OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Here's the data for the 2012/2013/2014/2015 annual generation mix, is this what you are looking for?
Renewables Experiment in Oz - keep watching
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I'm not looking for anything. You are the one who started the same old tired arguments. In the US they rate the nuke plants on their summer capacity, where they run +90% 24/7.
I think you've fallen on your ear. The 85% - 90% figure was simply my personal extrapolation of the AVERAGE of the data presented by EIA. Where's your source for the above claim?
Speaking of tired old arguments, you came into Shannow's thread and dropped a fat deuce from an obviously biased source and then get all worked up when I called you on the integrity of the link. Which I've done several times before when you've quoted that site. Don't want to get questioned? Don't post garbage, it is that simple.
Unfortunately posting data from the EIA doesn't have quite the same effect as some propaganda piece from a green energy website, eh?
I'm not looking for anything. You are the one who started the same old tired arguments. In the US they rate the nuke plants on their summer capacity, where they run +90% 24/7.
I think you've fallen on your ear. The 85% - 90% figure was simply my personal extrapolation of the AVERAGE of the data presented by EIA. Where's your source for the above claim?
Speaking of tired old arguments, you came into Shannow's thread and dropped a fat deuce from an obviously biased source and then get all worked up when I called you on the integrity of the link. Which I've done several times before when you've quoted that site. Don't want to get questioned? Don't post garbage, it is that simple.
Unfortunately posting data from the EIA doesn't have quite the same effect as some propaganda piece from a green energy website, eh?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I am not looking for anything.
I have this though for 2015.
All that shows is nameplate and summer capacity factor, then the subsequent usage of that summer capacity factor. You'll note on a couple of those units that summer capacity is significantly lower than others. That's not the same capacity factor relative to nameplate we are discussing which is simply average output relative to nameplate.
Ergo, all of those figures save a couple are in the mid to high 90's, which is a fair bit higher than the 85-90% figure you'd get from averaging the entire year, which was what I was doing.
Even then, I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point. Nukes running 85-90% year round is due to baseload usage, which is supported by everything we've looked at from the EIA. There are periods where usage is higher and periods where usage is lower, but the end result is an average in that range
I am not looking for anything.
I have this though for 2015.
All that shows is nameplate and summer capacity factor, then the subsequent usage of that summer capacity factor. You'll note on a couple of those units that summer capacity is significantly lower than others. That's not the same capacity factor relative to nameplate we are discussing which is simply average output relative to nameplate.
Ergo, all of those figures save a couple are in the mid to high 90's, which is a fair bit higher than the 85-90% figure you'd get from averaging the entire year, which was what I was doing.
Even then, I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point. Nukes running 85-90% year round is due to baseload usage, which is supported by everything we've looked at from the EIA. There are periods where usage is higher and periods where usage is lower, but the end result is an average in that range
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Good thing the article I posted is about the US.....
And you keep using US "stuff", in a thread that's specifically about Australia...then dismiss other's information as not applicable to the US ?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Quote:
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time. The capacity factor is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy the plant produced during a period of time and divide by the amount of energy the plant would have produced at full capacity.
Well over 90%. Maybe 90% average. Not the case for nukes in the US. And I for one do not expect renewable to be at 100% for some time. There has to be the storage projects ramped up and put in place first.
Yes, that's the international standard definition for Capacity Factor...thermal CAN produce 100% 24/7 if push comes to shove as it's "schedulable" (that word I keep using, and keeps getting ignored by the "industry expert"...
Solar/Wind can NEVER be 100%, so I don't know why you don't expect them to be there for a while...they just can't.
Solar, by definition can only be 25-30%, unless in the US the sun is up 24/7.
Wind is at the vagaries of what's there to harvest...clearly.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I don't know of any generator that runs at 100% all the time. Locally with the wind farms they underestimated their output when designing. It's nearly 50% more than they planned for over a 24 hr period.
25-30% is a typical capacity factor for wind..if a project was based on 20%, and it makes 30%, that's 50% more...yay, you still need 3-4 times as much nameplate rating installed capacity to get the same energy in a year.
