1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. Do you mean use it in peak times?
2. Batteries are not very efficient electrical storage devices.
Electrical storage is best done indirectly, pumped hydro is one, coal is another.
Stored coal electricity can be tapped into on demand, it’s natures battery.
Just burn a bit more or burn a bit less depending on demand, dial it up or down 24/7.
It’s terrific stuff, I’ll see if I can find a photo of it.

Solar / batteries is ideal for off grid use.
You can use it for lighting, laptops, TVs and efficient pumps and fridges but your going to need a big expensive mother system if you want it to run ovens, heaters, toasters, kettles and microwaves, you can use gas for most of those, good coal seam gas.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. Do you mean use it in peak times?
2. Batteries are not very efficient electrical storage devices.
Electrical storage is best done indirectly, pumped hydro is one, coal is another.
Stored coal electricity can be tapped into on demand, it’s natures battery.
Just burn a bit more or burn a bit less depending on demand, dial it up or down 24/7.
It’s terrific stuff, I’ll see if I can find a photo of it.

Solar / batteries is ideal for off grid use.
You can use it for lighting, laptops, TVs and efficient pumps and fridges but your going to need a big expensive mother system if you want it to run ovens, heaters, toasters, kettles and microwaves, you can use gas for most of those, good coal seam gas.

Isn’t there a lot of energy stored inside some atoms. Shirely that could be used somehow?

Mild and muggy, to 28C and not 48 (fuck that)
6mm H2O :)

>Kim Jong-un is dead

King Jong is undead

Ian said:

Mild and muggy, to 28C and not 48 (fuck that)
6mm H2O :)

>Kim Jong-un is dead

King Jong is undead

—-> chat

Electrical storage is best done indirectly, pumped hydro is one, coal is another.
Stored coal electricity can be tapped into on demand, it’s natures battery.

———

That’s an idea. But what are the costs involved in actively converting atmospheric carbon to coal over a short time span?

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

LOL. I love it. Why didn’t I think of that?

It’s a tricky question to answer. The difference between “peak” and “off-peak” is much less important now than it was when I was young. When I was young, electricity companies would use coal fired power stations to satisfy base-load demand, even supplying 10 to 20% more than base load demand because of variations in power demand during off-peak times. On top of this, hydroelectricity with its rapid variability would fill in the difference between base load and peak demand. Hydroelectricity was more expensive than coal fired power so peak was more expensive than off-peak.

For countries with nuclear power, the power output from those is constant as well, not suited to supplying peak demand. So far as I know, that’s still the case. For counties with gas/oil fired power plants, these plants are rapidly variable, so are suited for supplying peak demand.

All that has changed completely. The main change has been the switch from lump coal to powdered coal in coal-fired power stations. Now coal fired and hydroelectricity are both variable. This means that the coal-fired plants are now flexible enough to cope with both peak and base load power on their own, without help from hydro. This has reduced the price of peak load power considerably.

Enter solar power and wind power. Both of these are much less variable than hydroelectricity and powdered coal. They’re both much more expensive than coal. Wind power has a certain wind speed range that it can operate in. Individual wind turbines can be shut down and started up to vary the power output when the wind speed is in that range. Outside that wind speed range, wind power shuts down completely, so what we have is an unpredictable loss of power at times that bear no resemblance to peak and off-peak times. To overcome this problem, many of the earliest wind farms came equipped with their own battery back-up. King Island is a classic, with vanadium redox batteries being used for power backup. But modern wind farms come without battery backup, because with the use of coal and hydro any shortfall in power due to wind farm shut-down can be made up by varying other power sources.

Solar power is less of a problem than wind power, but it does predictably generate power at the wrong time of day. Hence the use of battery backup on small power installations to hold back the power supply for six hours.

Perhaps I need to mention one more facet of power generation before discussing batteries. Although not used much in Australia, co-generation is a big thing overseas. In co-generation, the waste heat from a power plant is used to heat buildings or cities. Co-generation is the most efficient use of power plants in cold countries.

Now, leaving aside minor sources of power such as wave, tidal, geothermal, and waste heat, lets turn our attention to batteries. The capital costs of battery power are enormous, more than any other power source. Further, like solar power but unlike every other component of power production, there are no economies of scale. The battery cost for 1 Megawatt would be no less than 1000 times the battery cost for 1 Kilowatt. The same is true of solar power, but it is not true for wind, coal, hydroelectric, tidal, transformers, power lines, power poles, etc., where the cost of power decreases enormously as the size of the power plant increases.

