This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Here is another Taylor Wilson clip, on where he thinks power generation will go, obviously there are some bright people working on it. The clip is a few years old, but it gives a bit of insight into his ideas.

Click to expand...

Yowsers! The lad even looks like a certain stereotype of genius. I'm thinking the hawkish nose and natural leanness...sort of like Nikola Tesla. That type the retarded BBT show was going for with Sheldon Cooper character.
 
The two units closing are Parson 200MW units, circa late 1970's early 80's, piles of you know what. The Stage D units are 200MW Toshiba units, later fitted with high twist blades to upgrade them to 220MW always been great units.
I would be surprised if Muja D closed before Bluewaters.
 
Last edited:
It takes time, but at last mainstream media is up to speed, they are starting to realise this headlong rush to renewables will end in disaster. This article is saying exactly what smurf has been saying for the last couple of years.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ewables-are-even-clearer-20190807-p52esi.html

From the article:
The Australian Energy Market Commission’s reliability panel reported this year that system strength is declining across north Queensland, south-west New South Wales, north-western Victoria and South Australia.


South Australia’s power system is on life support, kept afloat by now routine interventions by the energy market operator. That means directing wind farms to shut down and telling gas suppliers to tool up just to keep the system secure and the lights on.

The panel notes all this intervention comes at a huge cost to wholesale marker prices - more than $270 million as of September last year.

The science tells us that integrating intermittent renewable energy to a grid that was not designed to deal with it brings a host of significant technical problems. It is distorting the market and stressing old baseload suppliers which must work harder pick up the slack, particularly in times of peak demand, when unsupported wind power routinely underperforms.

In time we will solve these problems but if we run too fast the system will fall over.

It is something we need to debate rationally. And we should listen to the science .
 
sptrawler said:
It takes time, but at last mainstream media is up to speed
Click to expand...
The big problem is those making decisions failing to grasp the difference between a system and a market. Or for that matter even realising that the two are in fact separate and opposing concepts.

Related to that is a lack of public understanding of the whole thing. If I were to ask 1000 people in Vic then I doubt that even one of them would realise that 12% of all electricity in Vic is coming from SA at the moment and a further 8% from NSW and Tas.

The big problem with this and indeed various other things is that despite having the most highly educated population we've ever had, we seem to be in what could be broadly described as an anti-intellectual era. Climate change, anti-vaccination, troubles with the power grid, the saga of various public infrastructure projects and so on. The common theme in all of those dramas is ignorance taking precedence over proper science and other factually based approaches.
 

And vested interests too.

Like rejection by a few rednecks of a scientifically based National Energy Guarantee which has left the energy grid in limbo again.
 

Spot on. Almost identical observations made by the Judge who presided over the Royal Commission into the Banking system.

Kenneth Hayne says trust in politics and institutions 'damaged or destroyed'

In withering attacks, banking royal commissioner says reasoned policy debates have been replaced by three- or four-word slogans
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...olitics-and-institutions-damaged-or-destroyed
 
It certainly applies to the debate around our power grid smurf, from the article I posted earlier, the author highlights that exact point quite succinctly:
Listen to the science. It's a perfectly rational statement often used by those urging others to accept that the climate is changing and human activity is driving it.

But many who make this point tend to become irrational when someone dares question their preferred remedies or points out that making rapid changes to complex systems, like our energy grid, might be a tad harder than they claim.
 

It isn't easy to make rapid changes to complex systems. But it is essential - so lets do it.

The most apt comparison with dealing with CC in our current situation is total mobilisation for a war. Everything changes because it has to.
 
basilio said:
It isn't easy to make rapid changes to complex systems. But it is essential - so lets do it.

The most apt comparison with dealing with CC in our current situation is total mobilisation for a war. Everything changes because it has to.
Click to expand...
The problem is, it is going as fast as it can, we are adopting renewables faster per capita than any other Country in the World.
The problem is the constant chant, makes people believe it can be done faster, without having unintended consequences, when in reality if it ends in disaster those who shouted the most are the least accountable.
 

The problem simply is that renewables without storage is destabilising. Wind farms are easy to put up, but batteries or hydro needs government assistance. The public and private sectors are out of synch and so is the power supply.
 
Shirley you can't be serious!!
There is absolutely no way we are going "as fast as we can" in terms of adopting renewable energy. That is just not true in any way shape or form.
From an engineering and resource point of view I'd be 100% confident Australia could build far more renewable energy plant if there was direction and/or incentive.

Where I would agree is in the overall planning of this new investment and ensuring that there is sufficient infrastructure to make sure it all works the way it is supposed to. The issue of storage and transport are very real.

