Australia's biggest coal-fired power station, Origin-owned Eraring, is 'driving up energy bills' >:(

A spokesperson for Origin told ABC News the company supported the retirement of coal-fired power stations when there were sufficient replacement renewables and firming capacity online to keep the lights on.

"Any criticisms of Eraring's performance are not supported by the data. Eraring's reliability over the years has been excellent, with the plant available 84 per cent of the time.

"Indeed, data shows unplanned outages have continued to trend downwards and the plant's overall reliability has been improving year on year, including when benchmarked against other major coal plants."

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 11:37am:

Australia's biggest coal-fired power station, Origin-owned Eraring, is 'driving up energy bills' >:(

Propaganda



Nexa is a ‘for purpose’ advisory firm. Our unwavering focus is accelerating the clean energy transition in a way that provides secure, reliable, and affordable power for consumers of all types.
We stand at the nexus of the energy sector’s complex web of stakeholders. We support and direct their dialogue so as to remove the roadblocks to the transition.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 11:37am:

Australia's biggest coal-fired power station, Origin-owned Eraring, is 'driving up energy bills' >:(

Marvellous what happens when renewables don't work as expected. Fossil fuel generators have to run on standby mode as renewables get first crack. So you have part-time renewable energy supported by fossil fuel generators working part-time. Paying two for the price of one. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 3:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 11:37am: Australia's biggest coal-fired power station, Origin-owned Eraring, is 'driving up energy bills' >:( Marvellous what happens when renewables don't work as expected. Fossil fuel generators have to run on standby mode as renewables get first crack. So you have part-time renewable energy supported by fossil fuel generators working part-time. Paying two for the price of one. ::)

Correct. So we need to get rid of coal ASAP, but the government's attachment to the private sector is hindering the rollout of rewables plus storage, hence the schizoid attachment to fossils AND renewables. 

Attachment to the private sector will cook the planet ....

So we just go for nuclear then....  OK... whatever you say, dividie...

Quote:

So we need to get rid of coal ASAP

China is still building brand new coal fired power stations. I realise most Chinese construction is dodgy AF, but they will still be around for a while. They will keep patching them up.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 4:32pm:

Attachment to the private sector will cook the planet ....

Oh noes. The oceans are boiling... again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why has the country waited till the end of our coal plants lifetime to only now start a plan to replace them?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 4:32pm:

Correct. So we need to get rid of coal ASAP, but the government's attachment to the private sector is hindering the rollout of rewables plus storage, hence the schizoid attachment to fossils AND renewables.

Nope. Renewables can't cut the mustard. Storage is horrendously expensive...once you add in days and days worth, not minutes. $642 total cost according to AEMO' figures. ;D ;D ;D

What was the cost of 9 SunCables plus storage?

Daves2017 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 6:30pm:

Why has the country waited till the end of our coal plants lifetime to only now start a plan to replace them?

We had a good plan over ten years ago. The carbon tax. The LNP got rid of it. The LNP is not planning on replacing any power stations. They are planning on winning the next election, then blaming Labor when they realise how expensive nuclear is and how long it takes to build.

We should have a had a shiny new large coal fired station in every State by now -

all burning low emission Anthracite coal from QLD.

Instead - we will suffer blackouts like a 3rd world country.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:35pm:

We had a good plan over ten years ago. The carbon tax.

What was it suppsed to achieve? According to the alarmists the world is ending due to increased global emissions. How much cooling would the carbon tax, in Australia have achieved, which wasn't a tax on carbon, but on carbon dioxide? ::)

According to the IPCC about 0.0008C per Gt or 1,000MT. Australia's emissions less than 450Mt. So since 2012, 13 years we would have achieved 6.5 times 0.0008C reduction. ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:41pm:

We should have a had a shiny new large coal fired station in every State by now - all burning low emission Anthracite coal from QLD. Instead - we will suffer blackouts like a 3rd world country.

Not so, third world countries are lining up to build coal powered power stations, the Philippines have just moved to add to their coal plants. They have agreed to ban coal plants having 28 of them. But they tricked everyone because they have approved 22 more which are not affected by the ban.

So yes you will have power cuts but not like in the third world countries because they will have reliable coal and no blackouts.

lee wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:43pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 7:35pm: We had a good plan over ten years ago. The carbon tax. What was it suppsed to achieve?

Reduced demand. Have you forgotten how it works again Lee?

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:48pm:

Reduced demand. Have you forgotten how it works again Lee?

Reduced demand for electricity? ::)

From my addendum to my last post -

According to the IPCC about 0.0008C per Gt or 1,000MT. Australia's emissions less than 450Mt. So since 2012, 13 years we would have achieved 6.5 times 0.0008C reduction.

Leroy wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 7:41pm: We should have a had a shiny new large coal fired station in every State by now - all burning low emission Anthracite coal from QLD. Instead - we will suffer blackouts like a 3rd world country. Not so, third world countries are lining up to build coal powered power stations, the Philippines have just moved to add to their coal plants. They have agreed to ban coal plants having 28 of them. But they tricked everyone because they have approved 22 more which are not affected by the ban. So yes you will have power cuts but not like in the third world countries because they will have reliable coal and no blackouts.

Australia is run by over paid nincompoops.

