Worlds largest battery to be installed in South Australia by Tesla

[Dborn]

This absolute piece of rubbish has just gone up. Exactly what you'd expect from a Liberal mouthpiece.
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

I know there isn't changing some people's minds, but if you get in early with the comments you can at least set the record straight.

Ummmmm, chuq, where is she wrong, exactly? Elon is a dreamer who does make things happen, EVENTUALLY. Renewables are great if you have abundant geothermal, or hydroelectric resources. Wave power has not yet made it into that league. Solar and wind simply cannot meet base load requirements and nowhere near enough battery power is being installed and it remains a very expensive option. What, by the way is going to charge those batteries?
Without the government loans Tesla would not have survived, though that loan has since been repaid. I don’t think the same can be said for government loans to the other car manufacturers.
Closing Liddell will be a disaster, and closing Hazelwood was not a really bright idea either. There are no plans for adequate substitution of either. The correct solution in our context is nuclear, given the size of the country, and its uranium reserves. But those reactors need to have been well on the way to completion well before any obsolescence closure of power plants.
Her point is foreign investors profiteering. Yes indeed, that is exactly what they are doing. You think Elon was here simply out of the goodness of his heart?
The Yank running AGL will be out of here just as soon as he has made his pile. I am quite sure he is not on a modest altruistic salary!!

 

[Blue heaven]

This absolute piece of rubbish has just gone up. Exactly what you'd expect from a Liberal mouthpiece.
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

I know there isn't changing some people's minds, but if you get in early with the comments you can at least set the record straight.

I absolutely agree with you Chuq, Credlin is one of the handful of remaining dinosaurs that will continually write misinterpretations of the truth to keep their ever decreasing band of followers spoon fed the tripe they want to read, as each day passes and the reality of a low emissions vehicles charged from a low emissions power grid is forcing humble pie down their throat, I am enjoying the show.

 

[Dborn]

This absolute piece of rubbish has just gone up. Exactly what you'd expect from a Liberal mouthpiece.
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

I know there isn't changing some people's minds, but if you get in early with the comments you can at least set the record straight.

I ask again, chuq, what part of that article is rubbish?

 

[Chuq]

I ask again, chuq, what part of that article is rubbish?

The part where she suggests Elon Musk is a snake-oil salesman.
Where she suggests he is "fleecing us".
Where she suggests Musk's businesses are built on taxpayer subsidies.
Where she suggests the SA outages were due to renewables.
Where she uses the well-worn "it will only power x number of homes for an hour" quote.
Where she suggests SpaceX will be reliant on taxpayer dollars.
Where she suggests coal, gas and uranium should be the basis of our power grid.

Are you sure you read the same article as the rest of us?

 

[meloccom]

I ask again, chuq, what part of that article is rubbish?

Hi @Dborn , a couple more points.
When people talk of large scale solar, this is more likely to be Solar Thermal, such as the planned Port Agusta plant that will replace the recently closed coal or gas plant, not PV.
Australia is building the world's largest single-tower solar thermal power plant.
Wind power is currently providing 40% of SA energy so it appears that capacity is not the issue its stability.
The battery installation in Jamestown SA will be charged by the wind farm it is built next to.
Liddell and Hazelwood were closed entirely for financial reasons as they are end of life and very expensive to maintain, neither of which have run at full capacity in years most like for fear of damaging the old boilers.
Don't understand the term profiteering, certainly Elon profited from selling both of us cars, at what point does it become profiteering?
Ms Credlin is wrong as the SA govt will share in the profits of arbitrage of energy from the Jamestown Battery so it's not a subsidy but an investment. Her agenda is to make it appear a subsidy.
Can't comment on the CEO of AGL, you could be completely right about him but in terms of Elon, nothing I have seen him say or do has been inconsistent with the stated goal of Tesla to "Facilitate the development of sustainable transport " and I have been watching since 2006.
Edit
Final point, Neuclear energy is expensive, see Hinkley Point C and will take too long to resolve our current crisis, which you are correct is due to bad government decisions or non-decisions on both sides.