Further, on the intermediate and large scale, batteries are only a temporary power storage source. Other temporary power storage methods include compressed gas storage and flywheel storage, both have been used and neither is suitable for home use. Compressed gas and flywheel storage of power both have a lower capital cost per cycle than battery storage. Batteries tend to either die too fast or cost too much. The redox batteries are the ones that last the longest, but they’re also the most expensive. For a solar-power home installation, it used to be said that the cost of the batteries was only recouped after half the projected lifetime of the installation. That has probably got better now. But if true, then that would completely rule out batteries for major energy suppliers.

OK, to summarise.

Batteries are used for home use on solar power rather than on a large scale for several reasons. One is that coal can now do the same job on a large scale as batteries on a small scale. A second is that batteries have a huge capital cost that offers no economies of scale. A third is that batteries tend to die too fast.

Now, let’s turn back to the problem of pricing. Now that wind power has become significant, electricity prices should be highest when the wind speed is too high or too low rather than being highest during peak demand, because coal power can cope with peak demand without a significant change in per-KW cost.

>1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

after recombination losses, other losses, and a lot of practical details that escape the shallows of fads (and happy green ideas), probably not

>2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

what’s a domestic battery system, notionally?

• what’s a domestic battery system, notionally?

I live on 850AH battery capacity (new, 12V), 500W peak solar panel output (summer, clear sky, middle of the day)

completely off grid (to use the trendy, dumb, expression)

what would be impressive though is if I managed on half that battery size and SP size, which I could do.

and got ten years life out of my batteries

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. Do you mean use it in peak times?

I suppose they can use the stored energy in the evening peak, but during the afternoon peak they can use the solar energy directly. OTOH, people without solar have to pay the exorbitant peak rates for the whole peak period, so they would have more to gain from storing bargain price off-peak electricity.

Peak Warming Man said:

2. Batteries are not very efficient electrical storage devices.
Electrical storage is best done indirectly, pumped hydro is one, coal is another.
Stored coal electricity can be tapped into on demand, it’s natures battery.
Just burn a bit more or burn a bit less depending on demand, dial it up or down 24/7.
It’s terrific stuff, I’ll see if I can find a photo of it.

Solar / batteries is ideal for off grid use.
You can use it for lighting, laptops, TVs and efficient pumps and fridges but your going to need a big expensive mother system if you want it to run ovens, heaters, toasters, kettles and microwaves, you can use gas for most of those, good coal seam gas.

Actually batteries are pretty efficient. Pumped hydro is also pretty efficient, but coal is highly inefficient, both at the electrical energy -> carbon stage, and the carbon -> CO2 + energy stage.

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. Do you mean use it in peak times?
2. Batteries are not very efficient electrical storage devices.
Electrical storage is best done indirectly, pumped hydro is one, coal is another.
Stored coal electricity can be tapped into on demand, it’s natures battery.
Just burn a bit more or burn a bit less depending on demand, dial it up or down 24/7.
It’s terrific stuff, I’ll see if I can find a photo of it.

Solar / batteries is ideal for off grid use.
You can use it for lighting, laptops, TVs and efficient pumps and fridges but your going to need a big expensive mother system if you want it to run ovens, heaters, toasters, kettles and microwaves, you can use gas for most of those, good coal seam gas.

Isn’t there a lot of energy stored inside some atoms. Shirely that could be used somehow?

Apparently it is used in some countries, but it seems there are a number of unresolved problems with this technology.

transition said:

>1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

after recombination losses, other losses, and a lot of practical details that escape the shallows of fads (and happy green ideas), probably not

>2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

what’s a domestic battery system, notionally?

A domestic battery system is a battery system designed for use in a domestic location.

That is, somebodies house.

I believe our PM has one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

after recombination losses, other losses, and a lot of practical details that escape the shallows of fads (and happy green ideas), probably not

>2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

what’s a domestic battery system, notionally?

A domestic battery system is a battery system designed for use in a domestic location.

That is, somebodies house.

I believe our PM has one.