Which gets back to what I'm saying...when it's dusruptive technology it pushes the higher cost thermal out.
WHEN renewables are the primary source, you need 3-4 times the capacity and storage...cheap becomes not cheap.
Don't you get that ???
Good thing the article I posted is about the US.....
And you keep using US "stuff", in a thread that's specifically about Australia...then dismiss other's information as not applicable to the US ?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Quote:
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time. The capacity factor is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy the plant produced during a period of time and divide by the amount of energy the plant would have produced at full capacity.
Well over 90%. Maybe 90% average. Not the case for nukes in the US. And I for one do not expect renewable to be at 100% for some time. There has to be the storage projects ramped up and put in place first.
Yes, that's the international standard definition for Capacity Factor...thermal CAN produce 100% 24/7 if push comes to shove as it's "schedulable" (that word I keep using, and keeps getting ignored by the "industry expert"...
Solar/Wind can NEVER be 100%, so I don't know why you don't expect them to be there for a while...they just can't.
Solar, by definition can only be 25-30%, unless in the US the sun is up 24/7.
Wind is at the vagaries of what's there to harvest...clearly.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I don't know of any generator that runs at 100% all the time. Locally with the wind farms they underestimated their output when designing. It's nearly 50% more than they planned for over a 24 hr period.
25-30% is a typical capacity factor for wind..if a project was based on 20%, and it makes 30%, that's 50% more...yay, you still need 3-4 times as much nameplate rating installed capacity to get the same energy in a year.
Which gets back to what I'm saying...when it's dusruptive technology it pushes the higher cost thermal out.
WHEN renewables are the primary source, you need 3-4 times the capacity and storage...cheap becomes not cheap.
Don't you get that ???
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Good thing the article I posted is about the US.....
And you keep using US "stuff", in a thread that's specifically about Australia...then dismiss other's information as not applicable to the US ?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Quote:
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time. The capacity factor is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy the plant produced during a period of time and divide by the amount of energy the plant would have produced at full capacity.
Well over 90%. Maybe 90% average. Not the case for nukes in the US. And I for one do not expect renewable to be at 100% for some time. There has to be the storage projects ramped up and put in place first.
Yes, that's the international standard definition for Capacity Factor...thermal CAN produce 100% 24/7 if push comes to shove as it's "schedulable" (that word I keep using, and keeps getting ignored by the "industry expert"...
Solar/Wind can NEVER be 100%, so I don't know why you don't expect them to be there for a while...they just can't.
Solar, by definition can only be 25-30%, unless in the US the sun is up 24/7.
Wind is at the vagaries of what's there to harvest...clearly.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I don't know of any generator that runs at 100% all the time. Locally with the wind farms they underestimated their output when designing. It's nearly 50% more than they planned for over a 24 hr period.
25-30% is a typical capacity factor for wind..if a project was based on 20%, and it makes 30%, that's 50% more...yay, you still need 3-4 times as much nameplate rating installed capacity to get the same energy in a year.
Which gets back to what I'm saying...when it's dusruptive technology it pushes the higher cost thermal out.
WHEN renewables are the primary source, you need 3-4 times the capacity and storage...cheap becomes not cheap.
Don't you get that ???
So what the name plate rating should say is the estimated yearly production in the installation location. That would make sense in comparing renewables to unsustainable power production.
Atleast in my province, it seems the actual power is pretty cheap and a small part of the my bill, be it nuclear or wind, but distribution is the majority of my cost especially living in the country. Renewables should help reduce grid costs as they tend to scale up or down better and could be sized for local demand.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Good thing the article I posted is about the US.....
And you keep using US "stuff", in a thread that's specifically about Australia...then dismiss other's information as not applicable to the US ?
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Quote:
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time. The capacity factor is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy the plant produced during a period of time and divide by the amount of energy the plant would have produced at full capacity.