 

[NovoCasGreeny]

@Dborn I'm sorry mate, but what a lot of tosh, very easy to reveal your political colours when you cannot see the menace in the article. The SA government is making an investment in its very own energy future. If grid prices spike to $14,000/MWh like they did recently then guess what.....the govt will pocket $1,400,000 million to supply this power minus the $6,000 it cost to procure it, by discharging the battery once, just once, I'm guessing the warranty in this puppy will be a minimum of ten years, so that is around 40,000 opportunties (under warranty). The whole purpose of this battery is 1. to stop enormous price spikes and manipulation occurring and 2. to stabilise the power from the Hornsdale wind farm.

Everything gets presented in a subsidy when in reality it simply isn't the case. The SA government has lost all faith in the private sector gas generators which sat idle in the blackout events and have moved to secure their own assets, the battery being part of it. Australia's future is solar, stacks of it. Look at China for instance, this installed 10.52 GW of capacity...IN JULY, just JULY 2017.

China Continues Massive Solar Installations With 10.52 GW In July, Already Exceeds 2020 Target

Our future is not in nuclear, there is no future for Nuclear, it is just sooo monstrously expensive to build new Nuclear. As Melocomm has pointed out, Hinkley Point C is going to be an unrivalled disaster. To 'subsidise' this plant the British govt has agreed that for 35 years (yes 35) it will guarantee a payment of 92.50 GBP per MWh, which increases with inflation. The plant is not slated to start production until 2025 and as recently as July EDF added another 1.5 Bn GBP to the cost, lets see how that creeps up in teh next few years, it is already at 19.6 Bn GBP and it only just made it out of final investment decision at EDF. Interestingly the most recent offshore wind auctions reached a guaranteed price of 57.5 GBP per MWh, guaranteed for 15 years. These price guarantees only covver the shortfall between the wholesale price, ie. if the wholesale price on the day is 40 GBP per MWh then the govt owes 17.5 GBP for every MWh of power bought from the wind farm, or 52.5 GBP per MWh bought from Hinkley C. If the wholesale price is above the guaranteed price, the wind farm pays back the difference. I doubt Hinkley C will ever be paying anything back.

Offshore wind cheaper than new nuclear

Hinkley Point builder raises cost estimate

Those articles are worth a read, all this in the face of wind power turning to giant turbines, and now starting to see some cost efficiency delivered in manufacturing, installation and operation. The recent auctions in Australia are also delivering some impressive strike prices.

The closure of our fossil fuel plants should be orderly and planned. These plants are aging and to build new coal is simply more expensive than either solar or wind, even including battery. To maintain them will cost more than what it is worth to replace their capacity. Liddell and Hazelwood rarely ran at more than 50% capacity, it just doesn't represent the operational legacy whenever 2000 MW is used for Liddell for instance, yes that is it's nameplate capacity, but that is all. We actually need to look at how many MWh is needed from the plants, and replace accordingly. We need to stop being stuck in an old fashioned way of thinking. We already have huge storage an generation capacity in both Snowy, and Tassie. We simply need to stop using these assets as 'production' assets and we would no need huge amounts of storage to be built. We need to shed all of the load that is not required to be a night ie. hot water. Energy efficiency program and demand response would create a smarter, more resilient grid. This is all going to happen whether the current govt likes it or not. My solar system I just installed has LCOE of 4 c/kWh, vs grid purchases at 35c/kWh. Over the next few years people will start to wake up and see the simple mathematics behind local generation of renewable energy. Our very own cars are enabling this transition to occur, ensuring economies of scale were and continue to be achieved in the manufacture of batteries.

One final point, it is interesting that Peta talked about the 'reliance' on the interconnector, the failure of the interconnector was one of the reasons the state went black, the other primary reason being the failure of the gas plants. Doesn't matter if Hazelwood is on or not if someone pulls the f'ing plug out.