Well done Mr Prime Minister

>A domestic battery system is a battery system designed for use in a domestic location.
That is, somebodies house.

i’d think a domestic battery system as you’re seeing it would support a family (X chidren, + visitors) living a typical domestic lifestyle, through the worst of winter so the switch flickers can do whatever (normal) any time of the day or night.

from a social system theory perspective (for want of a better term) having a constant supply of energy with a high peak capacity greatly influences (even regulates bahaviour). It contrbutes a lot to what is normal behaviour (ideology etc – expectations).

I’ll give you one example.

any modest solar system would shift higher electrical energy usage toward the middle of the day, or just after, so whoever would do the clothes washing then, and on sunnier days. I can’t see the full-employment-mafia encouraging anything so disruptive.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

LOL. I love it. Why didn’t I think of that?

It’s a tricky question to answer. The difference between “peak” and “off-peak” is much less important now than it was when I was young. When I was young, electricity companies would use coal fired power stations to satisfy base-load demand, even supplying 10 to 20% more than base load demand because of variations in power demand during off-peak times. On top of this, hydroelectricity with its rapid variability would fill in the difference between base load and peak demand. Hydroelectricity was more expensive than coal fired power so peak was more expensive than off-peak.

For countries with nuclear power, the power output from those is constant as well, not suited to supplying peak demand. So far as I know, that’s still the case. For counties with gas/oil fired power plants, these plants are rapidly variable, so are suited for supplying peak demand.

All that has changed completely. The main change has been the switch from lump coal to powdered coal in coal-fired power stations. Now coal fired and hydroelectricity are both variable. This means that the coal-fired plants are now flexible enough to cope with both peak and base load power on their own, without help from hydro. This has reduced the price of peak load power considerably.

Enter solar power and wind power. Both of these are much less variable than hydroelectricity and powdered coal. They’re both much more expensive than coal. Wind power has a certain wind speed range that it can operate in. Individual wind turbines can be shut down and started up to vary the power output when the wind speed is in that range. Outside that wind speed range, wind power shuts down completely, so what we have is an unpredictable loss of power at times that bear no resemblance to peak and off-peak times. To overcome this problem, many of the earliest wind farms came equipped with their own battery back-up. King Island is a classic, with vanadium redox batteries being used for power backup. But modern wind farms come without battery backup, because with the use of coal and hydro any shortfall in power due to wind farm shut-down can be made up by varying other power sources.

Solar power is less of a problem than wind power, but it does predictably generate power at the wrong time of day. Hence the use of battery backup on small power installations to hold back the power supply for six hours.

Perhaps I need to mention one more facet of power generation before discussing batteries. Although not used much in Australia, co-generation is a big thing overseas. In co-generation, the waste heat from a power plant is used to heat buildings or cities. Co-generation is the most efficient use of power plants in cold countries.

Now, leaving aside minor sources of power such as wave, tidal, geothermal, and waste heat, lets turn our attention to batteries. The capital costs of battery power are enormous, more than any other power source. Further, like solar power but unlike every other component of power production, there are no economies of scale. The battery cost for 1 Megawatt would be no less than 1000 times the battery cost for 1 Kilowatt. The same is true of solar power, but it is not true for wind, coal, hydroelectric, tidal, transformers, power lines, power poles, etc., where the cost of power decreases enormously as the size of the power plant increases.

Further, on the intermediate and large scale, batteries are only a temporary power storage source. Other temporary power storage methods include compressed gas storage and flywheel storage, both have been used and neither is suitable for home use. Compressed gas and flywheel storage of power both have a lower capital cost per cycle than battery storage. Batteries tend to either die too fast or cost too much. The redox batteries are the ones that last the longest, but they’re also the most expensive. For a solar-power home installation, it used to be said that the cost of the batteries was only recouped after half the projected lifetime of the installation. That has probably got better now. But if true, then that would completely rule out batteries for major energy suppliers.

OK, to summarise.

Batteries are used for home use on solar power rather than on a large scale for several reasons. One is that coal can now do the same job on a large scale as batteries on a small scale. A second is that batteries have a huge capital cost that offers no economies of scale. A third is that batteries tend to die too fast.

Now, let’s turn back to the problem of pricing. Now that wind power has become significant, electricity prices should be highest when the wind speed is too high or too low rather than being highest during peak demand, because coal power can cope with peak demand without a significant change in per-KW cost.

