortunate with reliable power…diversity of generation either in type or location.

The challenge is cost. Using the figures for the SA 100MW battery, to provide the same supply security over 2 days (assuming 660MW peak capacity is what is needed), the capital costs of a battery to meet similar input requirements would be about 10x that of the proposed gas turbine. This doesn’t consider design life (gas turbine would be 2-3 times that of a equivalent battery system) or operating costs (where batteries would be cheaper if there is excess energy available for battery storage).

Batteries are more suited to short term support (minutes to hours) rather than medium term support (day/days to weeks). While battery systems are technically possible, as a community we need to agree and accept substantial increase in network charges if this direction is taken. The recent claims of gold plating will pale into insignificance and the community and business needs to decide this is the best way forward.

This has more or less happened in a larger scale in Adelaide where diesel gensets support the network at times the government indicates the proposed gas turbine will.

Generally small scale generation is inefficient and currently doesn’t allow for sharing due to historical network configuration (no upstream flow). In effect it is creating micro-boards which need to rely on upstream support to maintain resilience and reliability.

A centralised storage system to manage deficiencies on the network makes sense and the government has chosen gas (and looks like the ALP also support gas, just not at the location nominated by the government). There are other solutions, some which are politically unacceptable, some expensive and some potentially easier to get through. It appears the government has decided on the later…it would be good if there was an impartial assessment of all possible options including advantages and disadvantages and costs, so the community can see what is available and why particular decisions are made.

91

One would have to ask just how far $600M would go in supporting BEV uptake?

In particular if it encouraged V2H options, which would
a) provide storage capacity to offset peak demand in the evenings and high demand events.
b) draw on low cost excess generation during the day and off peak evening periods.
c) accelerate the cost return on the investment in the expensive batteries installed in a BEV.

With every 100,000 BEV vehicles providing up to 3.6/7.2kW output and 40-60kWh capacity it is a very significant resource, to draw from. Part of the solution and not the problem?

A further step is realising the potential of V2G to further support generating capacity.

1 Like
92

Some interesting perspective on Batteries now providing what Coal once did, frequency and voltage stability:

Some excerpts from the Article about the Study

“Key findings in the report show batteries and demand response provided more than a third of all frequency control markets in the last quarter of 2020, despite comprising just 0.5 per cent of the grid’s generation capacity.”

" “Clearly, batteries will be the most important technology keeping the grid secure as coal fired power stations retire,” he said.

“The last refuge of the coal lobby has been that coal power is vital to keep the grid secure and this study shows that is not the case.” "

Study pdf link follows

Further Commentary on the Study

Why we need to cut subsidies for Fossil Fuels and fund renewables is clearly seen. $660 Million would produce a big battery.

3 Likes
93

This is a bit off-topic, but assertions have been made that beg reply. I’ll try to keep it brief.

First, here’s an old piece of mine, setting out how things were done in the days of coal:

and one on energy storage:

I live near the site in question. There is at present limited gas capacity. The plant will start up burning diesel. A planned increase in gas supply will not be sufficient for ongoing operation. A large pipeline will be tapped to supply the plant, but the capacity of that pipeline is pretty near all allocated.

There will be times when gas supply and storage are not enough. The plan is to run the plant on diesel occasionally, until the end of its operational life. There are distinct risks that fuel will not always be to hand when required.

Which is probably the nub of the issue. The site is owned by a well-known Liberal Party donor. It’s contaminated, so planned development would not be as profitable as hoped. In short, the government is relieving that donor of a liability. What relationship the price paid by the government bears to market value, we’ll find out in due course.

I’ll be interested to see substantiation that a 100% renewables grid would require weeks of storage.

Batteries are doing what gas peakers do, but they’re doing it better and cheaper. These days, the main competition to batteries is not gas - it’s other batteries. For the longer term, an ANU study found about 1,000 times as much pumped hydro capacity as we’d need for a 100% renewables grid.

Staying in the Hunter, the region is replete with old mine voids. For historical reasons, it also has very good electricity transmission. That makes it ideal for pumped hydro energy storage. I know of plans around Muswellbrook and Fassifern. They’re probably not the whole picture.

If anyone’s interested in real-world grid planning, take a look at the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan (ISP).

Even compressed air is an option. It’s said to be up to 60% efficient.

:thinking: OK, I kept it brief-ish.

5 Likes
94

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E18FjJzUUAM9Xim?format=png&name=900x900

image
image802×477 221 KB

4 Likes
95

New grants to unlock Beetaloo Basin potential

Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia Keith Pitt said $50 million in grants will be provided through the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program.