Regarding emissions, India has invested in electric freight and fast passenger locomotives.by the thousands.
‘’ 37% of the trains are operated by diesel locomotives and rest mostly by electric locomotives. As of December 2023, Indian Railways had 10,238 electric and 4,543 diesel locomotives amongst others.’’
Australia appears to have none, I remember electric locomotives in NSW but they have all disappeared.
Rumour has it that they are on a back siding at Werris Creek, but they may have been quietly scrapped.

lee wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 7:48pm: Reduced demand. Have you forgotten how it works again Lee? Reduced demand for electricity? ::) From my addendum to my last post - According to the IPCC about 0.0008C per Gt or 1,000MT. Australia's emissions less than 450Mt. So since 2012, 13 years we would have achieved 6.5 times 0.0008C reduction.

The most efficient way to burn coal is at full load, when coal boilers are run at reduced loads the emissions are a lot worse. To reduce emissions the plant should run at design load.

They passed over the best solution in the nineties, scrubbers on the back end of coal plants to capture the CO2, it was expensive but with hindsight it is cheap compared to renewables.

lee wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 7:48pm: Reduced demand. Have you forgotten how it works again Lee? Reduced demand for electricity? ::) From my addendum to my last post - According to the IPCC about 0.0008C per Gt or 1,000MT. Australia's emissions less than 450Mt. So since 2012, 13 years we would have achieved 6.5 times 0.0008C reduction.

Congratulations Lee. You have figured out that there are a lot of people on Earth. You cannot save the planet all by yourself.

Is it time to start emptying the rubbish bins onto the street? Or should we just vote LNP?

Well done FD. No clue on what "reduced demand" means, but hey it is mantra. Reduced demand due to EV's? Reduced demand due to electrification of the home, rather than gas? Reduced demand due to large data centres?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

No clue on what "reduced demand" means

Have you ever heard of economics? The LNP hasn't.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 1:26pm:

Quote: No clue on what "reduced demand" means Have you ever heard of economics? The LNP hasn't.

So still no clue. Just another one of your ridiculous non-answers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 1:31pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 7th, 2025 at 1:26pm: Quote: No clue on what "reduced demand" means Have you ever heard of economics? The LNP hasn't. So still no clue. Just another one of your ridiculous non-answers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you've never even heard of economics? But you make up for that by being a die hard LNP supporter?

More obfuscation. Why don't you answer the question? Not game? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 2:43pm:

More obfuscation. Why don't you answer the question? Not game? ;D ;D ;D ;D

It was a statement, not a question. You have no clue what reduced demand means. You have no clue what economics is.

But if you want to turn it into a question, then yes, I agree that you have no clue.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 2:52pm:

You have no clue what reduced demand means.

Well as you haven't defined what you meant, NO. But a normal definition of reduced demand would be reduced demand for energy, as that is what we are talking about. ::)

And I did post questions to which you didn't respond.


lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

Reduced demand due to EV's? Reduced demand due to electrification of the home, rather than gas? Reduced demand due to large data centres?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

But a normal definition of reduced demand would be reduced demand for energy, as that is what we are talking about.

A reduced demand for GHG emissions.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 3:20pm:

A reduced demand for GHG emissions.

There is a reduced demand for GHG emissions? You mean you want to lower CO2 back to the starvation levels of the LIA? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

There were far more famines during the LIA than now. That's why life expectancy was short. ::)

But good to see you walked back from your claim of NO question(s). ::)

Quote:

There is a reduced demand for GHG emissions?

You have been confused for so long Lee that you have forgotten what you are confused about.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

You have been confused for so long Lee that you have forgotten what you are confused about.

Poor petal. Doesn't know what level of CO2 emissions re required for life on earth. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

As China has 1,100 coal fired power plants and Australia has only 24 it can easily be seen that we are doing our bit to save the planet.

We are also the world’s fourth largest producer of coal so it can easily be seen that we are doing our bit to keep the world’s coal fired plants going.

Hypocrisy anyone?

lee wrote on Mar 7^th, 2025 at 4:35pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 7th, 2025 at 3:58pm: You have been confused for so long Lee that you have forgotten what you are confused about. Poor petal. Doesn't know what level of CO2 emissions re required for life on earth. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I agree that you should vote for the LNP. You are precisely the type of voter they are targeting.

Poor petal. Never wanting to quantify anything, but it will be cheaper. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 11:37am:

Australia's biggest coal-fired power station, Origin-owned Eraring, is 'driving up energy bills' >:(

What bollocks.

AGW Climate Change propaganda.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 4:32pm:

lee wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 3:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2025 at 11:37am: Australia's biggest coal-fired power station, Origin-owned Eraring, is 'driving up energy bills' >:( Marvellous what happens when renewables don't work as expected. Fossil fuel generators have to run on standby mode as renewables get first crack. So you have part-time renewable energy supported by fossil fuel generators working part-time. Paying two for the price of one. ::) Correct. So we need to get rid of coal ASAP, but the government's attachment to the private sector is hindering the rollout of rewables plus storage, hence the schizoid attachment to fossils AND renewables.  Attachment to the private sector will cook the planet ....

Gawd you're wanker..... so you want to go back to living in the dark? Have you stocked up on candles and invested in a Ice Box?

And knobjockey it's the private sector old fossil fuel energy companies that are going down the so called renewables path ....... because they can and are make more money!!!!