 

[lennier]

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the energy sector would immediately recognise Credlin's article for what it is: politically-motivated rubbish. In fact politically-motivated is being way to kind about the current federal government energy 'policies'. They are blatantly corrupt and peddling easily demonstrable falsehoods to benefit their donors. If governing for vested interests rather than the country isn't the definition of corruption then I don't know what it. Unfortunately all too many people believe the lies and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Dborn]

The part where she suggests Elon Musk is a snake-oil salesman.
Where she suggests he is "fleecing us".
Where she suggests Musk's businesses are built on taxpayer subsidies.
Where she suggests the SA outages were due to renewables.
Where she uses the well-worn "it will only power x number of homes for an hour" quote.
Where she suggests SpaceX will be reliant on taxpayer dollars.
Where she suggests coal, gas and uranium should be the basis of our power grid.

Are you sure you read the same article as the rest of us?

Who pays for flights to the space station? NASA, ie, taxpayers. Yes, batteries will assist in stabilising the grid. The arithmetic is otherwise correct in a blackout. Some of the rest is an opinion, and you are entitled to your view. So is she. A solid base load power source and there would not have have been state wide blackout. Localised possibly. Steam and water flow turns turbines. No hydro, so how do you get steam? Gas and coal seem pretty reasonable to me. The insignifican co2 production from the burning thereof is easily offset with forestry. Nuclear should have been the option dating back decades. Now, of course, very expensive, but clean. Solar thermal? Great while the sun is shining. Pretty expensive as well. A week of overcast weather, not so much! Geothermal? Possible with expensive really deep drilling. But at scale?
Fact is renewables, wonderful as they seem are simply not reliable. Even in the windiest places, the wind doesn’t always blow. Maintrenance costs for turbines is very high as is their cost.
Make no mistake, I have a 6kwp solar installation at my home, and with the current drought in Sydney, I make huge amounts of power, with lots feeding back to the grid. Worth bugger all though. A miserable 8c or so. Not really helping to pay off my investment. See? I am looking to taxpayer funded subsidy as well!! It was good while the NSW subsidy lasted. Yes a portion of my production is feeding my house. I have considered putting in a battery. Still.strugling with the economics of payback time though. Likely around 8 to 10 years. Renewables in the distributed sense, still don’t really cut it.
And yes, I confess, I am NOT a greenie.

 

[garyjac]

Credlin's article is crapola. No question. However, it is also a mistake to assume that the energy future is in large scale projects that are connected to the existing "big grid". This is also unwise. A large proportion of those 198 sq. km. that Elon spoke about in solar array area needs to be on individual roof tops. *Every* roof top in fact, so that the power system is as distributed as possible and with adequate and appropriate storage on each and every house/building/structure. Such a system is practically invulnerable to the kind of failuar that occurred in SA about a year ago. A few large powerpack setups ill be needed, perhaps on a suburb by suburb basis to back up the individual houses when days a re longer and darker than expected, but a "big grid" on the scale we have now should be far less necessary. Generating power right where it is used wastes less energy as well, clearly. Peer-to-peer selling of power is another possibility in a suburb with a shared battery and solar arrays of various sizes on every house. Payback time? Always a factor. When I first in stalled solar power on a house it was $15K for 2.5kW array and 5kW inverter. Today, for $5K I could get a 5kW array and inverter I'm pretty sure. The original array, thanks to a very good feed-in tariff (still in place 'til 2028) is paid for (8 years). Another array I have on another house is running well into the black on the same scheme. Subsidies help, but it is the open market that has reduced the price of solar, not subsidies. It should do the same for batteries. This is the way we all eventually need to go, operators of our own power stations on our own properties with communal back up systems for the occassional short fall. The situation is not without parallel in our current situation where we have people asking us nearly everyday how we charge our cars and manage to get around in the world. They are really asking about an unfamiliar paradigm and without experiencing it, that paradigm can be a bit scary (running out of "fuel" in the middle of nowhere). We know, though, that, with the right mix of technologies in the car, it works just fine. Same thing for household power, on a wider scale. What Credlin is trying to do, is to (fairly transparently) be a mouthpiece for the "big energy" chaps and chapettes who can see their current business model spiralling down the plug hole as we speak. More directly, Elon (and anyone like him) scars the *sugar* out of them (err, "is disruptive").