Well over 90%. Maybe 90% average. Not the case for nukes in the US. And I for one do not expect renewable to be at 100% for some time. There has to be the storage projects ramped up and put in place first.
Yes, that's the international standard definition for Capacity Factor...thermal CAN produce 100% 24/7 if push comes to shove as it's "schedulable" (that word I keep using, and keeps getting ignored by the "industry expert"...
Solar/Wind can NEVER be 100%, so I don't know why you don't expect them to be there for a while...they just can't.
Solar, by definition can only be 25-30%, unless in the US the sun is up 24/7.
Wind is at the vagaries of what's there to harvest...clearly.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I don't know of any generator that runs at 100% all the time. Locally with the wind farms they underestimated their output when designing. It's nearly 50% more than they planned for over a 24 hr period.
25-30% is a typical capacity factor for wind..if a project was based on 20%, and it makes 30%, that's 50% more...yay, you still need 3-4 times as much nameplate rating installed capacity to get the same energy in a year.
Which gets back to what I'm saying...when it's dusruptive technology it pushes the higher cost thermal out.
WHEN renewables are the primary source, you need 3-4 times the capacity and storage...cheap becomes not cheap.
Don't you get that ???
So what the name plate rating should say is the estimated yearly production in the installation location. That would make sense in comparing renewables to unsustainable power production.
Atleast in my province, it seems the actual power is pretty cheap and a small part of the my bill, be it nuclear or wind, but distribution is the majority of my cost especially living in the country. Renewables should help reduce grid costs as they tend to scale up or down better and could be sized for local demand.
I get Shannow's arguments perfectly fine. The issues he talks about are not a figment of his imagination or some sort of paranoia, as perhaps is being implied, because I can see first hand in Ontario what the renewables do to the final price of electricity and it is exactly in line with what Shannow has been saying for years now.
Oops, I forgot it's not US, move along...
Oops, I forgot it's not US, move along...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So what the name plate rating should say is the estimated yearly production in the installation location. That would make sense in comparing renewables to unsustainable power production.
Atleast in my province, it seems the actual power is pretty cheap and a small part of the my bill, be it nuclear or wind, but distribution is the majority of my cost especially living in the country. Renewables should help reduce grid costs as they tend to scale up or down better and could be sized for local demand.
The delivery charge is the dumping ground to hide these costs from the customers in Ontario. The latest one is the Carbon Tax. You will not see it itemized because it's rolled into the delivery charge, along with the cost of renewables.
So what the name plate rating should say is the estimated yearly production in the installation location. That would make sense in comparing renewables to unsustainable power production.
Atleast in my province, it seems the actual power is pretty cheap and a small part of the my bill, be it nuclear or wind, but distribution is the majority of my cost especially living in the country. Renewables should help reduce grid costs as they tend to scale up or down better and could be sized for local demand.
The delivery charge is the dumping ground to hide these costs from the customers in Ontario. The latest one is the Carbon Tax. You will not see it itemized because it's rolled into the delivery charge, along with the cost of renewables.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So what the name plate rating should say is the estimated yearly production in the installation location. That would make sense in comparing renewables to unsustainable power production.
Atleast in my province, it seems the actual power is pretty cheap and a small part of the my bill, be it nuclear or wind, but distribution is the majority of my cost especially living in the country. Renewables should help reduce grid costs as they tend to scale up or down better and could be sized for local demand.
The delivery charge is the dumping ground to hide these costs from the customers in Ontario. The latest one is the Carbon Tax. You will not see it itemized because it's rolled into the delivery charge, along with the cost of renewables.
Actually, it is mostly rolled into the Global Adjustment, which is the "real" price for generation. Delivery is a cash grab.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So what the name plate rating should say is the estimated yearly production in the installation location. That would make sense in comparing renewables to unsustainable power production.
Atleast in my province, it seems the actual power is pretty cheap and a small part of the my bill, be it nuclear or wind, but distribution is the majority of my cost especially living in the country. Renewables should help reduce grid costs as they tend to scale up or down better and could be sized for local demand.