That however has nothing to do with the provision of reliable/consistent power across the country or to power industry ..... if we have any left that is.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 6:10pm:

Quote: So we need to get rid of coal ASAP China is still building brand new coal fired power stations. I realise most Chinese construction is dodgy AF, but they will still be around for a while. They will keep patching them up.

We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable.


Quote:

In 2023, China led the world in building new coal-fired power plants, with India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh also seeing significant increases in new coal power capacity. China: China is the largest builder of new coal-fired power plants, accounting for 95% of the world's new coal construction in 2023. Despite pledges to reduce coal consumption, China continues to add new coal capacity, with some provinces justifying it as needed to support grid stability and renewable energy integration. India: India saw a significant increase in new coal capacity proposed in 2023, including the revival of stalled projects. Indonesia: Indonesia also saw a notable increase in new coal proposals, with revived projects contributing to the growth. Other countries: Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Russia, the Philippines, Botswana, and Nigeria also saw revived proposals and construction restarting in 2023. Global Context: Globally, coal-fired capacity grew in 2023, with the highest net increase in operating coal capacity since 2016, driven by new builds in China and delays in decommissioning elsewhere. Just Energy Transition Partnerships: In 2022, Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) were announced in Indonesia and Vietnam to support decarbonization efforts, including a transition away from coal power.

Quote:

We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable.

No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses.

BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Mar 6^th, 2025 at 8:01pm:

Regarding emissions, India has invested in electric freight and fast passenger locomotives.by the thousands. ‘’ 37% of the trains are operated by diesel locomotives and rest mostly by electric locomotives. As of December 2023, Indian Railways had 10,238 electric and 4,543 diesel locomotives amongst others.’’ Australia appears to have none, I remember electric locomotives in NSW but they have all disappeared. Rumour has it that they are on a back siding at Werris Creek, but they may have been quietly scrapped.

There are plenty of electric locomotives in the QLD coal fields.

BTW how do you think the electricity used for electric locomotives is generated?

Answer coal fired power stations.

As for the number of diesel electric locomotives  that were maintained i.e. for Hunter Valley coal and other long haul rail freight locations is because outside of our cities the rail lines had never been electrified.

Beyond Brisbane the rail line is electrified to Rockhampton - and west to Emerald.

Except for what is called diesel hydraulic driven locos or diesel hydraulic power units on long distance passenger services all ..... Diesel locomotives are actually diesel electric....

meaning their huge diesel engines drive a large generator that produces power for the 6 electric traction motors on each axle.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2025 at 10:40am:

Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries.

Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time -

as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw.

& Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating.

The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power.

The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor.

7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that.

Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2025 at 10:40am:

BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries.

Gas - proposed to be removed ... a fossil fuel.
Conventional Hydro - can be good, however Snowy 1 caused a lot of problems when they moved the water flow.

Pumped hydro - a short term solution to a long term challenge

EV's - need to be charged before being connected VtG, another short term solution to a long term challenge.

Batteries - only some have an 8 hour capability. Plus of course there inherent losses.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2025 at 10:40am:

Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries.

The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available. If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down.

Gnads wrote on Mar 8^th, 2025 at 11:36am:

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 10:40am: Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries. Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time - as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw. & Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating. The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power. The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor. 7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that. Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? I know people who are running their appliances off one as we speak. As EV's become more popular, this is a potentially huge supply of storage.


Quote:

The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available.

;D


Quote:

If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down.

Except all those other technologies are smaller and more distributed, which is why we have not had a single blackout caused by them. A failure of a single piece of equipment will not disrupt the entire grid.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2025 at 12:33pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 10:40am: Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries. Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time - as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw. & Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating. The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power. The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor. 7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that. Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? I know people who are running their appliances off one as we speak. As EV's become more popular, this is a potentially huge supply of storage. [quote]The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available.

;D


Quote:

If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down.

Except all those other technologies are smaller and more distributed, which is why we have not had a single blackout caused by them. A failure of a single piece of equipment will not disrupt the entire grid.[/quote]

The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Without coal or gas as the main source then you are going to have more blackouts than you expect.

Quote:

The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.).

Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down?

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 8:46am:

Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down?

They do, thats why blackouts are rare.

Leroy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 8:59am:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They do, thats why blackouts are rare.

Well, they didn't.

Blackouts are very common. Nothing to do with the electricity source. The grid breaks all over the place, on a regular basis. People don't panic about that, or about blackouts caused by coal fired power stations going down. But coalition voters get nightmares about blackouts caused by renewables, even though we may end up with a more reliable electricity supply. They have nightmares because coalition propaganda tells them to, and they are incapable of rational thought.

For example, we are already seeing the benefits of EVs providing power. Which is why voters like Gnads are so eager to dismiss it as nonsense.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 9:13am:

Leroy wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:59am: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They do, thats why blackouts are rare. Well, they didn't. Blackouts are very common. Nothing to do with the electricity source. The grid breaks all over the place, on a regular basis. People don't panic about that, or about blackouts caused by coal fired power stations going down. But coalition voters get nightmares about blackouts caused by renewables, even though we may end up with a more reliable electricity supply. They have nightmares because coalition propaganda tells them to, and they are incapable of rational thought. For example, we are already seeing the benefits of EVs providing power. Which is why voters like Gnads are so eager to dismiss it as nonsense.

you will find it rare to have blackouts caused by coal fired plants, they are the most reliable part of the system.