See this: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...megrown_Power_Plan_Full_Report.pdf?1461023115

 

[mspohr]

Credlin's article is crapola. No question. However, it is also a mistake to assume that the energy future is in large scale projects that are connected to the existing "big grid". This is also unwise. A large proportion of those 198 sq. km. that Elon spoke about in solar array area needs to be on individual roof tops. *Every* roof top in fact, so that the power system is as distributed as possible and with adequate and appropriate storage on each and every house/building/structure. Such a system is practically invulnerable to the kind of failuar that occurred in SA about a year ago. A few large powerpack setups ill be needed, perhaps on a suburb by suburb basis to back up the individual houses when days a re longer and darker than expected, but a "big grid" on the scale we have now should be far less necessary. Generating power right where it is used wastes less energy as well, clearly. Peer-to-peer selling of power is another possibility in a suburb with a shared battery and solar arrays of various sizes on every house. Payback time? Always a factor. When I first in stalled solar power on a house it was $15K for 2.5kW array and 5kW inverter. Today, for $5K I could get a 5kW array and inverter I'm pretty sure. The original array, thanks to a very good feed-in tariff (still in place 'til 2028) is paid for (8 years). Another array I have on another house is running well into the black on the same scheme. Subsidies help, but it is the open market that has reduced the price of solar, not subsidies. It should do the same for batteries. This is the way we all eventually need to go, operators of our own power stations on our own properties with communal back up systems for the occassional short fall. The situation is not without parallel in our current situation where we have people asking us nearly everyday how we charge our cars and manage to get around in the world. They are really asking about an unfamiliar paradigm and without experiencing it, that paradigm can be a bit scary (running out of "fuel" in the middle of nowhere). We know, though, that, with the right mix of technologies in the car, it works just fine. Same thing for household power, on a wider scale. What Credlin is trying to do, is to (fairly transparently) be a mouthpiece for the "big energy" chaps and chapettes who can see their current business model spiralling down the plug hole as we speak. More directly, Elon (and anyone like him) scars the *sugar* out of them (err, "is disruptive").

See this: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...megrown_Power_Plan_Full_Report.pdf?1461023115

Love the Homegrown Power Plan. Incredibly detailed and we'll reasoned document. In light of the above discussion on Elon's "subsidies", I find it appalling that Australia gives $6.4 Billions a year subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

Could also use this as a blueprint to rebuild Puerto Rico.

 

[BenT]

Snake oil salesman reaps taxpayer subsidies - i wonder what Peta Credlin would have to say about Adani

Adani's track record in India 'leaves a lot to be desired', ex-minister says

 

[Dborn]

Credlin's article is crapola. No question. However, it is also a mistake to assume that the energy future is in large scale projects that are connected to the existing "big grid". This is also unwise. A large proportion of those 198 sq. km. that Elon spoke about in solar array area needs to be on individual roof tops. *Every* roof top in fact, so that the power system is as distributed as possible and with adequate and appropriate storage on each and every house/building/structure. Such a system is practically invulnerable to the kind of failuar that occurred in SA about a year ago. A few large powerpack setups ill be needed, perhaps on a suburb by suburb basis to back up the individual houses when days a re longer and darker than expected, but a "big grid" on the scale we have now should be far less necessary. Generating power right where it is used wastes less energy as well, clearly. Peer-to-peer selling of power is another possibility in a suburb with a shared battery and solar arrays of various sizes on every house. Payback time? Always a factor. When I first in stalled solar power on a house it was $15K for 2.5kW array and 5kW inverter. Today, for $5K I could get a 5kW array and inverter I'm pretty sure. The original array, thanks to a very good feed-in tariff (still in place 'til 2028) is paid for (8 years). Another array I have on another house is running well into the black on the same scheme. Subsidies help, but it is the open market that has reduced the price of solar, not subsidies. It should do the same for batteries. This is the way we all eventually need to go, operators of our own power stations on our own properties with communal back up systems for the occassional short fall. The situation is not without parallel in our current situation where we have people asking us nearly everyday how we charge our cars and manage to get around in the world. They are really asking about an unfamiliar paradigm and without experiencing it, that paradigm can be a bit scary (running out of "fuel" in the middle of nowhere). We know, though, that, with the right mix of technologies in the car, it works just fine. Same thing for household power, on a wider scale. What Credlin is trying to do, is to (fairly transparently) be a mouthpiece for the "big energy" chaps and chapettes who can see their current business model spiralling down the plug hole as we speak. More directly, Elon (and anyone like him) scars the *sugar* out of them (err, "is disruptive").

