How will they regulate who they sell electric to? I live in a unit so the ban does not apply, but what would you have to do to buy an electric. Would they only sell to plumbers who would be breaking laws to install against regulations!!!! I fitted my last 3 ...yeh I have been here a while!
Ban on electric hot water storage systems by 2012
- Thread starter handyandy
- Start date
Hi Doomy (nice nic...)
Most existing coal generators can get down to 60% of nameplate output without redesign. With redesign of burner management systems, mills, water treatment plants and pressure safety systems, circa 30-40% minimum loads are achievable on both brown (assuming pre-drying) and black coals. For a new plant, 0% can be achieved if one wants to - all at synchronous speed too.
We shouldn't let what we currently have installed dictate our futures forevermore...
There are plenty of existing coal power stations in Australia that have been two shifted every day for all their life so quite evidently it is viable.
Which is the problem isn't it?
I'll be stuffed if I'll let my power company turn off my air con in the middle of the hottest day of the year! And I reckon I wouldn't be the only one... There are plenty of existing and successful demand side management schemes in place for those "non-essential" loads in the bigger end of town already. I have yet to see a "smart grid" (whatever that actually means) business case add up in terms of cash costs and benefits at residential level. It relies on people changing their behaviour and electricity is so cheap they're just not going to.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just make the following points:
- The fuel consumption of every fossil power generation technology reduces with a reduction in load.
- Switching loads from overnight to daytime swaps coal generation for gas and therefore reduces greenhouse emissions. Going the other way increases greenhouse emissions.
- Economic efficiency goes the other way of course.
- For every power generation technology, running it flat out 100% of the time makes the power it produces cheaper than running it at 50% of the time. Just the reality of a fixed capital cost to build it amortised over more electricity. This of course doesn't mean all generators should be able to operate at baseload. Indeed the power generators of the future will be characterised by their performance at part load and flexibility to allow the input of renewables.
- The load in WA is peakier and we obviously have the islanded issues on top of that so it's no easier here.
- Anyway, both my east and west coast power generation colleagues say the other side of the country has it easier. The reality is that with a bit of investment both sides can do an awful lot better than they are right now...
Most existing coal generators can get down to 60% of nameplate output without redesign. With redesign of burner management systems, mills, water treatment plants and pressure safety systems, circa 30-40% minimum loads are achievable on both brown (assuming pre-drying) and black coals. For a new plant, 0% can be achieved if one wants to - all at synchronous speed too.
We shouldn't let what we currently have installed dictate our futures forevermore...
There are plenty of existing coal power stations in Australia that have been two shifted every day for all their life so quite evidently it is viable.
Which is the problem isn't it?
I'll be stuffed if I'll let my power company turn off my air con in the middle of the hottest day of the year! And I reckon I wouldn't be the only one... There are plenty of existing and successful demand side management schemes in place for those "non-essential" loads in the bigger end of town already. I have yet to see a "smart grid" (whatever that actually means) business case add up in terms of cash costs and benefits at residential level. It relies on people changing their behaviour and electricity is so cheap they're just not going to.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just make the following points:
- The fuel consumption of every fossil power generation technology reduces with a reduction in load.
- Switching loads from overnight to daytime swaps coal generation for gas and therefore reduces greenhouse emissions. Going the other way increases greenhouse emissions.
- Economic efficiency goes the other way of course.
- For every power generation technology, running it flat out 100% of the time makes the power it produces cheaper than running it at 50% of the time. Just the reality of a fixed capital cost to build it amortised over more electricity. This of course doesn't mean all generators should be able to operate at baseload. Indeed the power generators of the future will be characterised by their performance at part load and flexibility to allow the input of renewables.
- The load in WA is peakier and we obviously have the islanded issues on top of that so it's no easier here.
- Anyway, both my east and west coast power generation colleagues say the other side of the country has it easier. The reality is that with a bit of investment both sides can do an awful lot better than they are right now...
BTW, getting back on topic, this is where I should point out the obvious:
- For anyone living in a house for more than five years or so who has to pay the power bills, it is far more economical to install heat pump / gas / solar hot water systems.
- So for the vast majority of people in their PPORs this is a profitable move, removing the temptation to lose money by buying electric.
- Therefore electric HW systems are only cheap for landlords, who don't have to pay the cost of electricity to run them.
- In the absence of five year leases no tenant is going to pay for the upgrade themselves cos it's not worth it over a 12 month timeframe.
- If govt allowed this situation to go on forever, we would all have terribly inefficient systems in our IPs, be wasting heaps of energy and tenants would keep paying heaps of money to power companies that they could be putting into their rent!