They blackouts you will get from renewables won't be the same, they will be caused by new issues like not having enough capacity, too much wind or overcast conditions which will be added to the current causes like fires, transformer failures, cooling water issues and fallen lines.

There will be a lot of battery storage, much closer to where the energy is used, including inside the home. There is a good chance the power supply will be more reliable, not less. It does not matter how reliable a coal fired power station is, if you cannot get the power to people's homes when the wind blows too hard, and you have no backup option whenever one fails.

The bottom line is, there will be as many blackouts as people are comfortable with. No need for the coalition's scaremongering about "different types of blackouts". We have never had a 100% reliable electricity supply. It is a myth created by the coalition to scare the more stupid voters in deciding we suddenly need one.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 12:20pm:

There will be a lot of battery storage, much closer to where the energy is used, including inside the home. There is a good chance the power supply will be more reliable, not less. It does not matter how reliable a coal fired power station is, if you cannot get the power to people's homes when the wind blows too hard, and you have no backup option whenever one fails. The bottom line is, there will be as many blackouts as people are comfortable with. No need for the coalition's scaremongering about "different types of blackouts". We have never had a 100% reliable electricity supply. It is a myth created by the coalition to scare the more stupid voters in deciding we suddenly need one.

Homes are the least of problems, industry is where the problems loom. Some manufacturing plants need continuity of supply for various reasons. Hospitals, communications systems, banking these all need security of supply then you have safety systems and the list goes on. Too many people underestimate the critical nature of supply.

Leroy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 12:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 12:20pm: There will be a lot of battery storage, much closer to where the energy is used, including inside the home. There is a good chance the power supply will be more reliable, not less. It does not matter how reliable a coal fired power station is, if you cannot get the power to people's homes when the wind blows too hard, and you have no backup option whenever one fails. The bottom line is, there will be as many blackouts as people are comfortable with. No need for the coalition's scaremongering about "different types of blackouts". We have never had a 100% reliable electricity supply. It is a myth created by the coalition to scare the more stupid voters in deciding we suddenly need one. Homes are the least of problems, industry is where the problems loom. Some manufacturing plants need continuity of supply for various reasons. Hospitals, communications systems, banking these all need security of supply then you have safety systems and the list goes on. Too many people underestimate the critical nature of supply.

;D

If they actually need it, they have their own backup system, because a 100% reliable grid supply is a fantasy fed to gullible morons by the Liberal party.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 12:20pm:

There will be a lot of battery storage, much closer to where the energy is used, including inside the home.

At what cost?


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 12:20pm:

We have never had a 100% reliable electricity supply.

That's right about 90% supply, apparently falling to 60% because there is no lifeline to maintain them, when used intermittently. Transmission failure on top. ::)

Now we have never had 60% reliable renewables. In fact I can find no figure for them at all. Just "we will". Future prognosticatiuons are not future proofing. ::)

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 12:20pm: There will be a lot of battery storage, much closer to where the energy is used, including inside the home. At what cost? freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 12:20pm: We have never had a 100% reliable electricity supply. That's right about 90% supply, apparently falling to 60% because there is no lifeline to maintain them, when used intermittently. Transmission failure on top. ::) Now we have never had 60% reliable renewables. In fact I can find no figure for them at all. Just "we will". Future prognosticatiuons are not future proofing. ::)

There is a big difference in blackouts, a true blackout only happens extremely rarely. A plant falling off line happens regularly and due to the spinning reserves is covered within minutes.

A true blackout is when the whole grid goes down. Electricity is not like water, you can't just produce it and then dish it out, it has to be used the instant its created. Some industry plants use 10-50mw and that has to be available when they energize that equipment without too much disturbance to the grid.

Quote:

At what cost?

Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this?

The cost of running your home from your EV is essentially free. They come with a pack that gives 240V output. If there is enough demand, we will end up with home smart chargers for EVs that work seamlessly both ways.


Quote:

A true blackout is when the whole grid goes down.

I think you will find that people are more interested in whether their own power is connected. Losing power to the whole state 10% of the time, and losing power to a changing 10% of the state 100% of the time, means the same thing to the end user, even though only 1 of them counts as a "true blackout" by your definition.

Did you have some kind of point?

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 3:30pm:

Quote: At what cost? Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? The cost of running your home from your EV is essentially free. They come with a pack that gives 240V output. If there is enough demand, we will end up with home smart chargers for EVs that work seamlessly both ways. [quote]A true blackout is when the whole grid goes down.

I think you will find that people are more interested in whether their own power is connected. Losing power to the whole state 10% of the time, and losing power to a changing 10% of the state 100% of the time, means the same thing to the end user, even though only 1 of them counts as a "true blackout" by your definition.

Did you have some kind of point?[/quote]

I suppose my point was there is a big difference between a blackout and a system disturbance. blackouts are rare and most grids would be 99%+ availability. The only one I can think of in the last decade is in SA.

System disturbances affect small areas and usually from load shedding and occur more often. The reliance on renewables is going to increase load shedding far more often than you realize. The complexity of keeping your system balanced (50htz) is hard enough with coal/gas which are reliable. Renewables create a whole other list of complex difficulties.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 3:30pm:

Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this?

You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 3:30pm:

The cost of running your home from your EV is essentially free.

Providing you have a charge in your EV. And is that solely charged from solar? ::)


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 3:30pm:

They come with a pack that gives 240V output.