See this: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...megrown_Power_Plan_Full_Report.pdf?1461023115

I haven’t read all of the document, but quite a lot from the beginning. It sounds great and is wonderfull. Exactly like the utopian communist dream was supposed to be. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT? When you look at who the authors are, that becomes clear. The so called wealthy. Yep, Get Up has their name on this.
The most successful socialist country in the world, Sweden, is starting to sink. One for all and all for one simply doesn’t work in practice wonderful as it sounds.A distributed grid would indeed work in theory, but, I have 6 kWh, you have say 10kwp, Joe has zero. So we all buy from each other. Who controls all of this? Who maintains the infrastructure? What about disputes? I use far more than you, but I produce less. Are any of us ever going to get out of court?
All of this is why a central authority needs to be in charge. I nominate the government. This is why we elect them. I do not support the privatisation of strategic infrastructure. We don’t outsource the military, so why power? Privatisation is why power bills have skyrocketed. I have no problem with the central thesis of the source of the power proposed in the document, but I have major issues with the implementation and governance thereof.
I believe all da approvals should include a renewables requirement, but who is going to pay for this and who is going to integrate it all? There does need to be a central authority, and not one interested in dividends to shareholders!

 

[lennier]

I agree that strategic infrastructure is something governments should control and should not be privatised. A massively distributed renewables-powered grid will be the future though, and the key challenge is working out how to run such a grid as it is quite different from the traditional large centralised generation model we've had in the past. It's possible this can be done effectively with market mechanisms and avoid the huge problems that privatisation has caused to date, but it would still be simpler under cemtralised control.

 

[Dborn]

To get back on track with the title of this thread, good! Should eventually help the share price of the TSLA I am holding! Bring on $1000 per share!

 

[garyjac]

I haven’t read all of the document, but quite a lot from the beginning. It sounds great and is wonderful. Exactly like the utopian communist dream was supposed to be. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT? When you look at who the authors are, that becomes clear. The so called wealthy. Yep, Get Up has their name on this.
The most successful socialist country in the world, Sweden, is starting to sink. One for all and all for one simply doesn’t work in practice wonderful as it sounds.A distributed grid would indeed work in theory, but, I have 6 kWh, you have say 10kwp, Joe has zero. So we all buy from each other. Who controls all of this? Who maintains the infrastructure? What about disputes? I use far more than you, but I produce less. Are any of us ever going to get out of court?
All of this is why a central authority needs to be in charge. I nominate the government. This is why we elect them. I do not support the privatisation of strategic infrastructure. We don’t outsource the military, so why power? Privatization is why power bills have skyrocketed. I have no problem with the central thesis of the source of the power proposed in the document, but I have major issues with the implementation and governance thereof.
I believe all da approvals should include a renewables requirement, but who is going to pay for this and who is going to integrate it all? There does need to be a central authority, and not one interested in dividends to shareholders!

I agree fully that the "central authority" has to be the government. My "beef" is that our retarded governments of all political stripes, btw, have failed to pursue proper and practical policy and action in this area and have taken the "lazy" route, in spite of the fact that 70% of Australians say they support renewables. I don't see anybody, in the complete view, sharing anything much, since everyone will, in effect, have their own poer generation and storage. As you say @Dborn, it does come down to governance on the large scale, but it does seem that it is up to individuals, these days to get things done on the small scale. Who pays? Everyone pays. Literally, in so much as if they don't pay now they will most assuredly, "pay", later. The government, spending our collective tax dollars, should be equipping every household on a means tested basis with its own array and storage. That would build the biggest "power station" in the country.

Not too sure about Sweden being the most successful socialist country, but I don't see the practical implementation of this plan as either communist or socialist, but sociable and sensible.