A lot to respond to there, but for now I will just say:

1) There is still a huge difference between peak and off-peak electricity prices.
2) If the costs associated with CO2 emissions are included (which of course they should be), then coal is not the cheapest supply system.
3) The main point is that if it is cost-effective for domestic users to buy their own batteries (and I presume they do their numbers before forking out), how can it not be cost-effective for industrial users and suppliers?
4) I don’t accept there are no economies of scale for battery installation. One off installation costs, and costs associated with the domestic location must make up a large part of domestic costs.
5) I have no doubt that electricity pricing will change to reflect the costs associated with irregular supply and storage costs, and this is an opportunity for smart business people.

transition said:

>A domestic battery system is a battery system designed for use in a domestic location.
That is, somebodies house.

i’d think a domestic battery system as you’re seeing it would support a family (X chidren, + visitors) living a typical domestic lifestyle, through the worst of winter so the switch flickers can do whatever (normal) any time of the day or night.

from a social system theory perspective (for want of a better term) having a constant supply of energy with a high peak capacity greatly influences (even regulates bahaviour). It contrbutes a lot to what is normal behaviour (ideology etc – expectations).

I’ll give you one example.

any modest solar system would shift higher electrical energy usage toward the middle of the day, or just after, so whoever would do the clothes washing then, and on sunnier days. I can’t see the full-employment-mafia encouraging anything so disruptive.

I don’t know what that means.

But high peak electricity costs can and do affect people’s use of electricity, whether they have solar or not.

>I don’t know what that means.

there’s two kinds of solar systems

one sort changes your life.

most off grid friends have a genny for heavy loads and possible winter back-up.

My solar system was installed when the feed back tariff was generous so for me it make sense to minimise electricity usage during the day when it operates to get maximum return as even at night what I pay is less than what I get back

Cymek said:

My solar system was installed when the feed back tariff was generous so for me it make sense to minimise electricity usage during the day when it operates to get maximum return as even at night what I pay is less than what I get back

To be clear the solar system doesn’t work at night obviously.

When the companies that sell you electricity and water have to actively promote ways to use less of their product you just know the price of their product is going to go up.
It’s all part of the fake stuff that is out there.
Governments saying that selling a public asset is great for the tax payer when joe punter knows that the buyer of that asset is going to make more money out of it than he paid for it.
When someone on TV tells you Islam is a feminist movement.
When they tell you The Great Barrier Reef is dyeing again just before a new funding round.
When they tell you that Britain will become a basket case if they leave the EU.
etc etc etc………………..

Peak Warming Man said:

When the companies that sell you electricity and water have to actively promote ways to use less of their product you just know the price of their product is going to go up.
It’s all part of the fake stuff that is out there.
Governments saying that selling a public asset is great for the tax payer when joe punter knows that the buyer of that asset is going to make more money out of it than he paid for it.
When someone on TV tells you Islam is a feminist movement.
When they tell you The Great Barrier Reef is dyeing again just before a new funding round.
When they tell you that Britain will become a basket case if they leave the EU.
etc etc etc………………..

Selling public assets to mates I wonder with an under the table kickback I don’t doubt.
Surely it’s un-Australian to sell a public asset for what usually seems to be a way to generate some extra short term cash because of GDP shortfall or massive government financial mismanagement. Plus I wonder wouldn’t you weaken governmental power and influence if they no longer owner basic infrastructure.

New battery.

Power dense zinc-manganese power unit as cheap as a car battery

A team of scientists working on analyzing energy flows in prototype zinc-manganese batteries have stumbled upon a new way to make these power cells much more reliable, with many more recharge cycles than the humble lead-acid car battery, but costing around the same to produce.

http://newatlas.com/rechargeable-zinc-manganese-battery-pnnl/42930/?li_source=LI&li_medium=default-widget

ChrispenEvan said:

most off grid friends have a genny for heavy loads and possible winter back-up.

Yep, and they don’t use much fuel really in the odd times you need them.
I’ve looked in to domestic wind, not impressed, moving parts and everything.
Solar/batteries/genny and your laughing.

I imagine it could be similar to computer storage originally incredibly expensive now very cheap assuming that this is the outcome desired.

Peak Warming Man said:

ChrispenEvan said:

most off grid friends have a genny for heavy loads and possible winter back-up.

Yep, and they don’t use much fuel really in the odd times you need them.
I’ve looked in to domestic wind, not impressed, moving parts and everything.
Solar/batteries/genny and your laughing.