Yes. Depending on the size of the battery pack. Up to about 100KWh at 340 volt. At 240 volt that's about 140 KWh, disregarding losses. Providing it is fully charged.

Of course they are now talking of using 800volt systems, which increases charging times.

Why can’t we have a combination of power sources?

Coal, renewable and nuclear?

Daves2017 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 5:03pm:

Why can’t we have a combination of power sources? Coal, renewable and nuclear?

We can but the dishonest information being touted by politicians is corrupting the process.

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 4:08pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor deluded lee, impervious to learning; everyone needs to understand  the private sector will cook the planet.

(The Guardian, on Valerie's attempt to escape Alfred..)

The idea climate change may generate a cyclone that ploughs into south-east Queensland was already a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s insurance industry, the same companies who wanted to charge her $30k a year to insure her home. If they were taking it seriously, why shouldn’t Valerie?

Profit-seeking private-sector insurance companies "taking climate change seriously"...why would that be, I wonder...

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 5:26pm:

lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Poor deluded lee, impervious to learning; everyone needs to understand  the private sector will cook the planet. (The Guardian, on Valerie's attempt to escape Alfred..) The idea climate change may generate a cyclone that ploughs into south-east Queensland was already a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s insurance industry, the same companies who wanted to charge her $30k a year to insure her home. If they were taking it seriously, why shouldn’t Valerie? Profit-seeking private-sector insurance companies "taking climate change seriously"...why would that be, I wonder...

I have noticed that with the ice melting they are finding frozen bodies from 1,000's of years ago, just like there was a global warming back then too.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 5:26pm:

impervious to learning; everyone needs to understand  the private sector will cook the planet.

Shades of Guterres and the boiling oceans. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 5:26pm:

The idea climate change may generate a cyclone that ploughs into south-east Queensland was already a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s insurance industry, the same companies who wanted to charge her $30k a year to insure her home. If they were taking it seriously, why shouldn’t Valerie?

So a nightmare for the insurance industry? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 

What do you think they do with previous years profits? Piss it up against the wall or be prepared for worse years? Some economic modeller you are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 5:26pm:

Profit-seeking private-sector insurance companies "taking climate change seriously"...why would that be, I wonder...

Because they want to increase premiums to the gullible. ::)

You know SE queensland has had cyclones before? ::)

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 4:08pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I have given you the costs dozens of times. Have you forgotten again already dear?

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 8:32pm:

I have given you the costs dozens of times.

Nope. Cheaper than nuclear is not a cost, it's bypassing the cost. ;D ;D ;D ;D

No Lee. I have given you the actual costs. Dozens of times. Why do you keep forgetting?

Leroy wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 5:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 5:26pm: lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Poor deluded lee, impervious to learning; everyone needs to understand  the private sector will cook the planet. (The Guardian, on Valerie's attempt to escape Alfred..) The idea climate change may generate a cyclone that ploughs into south-east Queensland was already a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s insurance industry, the same companies who wanted to charge her $30k a year to insure her home. If they were taking it seriously, why shouldn’t Valerie? Profit-seeking private-sector insurance companies "taking climate change seriously"...why would that be, I wonder... I have noticed that with the ice melting they are finding frozen bodies from 1,000's of years ago, just like there was a global warming back then too.

\

The difference is the current global  warming caused by AGW-CO2 emissions is hastened by thousands of years. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 10:18am:

Leroy wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 5:39pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 5:26pm: lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Poor deluded lee, impervious to learning; everyone needs to understand  the private sector will cook the planet. (The Guardian, on Valerie's attempt to escape Alfred..) The idea climate change may generate a cyclone that ploughs into south-east Queensland was already a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s insurance industry, the same companies who wanted to charge her $30k a year to insure her home. If they were taking it seriously, why shouldn’t Valerie? Profit-seeking private-sector insurance companies "taking climate change seriously"...why would that be, I wonder... I have noticed that with the ice melting they are finding frozen bodies from 1,000's of years ago, just like there was a global warming back then too. \ The difference is the current global  warming caused by AGW-CO2 emissions is hastened by thousands of years.

That is only a theory. The world was once flat too.

Every major party is committed to action on climate change. Only the absolute lunatic fringe is still opposed. The only point of disagreement is how. The Liberal party is offering us the most expensive solution on the planet, a few decades too late, and promising a rush job on the most dangerous technology available. The Greens and the ALP already delivered the cheapest option available over a decade ago, but the Liberal part didn't like that. Or rather, their donors didn't like it.

Leroy wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 10:25am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 10:18am: Leroy wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 5:39pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 5:26pm: lee wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 4:08pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? You mean the ones where you wouldn't propose what it would cost? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Poor deluded lee, impervious to learning; everyone needs to understand  the private sector will cook the planet. (The Guardian, on Valerie's attempt to escape Alfred..) The idea climate change may generate a cyclone that ploughs into south-east Queensland was already a “nightmare scenario” for the country’s insurance industry, the same companies who wanted to charge her $30k a year to insure her home. If they were taking it seriously, why shouldn’t Valerie? Profit-seeking private-sector insurance companies "taking climate change seriously"...why would that be, I wonder... I have noticed that with the ice melting they are finding frozen bodies from 1,000's of years ago, just like there was a global warming back then too. \ The difference is the current global  warming caused by AGW-CO2 emissions is hastened by thousands of years.  That is only a theory. The world was once flat too.