The delivery charge is the dumping ground to hide these costs from the customers in Ontario. The latest one is the Carbon Tax. You will not see it itemized because it's rolled into the delivery charge, along with the cost of renewables.
Actually, it is mostly rolled into the Global Adjustment, which is the "real" price for generation. Delivery is a cash grab.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Actually, it is mostly rolled into the Global Adjustment, which is the "real" price for generation. Delivery is a cash grab.
I guess things are slightly different across Hydro One divisions then. My Hydro bill doesn't have this Global adjustment, only delivery and I received a letter from Hydro One at the end of last year where they stated that the Carbon Tax will be rolled into the delivery charges.
However, it doesn't matter how it is sliced, they are deceiving customers with these practices, that's the bottom line.
Actually, it is mostly rolled into the Global Adjustment, which is the "real" price for generation. Delivery is a cash grab.
I guess things are slightly different across Hydro One divisions then. My Hydro bill doesn't have this Global adjustment, only delivery and I received a letter from Hydro One at the end of last year where they stated that the Carbon Tax will be rolled into the delivery charges.
However, it doesn't matter how it is sliced, they are deceiving customers with these practices, that's the bottom line.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Actually, it is mostly rolled into the Global Adjustment, which is the "real" price for generation. Delivery is a cash grab.
I guess things are slightly different across Hydro One divisions then. My Hydro bill doesn't have this Global adjustment, only delivery and I received a letter from Hydro One at the end of last year where they stated that the Carbon Tax will be rolled into the delivery charges.
However, it doesn't matter how it is sliced, they are deceiving customers with these practices, that's the bottom line.
Only business gets to see the Global Adjustment charges, for residential customers it gets rolled into our per KWh rate, which has gone from $0.048/KWh to an average of about $0.13/KWh with the Global Adjustment. It has almost tripled.
Delivery having the carbon pricing as part of it doesn't surprise me. The whole thing is a bloody scam. We went from having some of the cheapest power in the country to having some of the most expensive in North America in a matter of 10 years all thanks to the Liberal Green Energy Program which took effect in January 2005 and was stated as having no impact on electricity prices. The same dolt who made that erroneous quote is now guiding Trudeau and is one Gerald Butts. Keep that in mind when you consider the potential future impacts of Trudeau's carbon pricing.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Actually, it is mostly rolled into the Global Adjustment, which is the "real" price for generation. Delivery is a cash grab.
I guess things are slightly different across Hydro One divisions then. My Hydro bill doesn't have this Global adjustment, only delivery and I received a letter from Hydro One at the end of last year where they stated that the Carbon Tax will be rolled into the delivery charges.
However, it doesn't matter how it is sliced, they are deceiving customers with these practices, that's the bottom line.
Only business gets to see the Global Adjustment charges, for residential customers it gets rolled into our per KWh rate, which has gone from $0.048/KWh to an average of about $0.13/KWh with the Global Adjustment. It has almost tripled.
Delivery having the carbon pricing as part of it doesn't surprise me. The whole thing is a bloody scam. We went from having some of the cheapest power in the country to having some of the most expensive in North America in a matter of 10 years all thanks to the Liberal Green Energy Program which took effect in January 2005 and was stated as having no impact on electricity prices. The same dolt who made that erroneous quote is now guiding Trudeau and is one Gerald Butts. Keep that in mind when you consider the potential future impacts of Trudeau's carbon pricing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/pumped-hydro-power-in-spencer-gulf-energy-australia/8292596
Quote:
A desert site at the top of Spencer Gulf in South Australia is perfect for a pumped hydro venture, EnergyAustralia chief executive Catherine Tanna has said.
.
.
.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said storage options such as pumped hydro were critical if Australia kept embracing energy production from intermittent renewables.
"We're at the beginning of understanding how significant this could be in Australia — pumped hydro is a different economic challenge," he said.
"We've got to gradually understand how this can work, not only physically and technically, but how it interfaces with the market," he said.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Cabinet colleagues were briefed on the plan before the federal funding announcement was made.