Plus you could use an exercise bike to power a hair dryer to heat a frying pan to cook an egg

Oh so Rev wants us to do his homework again…

The Rev Dodgson said:

A lot to respond to there, but for now I will just say:

1) There is still a huge difference between peak and off-peak electricity prices.
2) If the costs associated with CO2 emissions are included (which of course they should be), then coal is not the cheapest supply system.
3) The main point is that if it is cost-effective for domestic users to buy their own batteries (and I presume they do their numbers before forking out), how can it not be cost-effective for industrial users and suppliers?
4) I don’t accept there are no economies of scale for battery installation. One off installation costs, and costs associated with the domestic location must make up a large part of domestic costs.
5) I have no doubt that electricity pricing will change to reflect the costs associated with irregular supply and storage costs, and this is an opportunity for smart business people.

> 1)

Depends on the supplier. Some suppliers charge a different peak and off-peak rate. Some don’t. Mine doesn’t. The amount that suppliers charge for electricity depends more on how they can maximise their profit than on supply costs.

> 2) If the costs associated with CO2 emissions are included (which of course they should be), then coal is not the cheapest supply system.

So, what is? Certainly not wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, tidal, battery, gas, which leaves … um … coal. Unless you count government subsidies – which have nothing to do with supply costs.

> 3) The main point is that if it is cost-effective for domestic users to buy their own batteries (and I presume they do their numbers before forking out), how can it not be cost-effective for industrial users and suppliers?

I’ve explained that above. Lack of economies of scale, extraordinarily high capital costs, and short lifetime which would be even shorter for industrial users and suppliers. Because of the high capital costs, only domestic users can be conned into buying batteries.

> 4) I don’t accept there are no economies of scale for battery installation. One off installation costs, and costs associated with the domestic location must make up a large part of domestic costs.

No. Material costs dominate.

> 5)

The people in this business are already smart. They’ve already optimised it.

On thinking more about power supply, although what I’ve said above seems to suggest that we already live in the best of all possible worlds, there is one change that’s come to mind that could make everything very much better.

Consider wind power, wind power is the most unreliably of all major sources of power. In a wind power plant all the turbines are the same. They all shut down at the same low wind speed and they all shut down at the same high wind speed. That is wrong, very wrong.

What is needed is for every wind power plant to have at least two different designs of turbines, ideally three, that operate over different wind speed ranges. Have one wind turbine that is active only at very low wind speeds, and another that is active only at very high wind speeds. Put together, they cover a much wider range of wind speeds than in possible at present, so the wind power plant has outages at irregular times far less frequently.

No large wind turbine currently for sale will generate power at a wind speed less than 2 m/s (some not below 5 m/s). No large wind turbine currently for sale will generate power at a wind speed more than 30 m/s (some not above 20 m/s). Expand those limits! If I remember my BOM wind roses correctly, wind speeds all around Australia are less than 5 m/s almost 50% of the time, and less than 1 m/s 10% of the time. Wind speeds above 20 m/s occur frequently. Wind speeds above 30 m/s are rarer, but still occur several times every year.

So my proposal is to install some wind turbines capable of generating power at wind speeds down to 1 m/s, ideally 0.5 m/s, but shut off when the wind speed increases to, say, 10 or 15 m/s. And install some other wind turbines that can still generate power at a wind speed of 40 m/s, ideally 50 m/s, but shut off at wind speeds below 10 to 15 m/s. All at the same wind power station.

Cymek said:

I imagine it could be similar to computer storage originally incredibly expensive now very cheap assuming that this is the outcome desired.

There are reasons not to expect the price of storage to drop like computer storage prices dropped. There will be some improvements in efficiency and economies of scale, but it basically takes a certain amount of energy to make lithium cobalt oxide, and the price of lithium is not likely to decrease.

mollwollfumble said:

Depends on the supplier. Some suppliers charge a different peak and off-peak rate. Some don’t. Mine doesn’t. The amount that suppliers charge for electricity depends more on how they can maximise their profit than on supply costs.

Got to go, but in response to that:

If suppliers costs include all costs (including the hidden ones, like costs associated with CO2 emissions), then suppliers maximising their profits, and suppliers maximising the efficiency of the system will be the same thing.

>> 2) If the costs associated with CO2 emissions are included (which of course they should be), then coal is not the cheapest supply system.