That belief has been proven false, unlike AGW-CO2 emissions projections based on scientific data.

Keep trying Leroy; your own manifestation of Trump's Derangement Syndrome, while supporting the reality of the infamous TDS,  is becoming more and more evident. 

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2025 at 12:33pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 10:40am: Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries. Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time - as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw. & Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating. The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power. The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor. 7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that. Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? I know people who are running their appliances off one as we speak. As EV's become more popular, this is a potentially huge supply of storage. [quote]The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available.

;D


Quote:

If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down.

Except all those other technologies are smaller and more distributed, which is why we have not had a single blackout caused by them. A failure of a single piece of equipment will not disrupt the entire grid.[/quote]


Tell me FD - what are EVs bought for?

To commute - to drive from A to B - not to be powering appliances in a home.

Whilst it was doing that it wouldn't be charging for it's next days use.

That's a lot of money( $50k or $60k) to do something a $5000  6 kw rooftop solar system and battery will do.

Plus most homes & local electricity grid infrastructure  isn't up to scratch.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 8:46am:

Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down?

They did.

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:24pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They did.

They didn't. A lot of QLD went into blackout.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2025 at 3:30pm:

Quote: At what cost? Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? The cost of running your home from your EV is essentially free. They come with a pack that gives 240V output. If there is enough demand, we will end up with home smart chargers for EVs that work seamlessly both ways. [quote]A true blackout is when the whole grid goes down.

I think you will find that people are more interested in whether their own power is connected. Losing power to the whole state 10% of the time, and losing power to a changing 10% of the state 100% of the time, means the same thing to the end user, even though only 1 of them counts as a "true blackout" by your definition.

Did you have some kind of point?[/quote]


Rubbish - nothing is for free.

How is your EV to be recharged?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 10:35am:

Every major party is committed to action on climate change. Only the absolute lunatic fringe is still opposed. The only point of disagreement is how. The Liberal party is offering us the most expensive solution on the planet, a few decades too late, and promising a rush job on the most dangerous technology available. The Greens and the ALP already delivered the cheapest option available over a decade ago, but the Liberal part didn't like that. Or rather, their donors didn't like it.

Actually the lunatic fringe are the AGW climate change disciples.

The experts are science for hire/bought science.

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 12:33pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 10:40am: Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries. Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time - as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw. & Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating. The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power. The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor. 7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that. Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? I know people who are running their appliances off one as we speak. As EV's become more popular, this is a potentially huge supply of storage. [quote]The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available. ;D [quote]If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down.

Except all those other technologies are smaller and more distributed, which is why we have not had a single blackout caused by them. A failure of a single piece of equipment will not disrupt the entire grid.[/quote]


Tell me FD - what are EVs bought for?

To commute - to drive from A to B - not to be powering appliances in a home.

Whilst it was doing that it wouldn't be charging for it's next days use.

That's a lot of money( $50k or $60k) to do something a $5000  6 kw rooftop solar system and battery will do.

Plus most homes & local electricity grid infrastructure  isn't up to scratch. [/quote]

The additional cost of the converter is pretty much nothing. It comes standard with the vehicle. I know someone who is right now running their household from their hybrid vehicle. Obviously it works better if you work from home, but even if you do not, you are still going to be home for most of the day.

What they are bought for, and what they can be used for, are not necessarily the same thing. Hence my observation that EV's are a huge opportunity for storage that are not susceptible to either grid or supply failure.

If you have home PV as well as an EV, even better. If the grid goes down, you can charge your vehicle during the day and get power 24/7, indefinitely.

The EV storage option gets you around the fact that the grid might not be up to scratch.

People will still want a car, even if they have solar PV, and it won't be long until petrol vehicles are obsolete.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:25pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They did. They didn't. A lot of QLD went into blackout.

Bullshyte - what is a "lot" of QLD?

I bet I live closer to Callide than you & we didn't lose power.

The grid is maintained so when a unit shut down/failure occurs switching protocols are used.

That's why it's called a grid. 

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 10:35am: Every major party is committed to action on climate change. Only the absolute lunatic fringe is still opposed. The only point of disagreement is how. The Liberal party is offering us the most expensive solution on the planet, a few decades too late, and promising a rush job on the most dangerous technology available. The Greens and the ALP already delivered the cheapest option available over a decade ago, but the Liberal part didn't like that. Or rather, their donors didn't like it. Actually the lunatic fringe are the AGW climate change disciples. The experts are science for hire/bought science.

;D

Every major party is on the lunatic fringe, and you are the only sane one?

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:33pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:25pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They did. They didn't. A lot of QLD went into blackout. Bullshyte - what is a "lot" of QLD? I bet I live closer to Callide than you & we didn't lose power.

So you are familiar with the event, but decided to lie about whether the other coal fired power stations made up for the outage?

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:27pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Quote: At what cost? Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? The cost of running your home from your EV is essentially free. They come with a pack that gives 240V output. If there is enough demand, we will end up with home smart chargers for EVs that work seamlessly both ways. [quote]A true blackout is when the whole grid goes down. I think you will find that people are more interested in whether their own power is connected. Losing power to the whole state 10% of the time, and losing power to a changing 10% of the state 100% of the time, means the same thing to the end user, even though only 1 of them counts as a "true blackout" by your definition. Did you have some kind of point?

Rubbish - nothing is for free.

