Community batteries to store solar energy coming to Canberra’s suburbs

Whilst I’m not a fan of these batteries, you’re missing the purpose of them.

Which is not to provide or supply power to areas for large periods of time but to smooth demand curves, peaks and voltages fluctuation created by renewable sources in the areas. They do this by storing power during sunny periods and then discharging during periods where the sun isn’t shining and grid electricity costs are high.

If done properly from an economic standpoint, they “buy” cheap energy and then “sell” it back to the grid when prices are much higher making a profit.

Yep…massive lithium batteries in your neighbourhood…what could possibly go wrong…..time for the adults to be in charge again

Technically, actually about 30,000 or so little batteries, about the size of AA battery cells, all packed together.

Lithium batteries can catch fire and burn violently if over-charged, shorted, punctured, or physically damaged in any way.

The “science is settled” warmists have strangely gone missing on refuting this one.

Refuting what? What on earth do you imagine you are on about now, Capital Retro?

We know that the original author uses the term “Ponzi scheme” incorrectly, we know that article merely discusses cost-effectiveness of different battery options, and rent-seeking by power companies, and we already knew that Futureproof will follow whatever headline looks shiny to him, much like you. The article says nothing to deny the fact that anthropomorphic warming is not in any significant dispute among climatologists, nor the steps needed to change.

You lost the plot long ago.

I see you are on “the bury CR roster” today, byline. Your response is exactly the same as what just saying and chewy 14 would say. No doubt you all read from the same page.

Those climatologists you refer to are hard to find too. I just got delivery of my 2024/2025 Yellow Pages and not one climatologist is listed.

Can’t possibly work out why a index of businesses wouldn’t contain contact details for individual scientists.

I dont know, maybe they just don’t want to be harrased by deranged conspiracy nuts, spouting discredited arguments?

You do realise however that the article posted above is only talking about the relative costs of specific energy supply options and says nothing about climate change right?

I would normally think the answer to that last question is self evident but even the most basic concepts don’t seem to be a given where some commenters are concerned.

Anthropomorphic? So “settled science” is saying climate change looks like a human? 😂 Or do you mean anthropogenic? Get it right if you want enough credibility to accuse interlocutors (different from electrocutors 😂) of losing the plot.

RiotAct readers my have been puzzled by ”anthropomorphic” , as I was.
I found this explantation (tnks to Riot I will attempt to bing it into conversation tonight, somehow. )

anthropomorphic

/ˌanθrəpəˈmɔːfɪk/

adjective

relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
“explanations of animal behaviour in anthropomorphic terms”
having human characteristics.
“anthropomorphic bears and monkeys”

Thanks for the attempts, guys. Anthropomorphism is attribution of human form. Anthropogeny is of study of the origins of humans. The latter has been inverted by ecologists to suggest human-caused rather than causes of humans. I prefer my own extension rather than the inversion: climate is taking the form we give it, the likeness of human damage.

The only plot I am aware of is the one created by the rent-seeking carpetbaggers who are fleecing us.

Warmists love to use big words. They think it gives them ascendency.

Yes, climate scientists could be classed as businessmen as they are paid to sell their theories.

Deranged conspiracy nuts are self-funded.

Come on chewy, tell him why he is wrong.

$5 trillion in subsidies over 20 years hey? Sounds a lot.

What are the fossil fuel subsidies in that timeframe?

Oh they are significantly higher than that even if you only include explicit subsidies which ignore all negative externalities…….

Over $1 trillion per year in explicit subsidies.

Astronomical? LOL.

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=also%20rarely%20taxed.-,Size%20of%20Fossil%20Fuel%20Subsidies,support%20from%20surging%20energy%20prices.

CR,
Hope you never gamble, you perennially pick the wrong horse to back.

That old baseload myth?
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2013/04/baseload-power-is-a-myth–even-intermittent-renewables-will-work

Hope you never go into business because your first decision will be to determine if you are losing more money by keeping the doors open or closing them.

BTW, I have never gambled in my life but you seem to know a bit about it.

A 2013 opinion piece saying we will get 20% of our power from thermal
storage by now (heating sand during the day with excess solar and using the heat in the sand at night – currently not used anywhere in Australia) somehow makes base load power issues a myth…

Capital Retro,
Strange that based on your comments, you like paying more for services than you have to and prefer opinion and ideology over actual facts and evidence.

Makes sense then that you know a lot about having to close down businesses because of losing money.

A lot of businesses are closing now because of the rising cost of cheaper renewable electricity when there is no alternatives source of energy.

Too false.

“A lot of businesses are closing now because of the rising cost of cheaper renewable electricity when there is no alternatives source of energy.”

Delusional.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/businesses-flee-soaring-energy-prices-david-davis-xwfsc

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/02/19/without-cheap-reliable-power-australias-mineral-resources-aint-worth-a-nickel/

Even people like Buffet wouldnt touch solar etc unless there was massive govt propping up. Its a house of cards propped up with nonsense. Anyone with even half a brain can see it.

LOL,
Just exemplifying your ignorance now.