"If a project of this scale, a pumped hydro project of this scale, had been available recently in South Australia, there wouldn't have needed to been the load shedding that occurred there," Mr Turnbull said.
Quote:
A desert site at the top of Spencer Gulf in South Australia is perfect for a pumped hydro venture, EnergyAustralia chief executive Catherine Tanna has said.
.
.
.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said storage options such as pumped hydro were critical if Australia kept embracing energy production from intermittent renewables.
"We're at the beginning of understanding how significant this could be in Australia — pumped hydro is a different economic challenge," he said.
"We've got to gradually understand how this can work, not only physically and technically, but how it interfaces with the market," he said.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Cabinet colleagues were briefed on the plan before the federal funding announcement was made.
"If a project of this scale, a pumped hydro project of this scale, had been available recently in South Australia, there wouldn't have needed to been the load shedding that occurred there," Mr Turnbull said.
linkedin AFR
Quote:
Mike Cannon-Brookes is dead serious about his desire to see an ambitious Tesla proposal to solve South Australia's energy crisis become reality.
The Atlassian co-CEO took to Twitter late on Thursday to signal his support for a surprise proposal by Tesla's vice-president for energy products, Lyndon Rive, to solve South Australia's blackouts this week.
Mr Rive said the company, best known for its electric cars, would "commit" to installing the 100-300 megawatt hours of batteries required to prevent blackouts in South Australia within 100 days, if it were asked to do so.
That prompted Mr Cannon-Brookes to pledge directly to Tesla chief executive Elon Musk to help secure financial and political support for the idea.
Quote:
Mike Cannon-Brookes is dead serious about his desire to see an ambitious Tesla proposal to solve South Australia's energy crisis become reality.
The Atlassian co-CEO took to Twitter late on Thursday to signal his support for a surprise proposal by Tesla's vice-president for energy products, Lyndon Rive, to solve South Australia's blackouts this week.
Mr Rive said the company, best known for its electric cars, would "commit" to installing the 100-300 megawatt hours of batteries required to prevent blackouts in South Australia within 100 days, if it were asked to do so.
That prompted Mr Cannon-Brookes to pledge directly to Tesla chief executive Elon Musk to help secure financial and political support for the idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...ays-or-its-free
Quote:
Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of electric car giant Tesla, has thrown down a challenge to the South Australian and federal governments, saying he can solve the state’s energy woes within 100 days – or he’ll deliver the 100MW battery storage system for free.
On Thursday, Lyndon Rive, Tesla’s vice-president for energy products, told the AFR the company could install the 100-300 megawatt hours of battery storage that would be required to prevent the power shortages that have been causing price spikes and blackouts in the state.
Tesla moves beyond electric cars with new California battery farm
Read more
Thanks to stepped-up production out of Tesla’s new Gigafactory in Nevada, he said it could be achieved within 100 days.
Mike Cannon-Brookes, the Australian co-founder of Silicon Valley startup Atlassian, on Friday tweeted Elon Musk, asking if Tesla was serious about being able to install the capacity.
Musk replied that the company could do it in 100 days of the contract being signed, or else provide it free, adding: “That serious enough for you?”
Quote:
Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of electric car giant Tesla, has thrown down a challenge to the South Australian and federal governments, saying he can solve the state’s energy woes within 100 days – or he’ll deliver the 100MW battery storage system for free.
On Thursday, Lyndon Rive, Tesla’s vice-president for energy products, told the AFR the company could install the 100-300 megawatt hours of battery storage that would be required to prevent the power shortages that have been causing price spikes and blackouts in the state.
Tesla moves beyond electric cars with new California battery farm
Read more
Thanks to stepped-up production out of Tesla’s new Gigafactory in Nevada, he said it could be achieved within 100 days.
Mike Cannon-Brookes, the Australian co-founder of Silicon Valley startup Atlassian, on Friday tweeted Elon Musk, asking if Tesla was serious about being able to install the capacity.