How is your EV to be recharged? [/quote]

It does not require any added infrastructure. It is all there, nominally for a different purpose. No additional cost - hence "essentially free". If you are confused by the term, let me know.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:22pm: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 12:33pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 10:40am: Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries. Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time - as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw. & Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating. The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power. The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor. 7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that. Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? I know people who are running their appliances off one as we speak. As EV's become more popular, this is a potentially huge supply of storage. [quote]The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available. ;D [quote]If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down. Except all those other technologies are smaller and more distributed, which is why we have not had a single blackout caused by them. A failure of a single piece of equipment will not disrupt the entire grid.

Tell me FD - what are EVs bought for?

To commute - to drive from A to B - not to be powering appliances in a home.

Whilst it was doing that it wouldn't be charging for it's next days use.

That's a lot of money( $50k or $60k) to do something a $5000  6 kw rooftop solar system and battery will do.

Plus most homes & local electricity grid infrastructure  isn't up to scratch. [/quote]

The additional cost of the converter is pretty much nothing. It comes standard with the vehicle. I know someone who is right now running their household from their hybrid vehicle. Obviously it works better if you work from home, but even if you do not, you are still going to be home for most of the day.

What they are bought for, and what they can be used for, are not necessarily the same thing. Hence my observation that EV's are a huge opportunity for storage that are not susceptible to either grid or supply failure.

If you have home PV as well as an EV, even better. If the grid goes down, you can charge your vehicle during the day and get power 24/7, indefinitely.

The EV storage option gets you around the fact that the grid might not be up to scratch.

People will still want a car, even if they have solar PV, and it won't be long until petrol vehicles are obsolete.[/quote]

So the plebs just go to work and stay home the rest of the time?

a Hybrid vehicle - so it still has a petrol motor. ::)

And why are they doing that?

To try & be mega trendy?

Yeah nah. ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:37pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:27pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 3:30pm: Quote: At what cost? Less than the cost of nuclear. Have you forgotten the many discussion we have already had on this? The cost of running your home from your EV is essentially free. They come with a pack that gives 240V output. If there is enough demand, we will end up with home smart chargers for EVs that work seamlessly both ways. [quote]A true blackout is when the whole grid goes down. I think you will find that people are more interested in whether their own power is connected. Losing power to the whole state 10% of the time, and losing power to a changing 10% of the state 100% of the time, means the same thing to the end user, even though only 1 of them counts as a "true blackout" by your definition. Did you have some kind of point? Rubbish - nothing is for free. How is your EV to be recharged?

It does not require any added infrastructure. It is all there, nominally for a different purpose. No additional cost - hence "essentially free". If you are confused by the term, let me know.[/quote]

;D So not quite but more or less free? Essentially.

Bollocks.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:34pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:33pm: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:25pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They did. They didn't. A lot of QLD went into blackout. Bullshyte - what is a "lot" of QLD? I bet I live closer to Callide than you & we didn't lose power. So you are familiar with the event, but decided to lie about whether the other coal fired power stations made up for the outage?

Now how did you come to that conclusion?

Just who is lying?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:33pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:30pm: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 10:35am: Every major party is committed to action on climate change. Only the absolute lunatic fringe is still opposed. The only point of disagreement is how. The Liberal party is offering us the most expensive solution on the planet, a few decades too late, and promising a rush job on the most dangerous technology available. The Greens and the ALP already delivered the cheapest option available over a decade ago, but the Liberal part didn't like that. Or rather, their donors didn't like it. Actually the lunatic fringe are the AGW climate change disciples. The experts are science for hire/bought science. ;D Every major party is on the lunatic fringe, and you are the only sane one?

No only you & yours.

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:38pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:31pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:22pm: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 12:33pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2025 at 10:40am: Quote: We need coal fired power as part of our energy mix because wind, solar and batteries are not reliable. No-one seemed to think it was a problem when a large chuck of QLD lost power for a long time because a coal fired power station threw a rotor. We will have rolling blackouts by the time the coalition get their first nuclear plant built, if they don't come to their senses. BTW, we also have gas, conventional hydro, pumped storage systems, electric cars and various other grid-connected batteries. Callide C caused 500,000 out of 5.69 million QLDers  to be without power only for a short time - as Callide B (700 mw) was still operating  & the QLD grid still had Gladstone(1,680mw), Stanwell(1,445mw), Tarong(1,400 mw), Tarong North(443 mw), Kogan Creek(750 mw),Darling Downs Power Station(630 mw), Millmerran(850 mw) with total capacity of 9,343 mw. & Wivenhoe pumped hydro(570 mw) operating. The 7 "run of river" hydro stations in QLD only produce between 1.6 mw to 88 mw of power. The largest being Wivenhoe which is also pumped hydro as well as a smaller river run system . It can generate 570 mw but is only capable of 10 hours generation before the top dam has to be refilled. It takes 14 hrs to pump water back up with the generator becoming a 240 mw pump motor. 7 hydro stations with only 650 mw capacity if that. Don't even mention batteries or electric cars at home as grid suppliers - it's a nonsense. Why is it nonsense? I know people who are running their appliances off one as we speak. As EV's become more popular, this is a potentially huge supply of storage. [quote]The rotor is on the steam driven turbine, the coal fired plant would have still been available. ;D [quote]If the generator fails it would not matter if the plant was driven by coal, wind, solar or hydro the plant will shut down. Except all those other technologies are smaller and more distributed, which is why we have not had a single blackout caused by them. A failure of a single piece of equipment will not disrupt the entire grid. Tell me FD - what are EVs bought for? To commute - to drive from A to B - not to be powering appliances in a home. Whilst it was doing that it wouldn't be charging for it's next days use. That's a lot of money( $50k or $60k) to do something a $5000  6 kw rooftop solar system and battery will do. Plus most homes & local electricity grid infrastructure  isn't up to scratch.