By the way where did you come up with the statement that we are adopting renewables faster per capita than any country in the world ? Who was the source?
 
basilio said:
Shirley you can't be serious!!
There is absolutely no way we are going "as fast as we can" in terms of adopting renewable energy. That is just not true in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
Shows how little grasp you have of the reality.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...st-energy-companies-over-sa-blackout/11390400
When you have the market operator taking generators to court, because they made a system unstable, you have a problem. Obviously a bit beyond you Shirl.

basilio said:
From an engineering and resource point of view I'd be 100% confident Australia could build far more renewable energy plant if there was direction and/or incentive.
Click to expand...
On what engineering or technical knowledge do you base that? Or is it just another off the cuff makes it right statement?

basilio said:
Where I would agree is in the overall planning of this new investment and ensuring that there is sufficient infrastructure to make sure it all works the way it is supposed to. The issue of storage and transport are very real.
Click to expand...
That will make everyone feel secure, knowing you aware of the storage and transport issues.
basilio said:
By the way where did you come up with the statement that we are adopting renewables faster per capita than any country in the world ? Who was the source?
Click to expand...
The statement was made in one of the journals i was reading regarding the installation rate in 2018.
However a quick google brought this article up first.
http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/publications/assets/100renewables.pdf
Maybe a little reading, may help with a more holistic appreciation of the issues, the Guardian isn't the only source of info.
It also wouldn't hurt your knowledge base either, as your statements don't seem to reflect any under pinning knowledge.

Or are you going to complain about the ANU now? Francis
 
A 'like' is nice basil, but an apology wouldn't go astray.

Or on the other hand, you could tell me where you sourced your information, for saying the installation of renewables could be done quicker.
Maybe it was just another chant.
 
Fantastic SP. That was a brilliant information source you provided regarding the rate of uptake of renewable energy, its relative ease and overall low cost. I will definitely be using it. Much appreciated.

When I questioned your statement about going as fast as we can I was just thinking in terms of our overall economic system that is not currently attempting to move to a totally renewable energy system. I would have thought we are simply seeing a range of market factors at work rather than physical limits of engineering capacity or finance. But of course "storage and infrastructure" is then the issue..

I acknowledged your point about storage and infrastructure. Smurf has drummed it into everyone and I think every parrot on this forum has understood these issues. Clearly I am another parrot!!

The fact that the energy regulator is having a go at the wind companies is interesting. I don't know enough to say who or what is at fault. Maybe you do ? Maybe the cyclonic conditions just created a situation that couldn't be dealt with by the system ? Perhaps there is a need for more redundancy in the system and better mechanisms to prevent total power failures ?
 
basilio said:
The most apt comparison with dealing with CC in our current situation is total mobilisation for a war.
Click to expand...
Agreed but there's one big difference - in a war things are directed to happen and they happen.

In contrast with the energy situation we've got a situation where nobody, not AEMO, not government, not other generators, knows for sure what any particular operator is going to do and other than in the short term there's really nobody calling the shots. There's also no real strategic plan of any sort, the closest we get to that is some guesses as to what might happen - that's "rear view mirror" planning not a forward plan and then implementing it.

That sort of approach wouldn't be tolerated for even 5 minutes in an actual military war - it's directly comparable to the troops considering the orders they've been given, then deciding to do something completely different. Or of having whatever munitions manufacturer deciding that the Army ought to be using different ammunition so they just change what they supply and when that doesn't fit in the guns it's not their problem.

To be fair to the companies involved, Snowy and Hydro Tas have for a long time made their plans public (via AEMO) a decade in advance on a detailed basis so that's major plant outages and so on. AGL decided to go along with that, not the full decade but 5 or so years, which seemed a pretty reasonable step forward. Sadly they ended up in a major crap fight with the federal government for doing so. So they basically were punished for voluntarily doing the right thing.

From a technical perspective it's doable certainly but it really needs the politics, ideology and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy swept aside which is exactly what does happen in a war.
 
basilio said:
Fantastic SP. That was a brilliant information source you provided regarding the rate of uptake of renewable energy, its relative ease and overall low cost. I will definitely be using it. Much appreciated.
?
Click to expand...
Like I said, that was the first thing that came up, when I googled 'Australia's renewable energy installation rate', there is heaps of info available.
The subject interests me, probably due to my background, many probably find it a dry subject.
This is why most only have a surface knowledge, of the enormity, of the task that is faced.
It would be much easier to say, all cars in Australia will be electric by 2030, than making our whole electricity grid completely renewable based by 2050.IMO
Cars aren't an essential service, electricity is, our Country would come to a standstill, if we have a catastrophic failing of the grid.
Tasmania even though small in both size and population, gave an indication of what can happen, when something unforeseen goes wrong ala the Bass Link failure and subsequent dam storage issue.