First link is about gas regulations and poor policy from governments at all levels, not the relative costs of renewables vs fossil fuels.

Outside of the elements related to gas, as has been explained to you previously, the transition to renewables has been mismanaged literally because of the influence of climate change deniers and fossil fuel industry rent seekers.

The previous federal government failed to implement structured energy policies to promote an efficient transition to the lower cost renewables, creating opportunities for price gouging, lack of investment and too high a reliance on older, unreliable fossil fuel generators which increases prices across the board.

It’s literally an argument for more investment in newer, lower cost renewables but you aren’t knowledgeable or unbiased enough to understand it.

Second link proffers a fact free opinion piece presented by Matt Canavan from a website called Stopthesethings.com

Both of these being as they say “unreliable sources” for anything to do with energy matters.

Let’s give up trying, Mark. Nuclear will save us one day.

“I know little about them but a reliable source explains it all here: https://switchedon.reneweconomy.com.au/content/why-community-batteries-are-a-bad-idea“

A reliable source.

Good to see you follow and trust sources that outline how the renewable energy transition is inevitable and progressing exponentially.

Sources that report on how renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels and promote thus promote an orderly and efficient move away from those older, more expensive fossil fuel generators.

Well done.

Unreliable sources of energy that are only available part time are always going to be cheaper, chewy because there will be no energy to sell.

Haha, stop mashing the buttons CR, that makes zero sense.

Renewable generation sources produce cheaper energy from a levelised cost of energy perspective, even if you include storage requirements to firm intermittent electricity production.

That measure inherently compares the total costs of production and operation etc. per unit of energy produced.

And you’ve agreed that a media source promoting those facts is a reliable source of news from which to gather information from on the topic. No need to weakly attempt to backtrack now.

Next for CR: “when selective Googling goes wrong”.

You must have missed that article “why community batteries are a bad idea”, chewy.

All that tech-babble you always refer to means nothing if your beloved renewables are not generating which is a reality you cannot deal with.

CR,
Still grasping at straws and showing basic comprehension failures.

I never commented about the worth of community batteries, only your opinion of the source of the article as being reliable. Try to keep up.

And your last statement is just a function of your ignorance. Once again, the measures used already include reliability of generation, your “reality” isn’t the one the rest of us live in.

“Tech babble”, too funny.

It should be painted white, as in white elephant……

Explain how renewables are actually cheaper, after they basically distorted the market by dynamiting or shut down perfectly good power stations? I guess if you shut down your competition , it solar looks “cheap” doesn’t it? Coal power stations can have bits replaced indefinitely – they don’t have a “use by” date, which people would know if they took of their green blinkers.

Steve,
“Explain how renewables are actually cheaper”

Um, because they literally cost less to build and operate per unit of electricity production?

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/gencost

Nothing to do with the rest of your comment which as typical contains a mix of ideological blinkers and factual inaccuracies.

It appears CSIRO cherry picked the data. Your turn….

It appears you like making stuff up when the clear and consistent evidence shows renewables to be cheaper.

The CSIRO research is open, transparent and has been prepared with significant levels of industry input. They are also inviting of new information and updates to continually update their assessments over time.

Strange then that the research is consistent and no major flaws in the analysis have been identified by any credible sources, despite numerous attempts by fossil fuel industry rent seekers.

If you like believing fairytales and “indefinite” coal plants, that’s your problem. I’ll stick with the engineers and scientists.

Yep, coal plants can run for 100 years because they just keep replacing bits. I worked in industry for a long time, so I know of what I speak. As to CSIRO , yep, if you shut down all the coal plants and gas plants only renewables are left which makes them “cheaper”. It appears its not much more than a sleight of hand. Enjoy living with un-reliables, I’ll stick with reliable base load power ( which doenst cause blackouts like happened in SA ) , even if we have to build 10 nuclear plants.

stevew77, please list all of the Australian coal plants which have been running, or even are expected to run, for more than 60 years (let alone 100)? Most Australian plants are already beyond their design life. Hint: economics.

Which plants have CSIRO shut down?

Have you asked the electricity generators about their plans and reasons?

Steve,
So if you replace the parts of a coal plant with new infrastructure, you can make it last longer.

Breathtaking analysis.

You know those “bits” aren’t free right? And the exact same thing can and is done for renewables and is already included in the data assessing life cycle costs for all generation types.

And you know who also works in the industry? The people who provide the actual research and data that is the backbone of the CSIRO reports and findings.

Somehow I think I’ll take their word over an internet shill who claims working in the industry (as what?) somehow means more than actual industry research.

Research which once again has nothing to do with shutting down coal fired plants, which you think somehow makes them more expensive to run and at the same time makes renewables cheaper. Which makes absolutely no sense from any logical perspective when the data is from real world applications in multiple countries.

And it doesn’t really matter what you’d like to “stick” to, the market has made the decision on the most economically efficient option and it doesn’t include your preferences. Within the next couple of years renewables will provide the majority of your power.

Don’t know why you want to pay higher amounts for electricity than you have to, but here we are I guess.