So cheer up, this "cloud" may yet have a silver lining...
- For anyone living in a house for more than five years or so who has to pay the power bills, it is far more economical to install heat pump / gas / solar hot water systems.
- So for the vast majority of people in their PPORs this is a profitable move, removing the temptation to lose money by buying electric.
- Therefore electric HW systems are only cheap for landlords, who don't have to pay the cost of electricity to run them.
- In the absence of five year leases no tenant is going to pay for the upgrade themselves cos it's not worth it over a 12 month timeframe.
- If govt allowed this situation to go on forever, we would all have terribly inefficient systems in our IPs, be wasting heaps of energy and tenants would keep paying heaps of money to power companies that they could be putting into their rent!
So cheer up, this "cloud" may yet have a silver lining...
Another 1 of labor's not very well thought idea...
IMO the government should be paying the price difference
and where do you think the government gets the money?
doesn't just come out of a hole in the wall, like a lot of centrelink payees believe - but comes from taxes on the rest of us.
there are only so many dollars in the taxes coffer, and with the current demands of health, infrastructure and education taking top billing, i can't see water heater replacement getting even close to the top of the list.
one small plus is that install in your ip's are tax deductable/depreciable.
doesn't just come out of a hole in the wall, like a lot of centrelink payees believe - but comes from taxes on the rest of us.
there are only so many dollars in the taxes coffer, and with the current demands of health, infrastructure and education taking top billing, i can't see water heater replacement getting even close to the top of the list.
one small plus is that install in your ip's are tax deductable/depreciable.
Hi HiEquity,
Don't be fooled by the nickname. My brothers/father/grandfather are all called the same thing. It's derived from our last name.
As you said don't want to derail the thread any further although it is somewhat related to the topic but it sounds like you are in the industry.
So for those plants that don't have smaller turbines to handle peakload you would have to rely on changing the output from the boilers.
How quickly can that occur being a coal burning process?
Or do you rely on smaller gas fired plants on the network to provide the peakloads?
As you say we agree on one thing the network isn't perfect and with some forethought and $$$ it can be alot better.
Last edited:
Hi BV
This regulation makes heating water far cheaper than using electric water heaters. Perhaps we should be paying govt for the privilege? It's only more expensive for landlords who wish their tenants to waste and pay for heaps of electricity...
Hi Doomy
In the National Electricity Market (NEM - east coast), short term power (frequency) control is managed across the whole network, including coal, hydro, gas turbines etc. Individual power stations don't need to move up and down if they aren't charged with providing frequency control. There is a competitive market for providers of Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS - the short term balancing capability) - among power stations who wish to provide these services. The costs of this service provision are openly published and are next to negligible in the scheme of things because so many power stations can do it.
Regarding coal power stations, many of the existing ones have relatively poor ramp rates while maintaining boiler (eg drum level) control / stability etc. However, with modern burner management, coal feed and boiler control systems their response can be improved significantly. The generator itself can typically change output very fast if needed (it doesn't change speed - only power output) - the boiler system just needs to be designed to maintain stability as the output varies.
Peak loads occur on a diurnal (daily) basis and pretty much any generator except nuclear can be ramped up and down over that time period. Of course gas turbines are more suited to this type of duty from an economic point of view as they are cheaper to build so there is far less capital at risk (they cost less to build) compared to a coal power station from which you have to get a return by utilising it nearly all the time (ie baseload). So from my point of view a requirement to run a generator in baseload duty is purely economic and represents a disadvantage rather than an advantage for that technology. A coal power station used only for peak loads is not commercially competitive with a gas turbine for that reason - it's just more expensive. Whereas when you compare a coal power station running 100% of the time with a gas turbine running 100% of the time, the coal ps is cheaper.
I doubt it. People don't change their hot water systems often.
This means that until the old system is beyond repair, and the owners are 'forced' to buy a new one, they likely won't even realise. And then when they do buy a new one, all they will see is their current options and choose from them. Some might mutter about the price, but these mutterings will be stagnated and my bet is the majority of the population will just see it as another general expense and not even link it to the governement. Personally, I don't think it is such a big deal. But then my PPOR is a new build which was required to have solar installed from get go. Our IP isn't solar, but I 'think' it is gas - It is also brand new, so I wouldn't want to be looking at replacing that anytime soon anyway. So it really doesn't impact upon me, or alot of other 'new' home owners much anyway. Certainly cann't see it affecting my vote in an adverse sense: and it actually is a step in the right direction in terms of a 'greener' option.