> So, what is? Certainly not wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, tidal, battery, gas, which leaves … um … coal. Unless you count government subsidies – which have nothing to do with supply costs.

Perhaps I spoke too soon.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The cheapest for Australia is now gas (aka CCGT)
The second cheapest in Australia (almost exactly the same cost) is a hybrid solar+coal system.
The third, more limited power source with an almost identical cost is gas from landfill.

All the other options are at least 20% more expensive.

All three produce CO₂.

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

A wanted tax: ie one that raises needed revenue and also creates incentive for desired behaviour.

Hope this helps.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

A wanted tax: ie one that raises needed revenue and also creates incentive for desired behaviour.

Hope this helps.

I wonder if the tax goes towards solutions to alleviate excess atmospheric CO2

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

A wanted tax: ie one that raises needed revenue and also creates incentive for desired behaviour.

Hope this helps.

Or alternatively, a wanted fee, pricing the best estimate of costs associated with minimising the long term cost of delivering usable energy.

Turnbull seems to have gone full Abbott now and it is very sad

dv said:

Turnbull seems to have gone full Abbott now and it is very sad

I wonder why no-one asks him why he is now following a policy that he once described as bullshit.

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

it’s the true cost associated with disposal of CO2 into the atmosphere

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Turnbull seems to have gone full Abbott now and it is very sad

I wonder why no-one asks him why he is now following a policy that he once described as bullshit.

as far as I can tell, the Opposition seem to be asking him this (albeit most often indirectly through the media) just about every day

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Turnbull seems to have gone full Abbott now and it is very sad

I wonder why no-one asks him why he is now following a policy that he once described as bullshit.

as far as I can tell, the Opposition seem to be asking him this (albeit most often indirectly through the media) just about every day

That’s good. I hadn’t noticed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. That is exactly how most systems that are installed with batteries operate. Companies like Reposit, Green Charge Networks, Tesla etc have software embedded into the systems which take into account the tariff structure and adjusted the charge / discahrge cyle of the batteries accordingly.

2. The technology is still in its nascent stages, although maturing rapidly. Systems are currently deing deployed in Australia to do exactly this. Energex in Brisbane has a trail site currently being installed by Tesla. Ausnet in Victoria have a trial ( 1 MW, 1 MWh) that was installed by ABB just over a year ago. This one hasn’t gone too well the last I heard and they are still trying to iron out quite a few bugs.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. That is exactly how most systems that are installed with batteries operate. Companies like Reposit, Green Charge Networks, Tesla etc have software embedded into the systems which take into account the tariff structure and adjusted the charge / discahrge cyle of the batteries accordingly.

2. The technology is still in its nascent stages, although maturing rapidly. Systems are currently deing deployed in Australia to do exactly this. Energex in Brisbane has a trail site currently being installed by Tesla. Ausnet in Victoria have a trial ( 1 MW, 1 MWh) that was installed by ABB just over a year ago. This one hasn’t gone too well the last I heard and they are still trying to iron out quite a few bugs.

So you’re saying the Tesla one is going ok? That’ll be just the news PWM would want to hear, he loves Tesla.

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. If it is cost effective for a home owner with roof-top solar to store their electricity in batteries so they can use it in off-peak times, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for a home owner with no roof-top solar to store off-peak mains supply, so they can use it in peak-times?

2. If it is cost effective for home owners to install expensive domestic battery systems, wouldn’t it be much more cost effective for energy suppliers and/or industrial users to install less expensive industrial battery systems?

1. That is exactly how most systems that are installed with batteries operate. Companies like Reposit, Green Charge Networks, Tesla etc have software embedded into the systems which take into account the tariff structure and adjusted the charge / discahrge cyle of the batteries accordingly.

2. The technology is still in its nascent stages, although maturing rapidly. Systems are currently deing deployed in Australia to do exactly this. Energex in Brisbane has a trail site currently being installed by Tesla. Ausnet in Victoria have a trial ( 1 MW, 1 MWh) that was installed by ABB just over a year ago. This one hasn’t gone too well the last I heard and they are still trying to iron out quite a few bugs.

So you’re saying the Tesla one is going ok? That’ll be just the news PWM would want to hear, he loves Tesla.