The additional cost of the converter is pretty much nothing. It comes standard with the vehicle. I know someone who is right now running their household from their hybrid vehicle. Obviously it works better if you work from home, but even if you do not, you are still going to be home for most of the day.

What they are bought for, and what they can be used for, are not necessarily the same thing. Hence my observation that EV's are a huge opportunity for storage that are not susceptible to either grid or supply failure.

If you have home PV as well as an EV, even better. If the grid goes down, you can charge your vehicle during the day and get power 24/7, indefinitely.

The EV storage option gets you around the fact that the grid might not be up to scratch.

People will still want a car, even if they have solar PV, and it won't be long until petrol vehicles are obsolete.[/quote]

So the plebs just go to work and stay home the rest of the time?

a Hybrid vehicle - so it still has a petrol motor. ::)

And why are they doing that?

To try & be mega trendy?

Yeah nah. ::)[/quote]

It's none of your business why they do it. What matters is, they are doing it, and it is making the power supply more reliable.

Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:34pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:33pm: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:25pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:24pm: freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2025 at 8:46am: Quote: The reason you haven't had a blackout because of them is because while you have coal you can cover any shortfall caused by a failure of Renewables (renewables cannot cover for coal or gas.). Why couldn't coal fired power stations cover the shortfall when a coal fired station went down? They did. They didn't. A lot of QLD went into blackout. Bullshyte - what is a "lot" of QLD? I bet I live closer to Callide than you & we didn't lose power. So you are familiar with the event, but decided to lie about whether the other coal fired power stations made up for the outage? Now how did you come to that conclusion? Just who is lying?

You said the other coal fired power stations covered the shortfall. They didn't.


Gnads wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:33pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 1:30pm: freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 10:35am: Every major party is committed to action on climate change. Only the absolute lunatic fringe is still opposed. The only point of disagreement is how. The Liberal party is offering us the most expensive solution on the planet, a few decades too late, and promising a rush job on the most dangerous technology available. The Greens and the ALP already delivered the cheapest option available over a decade ago, but the Liberal part didn't like that. Or rather, their donors didn't like it. Actually the lunatic fringe are the AGW climate change disciples. The experts are science for hire/bought science. ;D Every major party is on the lunatic fringe, and you are the only sane one? No only you & yours.

You are so far over on the lunatic fringe, you have deluded yourself into thinking everyone agrees with you. Which major parties do you think are not committed to action on climate change?


Quote:

So not quite but more or less free? Essentially.

If you are still confused, let me know.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 8:05am:

I have given you the actual costs. Dozens of times. Why do you keep forgetting?

Um, You mean CSIRO? With the Lazard cost estimates? With a 4 hour battery, but any more merely adds to the capital cost? Whereas  the capital cost of nuclear is all included? That is like comparing oranges and gorillas. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 8:05am: I have given you the actual costs. Dozens of times. Why do you keep forgetting? Um, You mean CSIRO? With the Lazard cost estimates? With a 4 hour battery, but any more merely adds to the capital cost? Whereas  the capital cost of nuclear is all included? That is like comparing oranges and gorillas. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Those among others. Good to see your memory is a bit better today.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 3:32pm:

Those among others. Good to see your memory is a bit better today.

And still no good. But you have nothing better to offer.

$642 billion for Labor's renewables, costed on AEMO's assumptions Vs something less than $10 billion per nuclear (7) facility. But it is cheaper, so you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D say.

Quote:

$642 billion for Labor's renewables

Labor and the Greens had a far cheaper plan, but it was scrapped by the Liberals, who now want to rush into the most expensive and most dangerous option.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 4:35pm:

Labor and the Greens had a far cheaper plan, but it was scrapped by the Liberals, who now want to rush into the most expensive and most dangerous option.

They did? So if it wasn't renewables, what was it that would supply the power, taxes wouldn't. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 4:37pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2025 at 4:35pm: Labor and the Greens had a far cheaper plan, but it was scrapped by the Liberals, who now want to rush into the most expensive and most dangerous option. They did? So if it wasn't renewables, what was it that would supply the power, taxes wouldn't. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes.

lee wrote on Mar 10^th, 2025 at 4:37pm:

So if it wasn't renewables, what was it that would supply the power, taxes wouldn't

Don't want to answer eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do you enjoy logging on here every day to meet lots of new people Lee?

I get the same tired old warriors who don't want to answer questions. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2025 at 12:43pm:

I get the same tired old warriors who don't want to answer questions. ;)

Not more than a dozen times, anyway.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2025 at 3:13pm:

lee wrote on Mar 11th, 2025 at 12:43pm: I get the same tired old warriors who don't want to answer questions. ;) Not more than a dozen times, anyway.

You mean those you don't want to admit to. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do you ever think it might just be people getting tired of you repeating the same question after it has been answered dozens of times? You are starting to sound like Brian.

You are starting to sound like tgd ;)