Musk replied that the company could do it in 100 days of the contract being signed, or else provide it free, adding: “That serious enough for you?”
Reverse Crocodile Dundeee?
free publicity?
free publicity?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/pumped-hydro-power-in-spencer-gulf-energy-australia/8292596
Quote:
A desert site at the top of Spencer Gulf in South Australia is perfect for a pumped hydro venture, EnergyAustralia chief executive Catherine Tanna has said.
.
.
.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said storage options such as pumped hydro were critical if Australia kept embracing energy production from intermittent renewables.
"We're at the beginning of understanding how significant this could be in Australia — pumped hydro is a different economic challenge," he said.
"We've got to gradually understand how this can work, not only physically and technically, but how it interfaces with the market," he said.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Cabinet colleagues were briefed on the plan before the federal funding announcement was made.
"If a project of this scale, a pumped hydro project of this scale, had been available recently in South Australia, there wouldn't have needed to been the load shedding that occurred there," Mr Turnbull said.
So the market steps in to provide storage of renewables, allowing generation in off periods...SO...
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...e42e-1489955398
Quote:
Premier Jay Weatherill and Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis today revealed the long-awaited scheme, which they say will also result in the construction of a new privately owned power station.
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is seeking legal advice on whether the decision by the State Government to “go it alone” breaches national electricity market rules.
The six-point plan includes:
BUILDING a State Government-owned, fast start gas-fired power station that can come on when the market does not provide enough energy to keep the lights on. It is expected to cost about $360 million. No site has yet been selected. It would be 250MW, enough to deliver close to 10 per cent of SA’S peak demand.
SUPPORTING construction of Australia’s biggest battery as part of a $150 million spend on a new renewable technology fund.
ENCOURAGE the construction of a new privately-owned power station using a Government bulk buy power contract.
INCENTIVISE the extraction of more gas for use in SA power stations, through a taxpayer-backed exploration fund.
GIVING the SA energy minister powers to override other regulators and force power stations to fire up in times of need.
CREATING an “energy security target”, which requires retailers to buy 36 per cent of their power from baseload sources in SA.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/pumped-hydro-power-in-spencer-gulf-energy-australia/8292596
Quote:
A desert site at the top of Spencer Gulf in South Australia is perfect for a pumped hydro venture, EnergyAustralia chief executive Catherine Tanna has said.
.
.
.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said storage options such as pumped hydro were critical if Australia kept embracing energy production from intermittent renewables.
"We're at the beginning of understanding how significant this could be in Australia — pumped hydro is a different economic challenge," he said.
"We've got to gradually understand how this can work, not only physically and technically, but how it interfaces with the market," he said.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Cabinet colleagues were briefed on the plan before the federal funding announcement was made.
"If a project of this scale, a pumped hydro project of this scale, had been available recently in South Australia, there wouldn't have needed to been the load shedding that occurred there," Mr Turnbull said.
So the market steps in to provide storage of renewables, allowing generation in off periods...SO...
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...e42e-1489955398
Quote:
Premier Jay Weatherill and Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis today revealed the long-awaited scheme, which they say will also result in the construction of a new privately owned power station.
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is seeking legal advice on whether the decision by the State Government to “go it alone” breaches national electricity market rules.
The six-point plan includes:
BUILDING a State Government-owned, fast start gas-fired power station that can come on when the market does not provide enough energy to keep the lights on. It is expected to cost about $360 million. No site has yet been selected. It would be 250MW, enough to deliver close to 10 per cent of SA’S peak demand.
SUPPORTING construction of Australia’s biggest battery as part of a $150 million spend on a new renewable technology fund.
ENCOURAGE the construction of a new privately-owned power station using a Government bulk buy power contract.
INCENTIVISE the extraction of more gas for use in SA power stations, through a taxpayer-backed exploration fund.
GIVING the SA energy minister powers to override other regulators and force power stations to fire up in times of need.
CREATING an “energy security target”, which requires retailers to buy 36 per cent of their power from baseload sources in SA.
- Status