No, I stated that they are currently installing a trial site. There is still a looong way to go :)

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

1. That is exactly how most systems that are installed with batteries operate. Companies like Reposit, Green Charge Networks, Tesla etc have software embedded into the systems which take into account the tariff structure and adjusted the charge / discahrge cyle of the batteries accordingly.

2. The technology is still in its nascent stages, although maturing rapidly. Systems are currently deing deployed in Australia to do exactly this. Energex in Brisbane has a trail site currently being installed by Tesla. Ausnet in Victoria have a trial ( 1 MW, 1 MWh) that was installed by ABB just over a year ago. This one hasn’t gone too well the last I heard and they are still trying to iron out quite a few bugs.

So you’re saying the Tesla one is going ok? That’ll be just the news PWM would want to hear, he loves Tesla.

No, I stated that they are currently installing a trial site. There is still a looong way to go :)

Damn.

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

it’s the true cost associated with disposal of CO2 into the atmosphere

Sorry, let me clarify the question.

As calculated by who?

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

it’s the true cost associated with disposal of CO2 into the atmosphere

Sorry, let me clarify the question.

As calculated by who?

“The Market” ideally.

mollwollfumble said:

diddly-squat said:

mollwollfumble said:

Question:
What exactly is a “CO₂ price” other than another unwanted tax?

it’s the true cost associated with disposal of CO2 into the atmosphere

Sorry, let me clarify the question.

As calculated by who?

The price doesn’t actually need to be calculated by anyone.

The number that needs to be calculated is the target level of GHG emissions by date x.

Once that is fixed the cost of emitting GHGs will be set by the market, just as any other cost is.

I’m very cautious of carbon credits ever since I had to calculate them for work, as part of the algal biofuels project.

The method chosen for calculating carbon credits is largely arbitrary. Take carbon offsets by planting trees for example. It could be argued that planting a tree is carbon neutral because “whole of life” has to be used to calculate carbon credits and whole of like for a tree includes death and decomposition followed by re-release of all the carbon captured back into the atmosphere. It gets much trickier to calculate than that when you add in harvesting of the tree for animal (or human) food and you start looking at the percentage of carbon eaten that ends up as poo and then working out the ultimate fate of the carbon in the poo, such as methane production. Clearly harvesting the tree for timber furniture is better than letting it die naturally, but even then it’s far from clear whether the life of the the furniture has to be taken into account.

Or look at the same thing from the opposite direction, if tree planting is carbon neutral then could sea level rise be considered sequestration? The answer is “yes”. Coral is already growing at rates that are about two to three times what is sustainable without sea level rise. But sea level rise would result in a further increase in coral growth both because the extra height of water above the coral enhances local currents which cool the coral to stop coral bleaching, and because the extra water provides a void into which reef-building corals can grow. Coral sequesters carbon as limestone.

So without extremely specific guidelines on how to calculate carbon credits and carbon offsets, results can be the opposite of what you want to see. Tree planting being carbon neutral and sea level rise being counted as sequestration.

Certainly there are problems associated with evaluating carbon credits.

The evaluation of carbon costs is more straightforward, but no doubt there are problems associated with that process as well.

Just ignoring costs associated with emissions of CO2 is not the answer to any of these problems.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly there are problems associated with evaluating carbon credits.

The evaluation of carbon costs is more straightforward, but no doubt there are problems associated with that process as well.

Just ignoring costs associated with emissions of CO2 is not the answer to any of these problems.

Well, even including CO2 costs, all of the top seven lowest cost energy production methods in Australia produce CO2.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly there are problems associated with evaluating carbon credits.

The evaluation of carbon costs is more straightforward, but no doubt there are problems associated with that process as well.

Just ignoring costs associated with emissions of CO2 is not the answer to any of these problems.

Well, even including CO2 costs, all of the top seven lowest cost energy production methods in Australia produce CO2.

Let’s see the numbers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly there are problems associated with evaluating carbon credits.

The evaluation of carbon costs is more straightforward, but no doubt there are problems associated with that process as well.

Just ignoring costs associated with emissions of CO2 is not the answer to any of these problems.

Well, even including CO2 costs, all of the top seven lowest cost energy production methods in Australia produce CO2.

Let’s see the numbers.

Oops, 6 of the top 7.

Glad to. All the following are average costs in Australia, there is a cost range for each that is typically +-20%
Prices are in $/MWh including carbon price and CO₂ transport and sequestration.