“The program is expected to deliver approximately 10 additional exploration wells in the Beetaloo by 2022, and bring forward at least $150 million of private investment from companies.

“This Commonwealth grants program will support gas operators to speed up exploration and development of the Beetaloo Basin,” Minister Pitt said.

Grants to drill holes to kick start exploration could be a subsidy could it not? If the public purse puts up a quarter of the money does that mean we own a quarter of the wells?

Commonwealth tips another $173 million into Beetaloo Basin gas reserve, insists emissions targets on track

The investment will fund road infrastructure in the region, 500km south-east of Darwin, and comes just weeks after the Government committed up to $50 million to drive exploration.

If you believe that building infrastructure in remote areas where there is only one industry that would use it is not a subsidy I am not sure what you would call this. Largess perhaps?

5 Likes
96

Corruption perhaps instead of subsidy?

3 Likes
97

If pork barrel grants in marginal seats is a form of corruption because it is public money not spent on the public good then this is the same; so I say yes.

4 Likes
98

Richard Denniss compares Australia’s fossil fuel addiction to Japanese killing whales and America’s gun culture. “All countries do crazy sh!t”, he says. Fossil fuels are just Australia’s crazy.
The link is to Facebook. I couldn’t find anything more accessible.

99

It is true that there are irrational elements in national policies. However a big difference is between pro-coal and pro-gun culture is the role of leadership and the power of the people. In gun culture it is mainly the people and their widespread beliefs and values leading, in Oz it it mainly the leaders. We don’t have ingrained pro-coal culture it could be changed with a little effort. The USA has a deeply ingrained gun culture and it would take a huge effort to change it - if that is possible.

2 Likes
100

It’s a crowded leader board. Total production of coal.

image
image1017×659 314 KB

Although we also consume combined (primary energy consumption) more natural gas (22%) and petroleum (34%) than coal (40%). While our coal consumption is decreasing our use of gas and mostly imported petroleum products is increasing.

My pick of crazy for Australia would be our ongoing disregard/destruction of the natural environment and First Nations ahead of fossil fuels. They are ours alone to be accountable for. Somethings become impossible to undo. With climate change there remains some chance.

1 Like
101

This government spins and jerks with the best of them.

'…last night the government defeated the Labor and Greens motions to stop the Australian Renewable Energy Agency fund being opened up to fossil fuel projects (gas is a fossil fuel).

So the fund set up to fund renewables can now also be used to fund fossil fuel projects.

Here was the vote, in case anyone thought the Liberals fighting for climate change action may have voted differently.’

It is deep down in this ‘mega report’ at 08:17

3 Likes
102

In politics, timing is everything.

2 Likes
103

100 backbenchers do not have the clout of a single mining baron, not even having to include the many who are just wealthy on the back of fossil fuels.

‘We won the election, our ministers have been appointed, we can do what we want’.

No confidence motions having a chance of being carried are but dreams in our land of enforced party discipline.

2 Likes
104

A Liberal-led committee has told the Morrison government its plan to change the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) so it can fund a broader range of technologies including some using fossil fuels could be illegal.

Here they go again…what does a Liberal led committee of back benchers know about anything when the front bench has its sights on the ‘donor class’? Focus on ‘could’ - a concept often just rejected until the courts decide all while ‘it’ goes full ahead.

3 Likes
105

Is a million lives a subsidy? As the industry isn’t paying the price, I guess it is.

2 Likes
106

The father of a mate of mine had a car detailing business decades ago and several dealers used to take their new vehicles to him to prepare them for sale.

When new vehicles were transported to Cairns by rail, soot from the diesel locomotives used to burn into the paint and was very hard to remove without damaging the paintwork.

One can only imagine what diesel pollution does to people.

107

Adani has struck — errr — coal!

This is an interesting mess. Subsidies and concession for the mine total at least $4.4bn, plus effectively unlimited water. The funny part is that Adani bought a 99 year lease on the Abbott Point coal terminal, which isn’t economic without Carmichael coal. So Adani is building a stranded asset to prop up another stranded asset.

2 Likes
108

That isn’t the case an one of the social media myths about the project…

109

It depends on which future one imagines?
An asset may be stranded in the future, but that does not mean it has not returned the investment or profit in the interim.

Note:
India has similar near term thinking to Australia.

It’s climate ambitions and GHG reduction targets for 2030 are measured by emissions intensity, and not total emissions.

A reduction in energy from coal is to be replaced by greater use of natural gas and LNG. Hydrogen is also part of the possible future.

The Indian Govt is calling on other nations (the developed world) to do more.

( edit added content)
For those wondering about the CERA Leadership Award bonafides.

-https://ceraweek.com/about/index.html

1 Like