Quite hypothetical at the moment though, since the current Feds are so tied up wondering if they'll be there tomorrow and from which country some of them are supposed to have come

 

[ICUDoc]

on a means tested basis with its own array and storage.

I am heavily conflicted.
Distributed power- yay
Avoidance of fossil fuels-yay
Increased grid resilience-yay
Me paying MORE tax (having paid for my own solar) to fund solar for other people who MAY NOT be working hard - I'm pretty ****ing pissed off already having paid over 50c in the dollar for the last few years.
Means testing is too easily mistaken for funds testing.
True means testing should include testing the ABILITY of people to generate income if they chose to work hard. I don't know how to do this, but when we are talking about massive public expenditure and planning, then the socialist aspect is central to the plan.
(Note I am not a rabid capitalist, I think Australia has the best balance of free market vs social perspectives in the world. I just want everyone to pay their share in terms of effort.)
PS can anyone show me where the fossil fuel industry subsidies are? It seems to me that maybe electric car owners could robustly defend NOT paying a fee to cover "road maintenance" if they showed that they saved the government paying fossil fuel subsidies....
Edit - sorry - SUPER O/T...

 

[mspohr]

I am heavily conflicted.

PS can anyone show me where the fossil fuel industry subsidies are? It seems to me that maybe electric car owners could robustly defend NOT paying a fee to cover "road maintenance" if they showed that they saved the government paying fossil fuel subsidies....
Edit - sorry - SUPER O/T...

The document linked above is a comprehensive detail of the subsidies and the route to renewables:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...megrown_Power_Plan_Full_Report.pdf?1461023115
Some of the subsidies are:
"At a state level, the Australia Institute calculated government subsidies to the minerals and fossil fuels industries at around $18 billion over six years. This included direct payments, like the $10 million New South Wales Government ‘assistance package’ paid to coal companies in 2009, as well as free or discounted infrastructure, like the Queensland Government’s $1 billion discount on rail services to the coal industry from 2012-13 to 2013-14.334 State governments are also in the habit of selling coal to generators at cut-price rates, another subsidy that tilts the playing field away from renewable generators. At the federal level, some of the most perverse incentives come in the form of tax discounts on the production and consumption of fossil fuels, like the diesel fuel rebate, discounted fuel excise for airlines, tax write-offs for exploration and prospecting by fossil fuel companies and accelerated depreciation for the oil and gas sector. All of these tax incentives fit the World Trade Organisation’s definition of a subsidy under the ‘Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’, which states that “A subsidy shall be deemed to exist if... government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)"
The largest subsidy is that fossil fuels have significant health impacts and climate damage. They are allowed to spew noxious fumes and climate damage and not pay for it.

 

[Blue heaven]

PS can anyone show me where the fossil fuel industry subsidies are? It seems to me that maybe electric car owners could robustly defend NOT paying a fee to cover "road maintenance" if they showed that they saved the government paying fossil fuel subsidies....

I'm more than happy to pay a road maintenance tax based on distance driven in an electric vehicle, also more than happy to pay the full amount for solar panels or battery storage without subsidies, I'm also more than happy to pay for the damage my carbon footprint does to this country now and in the future, but most of all I'm more than happy to pay a levy on all my fossil fuel use to cover the enormous burden being placed on our health system that's occurring now and will occur for many years to come.

 

[Dborn]

I'm more than happy to pay a road maintenance tax based on distance driven in an electric vehicle, also more than happy to pay the full amount for solar panels or battery storage without subsidies, I'm also more than happy to pay for the damage my carbon footprint does to this country now and in the future, but most of all I'm more than happy to pay a levy on all my fossil fuel use to cover the enormous burden being placed on our health system that's occurring now and will occur for many years to come.

I guess you are not retired, then?

 

[ICUDoc]

, I'm also more than happy to pay for the damage my carbon footprint does to this country...most of all I'm more than happy to pay a levy on all my fossil fuel use to cover the enormous burden being placed on our health system that's occurring now and will occur for many years to come.

BH, I gather you are saying that you are happy to pay these things IF everyone else is required to do likewise? As in, like me, you have spent lots of hard-earned money DECREASING your FF use and carbon footprint?
Is that right?