S. Australia showing the way

[DA? + 301]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-south-australia-energy-transition-is-seen-as-model-of-success-around-the-world-83079/?utm_source=RE+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=898d9983ad-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_05_03_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_46a1943223-898d9983ad-15634933&fbclid=IwAR351mdpE6eAI1B6X42E_i4Oh9INoSgE4xyjDjKW3TWdSn_iamnhV0_tQug

An interesting article from Renew Economy on how South Australia has integrated a considerable amount of renewable generated electricity into the grid, improved reliability and reduced cost's to consumers.  

[Red + 252]

20 hours ago, DA? said:

An interesting article from Renew Economy on how South Australia has integrated a considerable amount of renewable generated electricity into the grid, improved reliability and reduced cost's to consumers.  

We have federal government in renewables denial, and a Prime Minister who stunted up with a lump of coal at Parliament in 2017, so it's not hard to work out why Australia has no national energy policy position.  

The private sector is running its own race, and coal is not on its radar, but renewables are.  Why would that be when there is no federal direction on energy?  Well, it's basic economics, unsurprisingly.

There is certainly a small baseload issue to address, but it's nowhere the problem that politicians make it out to be. As could be seen from the dynamic graphic in the link, we know when and where the peaks occur, so it's just a matter of getting the generation mix right to accommodate what we already know.  The difficulty remains in catering for widespread heatwaves across the eastern seaboard which see 3 contiguous States almost simultaneously max out their generation capacity and give rise to blackouts.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Red
"at" Parliament

[JunoTen + 118]

That must be the cheapest place to build solar plants. The rest of the world will catch up very soon.

[Red + 252]

25 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

That must be the cheapest place to build solar plants. The rest of the world will catch up very soon.

Solar pv uptake is set to further increase in South Australia as the State Government has recently introduced a $100m battery storage initiative for 40,000 households: Home Battery Scheme  - so good luck on the rest of the world.

It's further evidence of a failure to establish a national energy policy that State Governments are now doing it alone. At a much smaller scale the Queensland government has adopted similar, but also added up to $6000 as an interest free loan: Apply here

Should Australia's present federal Coalition government lose the next election in 2019, the incoming Labor government has has outlined an ambitious plan for renewables.

[JunoTen + 118]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

Solar pv uptake is set to further increase in South Australia as the State Government has recently introduced a $100m battery storage initiative for 40,000 households: Home Battery Scheme  - so good luck on the rest of the world.

It's further evidence of a failure to establish a national energy policy that State Governments are now doing it alone. At a much smaller scale the Queensland government has adopted similar, but also added up to $6000 as an interest free loan: Apply here

Should Australia's present federal Coalition government lose the next election in 2019, the incoming Labor government has has outlined an ambitious plan for renewables.

I'm not for subventions. Battery technology and solar PV have their prices falling at an impressive rate (about 15% per year for li-ion batteries and 20% every 2.5 years for solar PV). It will soon be cheap enough that anyone can afford it and buy it IF they want it, and also it will be better than how it is today. Those interventions in the market are useless at best, probably harmful.

[Red + 252]

6 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

Those interventions in the market are useless at best, probably harmful.

Really?

Maybe you haven't worked out that the rapid decline in battery and pv costs has been predicated on intervention strategies which provided industry with the impetus to scale production, which led to competition, which led to more R&D effort, which led to greater competition in product, performance and price - and this cycle continues.

However, the SA government's decision was more about expediency as it worked out that it was more cost effective in giving a partial grant to homeowners than otherwise invest in-full in new generation/storage capacity.  

[JunoTen + 118]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

 

Maybe you haven't worked out that the rapid decline in battery and pv costs has been predicated on intervention strategies which provided industry with the impetus to scale production, which led to competition, which led to more R&D effort, which led to greater competition in product, performance and price - and this cycle continues. 

Perhaps that's what happened, although I don't see how subsidizing something works as an incentive to make it better and cheaper. Even if that's the case though, the industry is now mature and cheap enough that those subsidies are useless. They are more like attempts to try and take credit for what is an inevitable disruption in power generation, for market reasons.

 

4 minutes ago, Red said:

However, the SA government's decision was more about expediency as it worked out that it was more cost effective in giving a partial grant to homeowners than otherwise invest in-full in new generation/storage capacity.  

By doing that, the SA government is making people have devices that they would have otherwise not bought. They would have probably bought them at a later date. The only difference would have been that those batteries would have been cheaper and better at that time, and wouldn't have cost anything to the government.

[Red + 252]

7 hours ago, JunoTen said:

Perhaps that's what happened, although I don't see how subsidizing something works as an incentive to make it better and cheaper. Even if that's the case though, the industry is now mature and cheap enough that those subsidies are useless. They are more like attempts to try and take credit for what is an inevitable disruption in power generation, for market reasons.

I hope you are not serious.  We are a long way from a battery storage industry which could be considered mature.  Indeed, there is a huge R&D effort on technologies with greater potential which have not yet got to a stage of commercial application.

By doing that, the SA government is making people have devices that they would have otherwise not bought. They would have probably bought them at a later date. The only difference would have been that those batteries would have been cheaper and better at that time, and wouldn't have cost anything to the government.

The government is definitely not making people buy anything.  Give them credit for being able to do the math.

It is true that that we expect batteries to become cheaper over time.  But you completely miss the point.  Why spend $300 million to achieve an outcome when you can instead incentivise the community who would benefit down the track, when you can spend a fraction of that and have them benefit almost immediately?

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Red

[JunoTen + 118]

10 minutes ago, Red said:

I hope you are not serious.  We are a long way from a battery storage industry which could be considered mature.  Indeed, there is a huge R&D effort on technologies with greater potential which have not yet got to a stage of commercial application.

It gets better and better every year... Battery storage is already cheaper than gas peakers I believe. With a 15% decrease in price year-on-year it will flood everything.

 

10 minutes ago, Red said:

The government is definitely not making people buy anything.  Give them credit for being able to do the math.

It is true that that we expect batteries to become cheaper over time.  But you completely miss the point.  Why spend $300 million to achieve an outcome when you can instead incentivise the community who would benefit down the track, when you can spend a fraction of that and have them benefit almost immediately?

I suppose that since the government is already the one managing all these things, then it's a good move from them to reduce the costs.