The top three are:
$85 – Natural gas burning
$87 – Methane from landfill
$90 – Solar + coal hybrid
The difference in costs among the top three are not significant. The next four are slightly more expensive, but again not significantly different from each other.
$110 – Solar + gas hybrid
$110 – Wind from turbines on hills
$115 – Sugarcane biomass burning
$117 – Coal burning

The wind turbines on hills are the only one of the top seven that doesn’t produce CO₂.

The cheapest solar voltaic (with batteries) comes in at $220 per MWh, which is 2.7 times the cost of gas.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Well, even including CO2 costs, all of the top seven lowest cost energy production methods in Australia produce CO2.

Let’s see the numbers.

Oops, 6 of the top 7.

Glad to. All the following are average costs in Australia, there is a cost range for each that is typically +-20%
Prices are in $/MWh including carbon price and CO₂ transport and sequestration.

The top three are:
$85 – Natural gas burning
$87 – Methane from landfill
$90 – Solar + coal hybrid
The difference in costs among the top three are not significant. The next four are slightly more expensive, but again not significantly different from each other.
$110 – Solar + gas hybrid
$110 – Wind from turbines on hills
$115 – Sugarcane biomass burning
$117 – Coal burning

The wind turbines on hills are the only one of the top seven that doesn’t produce CO₂.

The cheapest solar voltaic (with batteries) comes in at $220 per MWh, which is 2.7 times the cost of gas.

I don’t know where they got a price for CO2 transport and sequestration from, but if that’s included and the price is still low then we don’t have a problem.

OTOH if it turns out that CO2 transport and sequestration is actually much more expensive than allowed for in those numbers (which seems likely to me), then in the short term the most inefficient energy supplies can be replaced with low cost gas, and in the longer term either the price of sustainable energy sources + storage will have to come down, or the CO2 price will have to go up, or both.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Let’s see the numbers.

Oops, 6 of the top 7.

Glad to. All the following are average costs in Australia, there is a cost range for each that is typically +-20%
Prices are in $/MWh including carbon price and CO₂ transport and sequestration.

The top three are:
$85 – Natural gas burning
$87 – Methane from landfill
$90 – Solar + coal hybrid
The difference in costs among the top three are not significant. The next four are slightly more expensive, but again not significantly different from each other.
$110 – Solar + gas hybrid
$110 – Wind from turbines on hills
$115 – Sugarcane biomass burning
$117 – Coal burning

The wind turbines on hills are the only one of the top seven that doesn’t produce CO₂.

The cheapest solar voltaic (with batteries) comes in at $220 per MWh, which is 2.7 times the cost of gas.

I don’t know where they got a price for CO2 transport and sequestration from, but if that’s included and the price is still low then we don’t have a problem.

OTOH if it turns out that CO2 transport and sequestration is actually much more expensive than allowed for in those numbers (which seems likely to me), then in the short term the most inefficient energy supplies can be replaced with low cost gas, and in the longer term either the price of sustainable energy sources + storage will have to come down, or the CO2 price will have to go up, or both.

I don’t think there is much argument to be made here

this came up in my feed tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-16/coal-power-generator-says-new-plants-not-viable/8277210

roughbarked said:

I don’t think there is much argument to be made here

What is it that you don’t think there is much argument to be made about?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I don’t think there is much argument to be made here

What is it that you don’t think there is much argument to be made about?

In that It is clear that we are on alternative tracks already.
We are bound to supply electricity in accordance to the Paris agreement that the current Feds signed.
we know all the arguments.. We simply need to get on with a strategy that is a fits all.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I don’t think there is much argument to be made here

What is it that you don’t think there is much argument to be made about?

In that It is clear that we are on alternative tracks already.
We are bound to supply electricity in accordance to the Paris agreement that the current Feds signed.
we know all the arguments.. We simply need to get on with a strategy that is a fits all.

It’s not clear to me what our obligations are under the Paris agreement, nor what happens if we fail to meet them.

But the current question is, how do we reduce CO2 emissions most efficiently. It seems to me that the simplest way to do that is to put a cost on emitting CO2 so that the people doing the emitting minimise their costs.

No true liberal politician could possibly object to that.

Is this all sorted then?

dv said:

Is this all sorted then?

Why?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Is this all sorted then?

Why?

No doubt because of your great talents.