Just read your post smurf agree completely with the sentiment, but it isn't mobilising troops or build tanks to send to war, it is building infrastructure that wont pay for itself for a long time.
If we were a communist Country, like China not a problem, just do it, but we aren't and it wont happen that quickly.
Speed is the issue, the Government can't afford it, the private will only put in what they can get a return from, meanwhile the generators get older and older.
If AGL want to close a 2000MW station, they should have to install 4000MW of renewables IMO, otherwise the instability will just increase.
The Government could own and install the dams and hydro's, to build in the storage and own the water, then the system might have a chance of being built right and built once.
Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Smurf1976 said:
Agreed but there's one big difference - in a war things are directed to happen and they happen.
Click to expand...

Which is the point isn't it ?

I remember an observation made in WW2 when President Roosevelt made plans for MASSIVE production rates of planes and boats etc. The manufacturing companies fretted that they couldn't possibly achieve those goals with all the cars they were making.

Roosevelt said "Don't worry. Your not making cars any more..."
 
Last edited:
basilio said:
The fact that the energy regulator is having a go at the wind companies is interesting. I don't know enough to say who or what is at fault.
Click to expand...
In layman's terms they built the wind farms and got them running but failed to properly assess how they'd perform in the event of an external grid disturbance and it turned out that the answer was "not very well".

In any power system things will go wrong, that's life and it happens no matter what technology. Eg with coal there was the dramatic failure of unit 2 at Loy Yang A (AGL) a few months ago - zero to nothing just like that in an instant. Much the same happened with Mortlake unit 2 (gas, Origin) more recently. Such problems tend to be less common with hydro plant but it's not unprecedented to have sudden total failure of plant. Same with transmission - lines can trip yes, that's always a risk.

The idea is that when something goes wrong in the system, everything else acts to contain that problem and keep the overall system stable.

Eg as a simple example, if there's 10 generators online each of the same capacity and running at 50% of capacity and one fails, we should now have 9 running at a higher output such that there's no interruption to supply and nobody outside the industry knows that anything went wrong.

That this approach has historically worked almost flawlessly is why the general public tends to be unaware of just how common generating plant trips really are - it's not a daily event but it's not at all unusual that a unit trips offline, goes to zero, due to whatever problem and that has always been the case since with steam plant in particular there's a lot that can go wrong. That everything worked as it should in those situations is why most people are unaware that it happens and it's fairly frequent - as a consumer you don't see any change.

What happened with the wind farms in SA is that they were set up incorrectly and instead of continuing to operate when external faults occurred, they threw in the towel and shut down even though there was nothing wrong with them. The result of that was that in addition to the loss of transmission there was now also a loss of numerous generation sources, the wind farms, and once something like that happens the outcome will at best be widespread blackouts and at worst it ends with a total system collapse as occurred in practice.

As a concept that mode of failure is a bit like taking some pieces out of a structure, weakening it to the point that the whole thing then collapses. Top of it fails, that falls and hits the next level and breaks that, the combined weight of all that then breaks something else and within seconds you've got nothing more than a pile of rubble and a lot of dust everywhere. Same concept that like a row of dominoes, once control is lost the whole thing ends up going down real quick.

It's impossible to say with absolute certainty that the SA grid would have survived the physical destruction of multiple transmission lines as occurred but there would have been a much better chance of retaining supply to at least part of the state if the wind farms hadn't given up. You can't put power through lines that are down but you don't want to be shutting down generation connected to lines that are still up that's for sure.

All of that is ultimately not so much a failing of wind as a technology but a failing of humans to do things properly. That wind requires to be set up correctly, whereas it's an inherent and unavoidable feature of steam, gas turbine or hydro plant, means wind is to blame in that sense but only in that humans didn't do what needed to be done in view of the differences. The real failure was with humans not the wind.
 

That comes down to the "free market economics" versus "central planning" approach really.

You'd never win a war without some degree of central planning but we are in practice trying to do just that with energy.

I don't have some ideological view that we should become socialist or anything like that, I'm not opposed to private ownership of utilities as a concept, but in order to run a system efficiently you need to take a system view of it and that's the bit that's missing. There's a failure to have anyone looking at the overall picture and that's what has lead us to where we are now.

To pick one random example, witness Alinta versus AGL shuffling about in SA a few years ago over who closed a power station? AGL went first, then Alinta jumped in and AGL backtracked, then once it was too late Engie scrapped generation in Victoria meaning that nothing should have been closed in SA - hence the state government's diesels being hastily installed. So a plant that was already there and medium cost to operate was replaced with some diesels of half the capacity, at a cost of ~$600 million and which cost a fortune to fire up. And now there's even more money being spent to put synchronous condensers, so that's big rotating machines, almost right next to the power station that was closed and blown up. Um.....

Using that example, what's needed is a system wide view of it where someone makes a decision not one where everyone's trying to second guess everyone else and ends up getting it wrong and where nobody's actually responsible for the big picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
2K
moXJO
M
Electricity demand and data centres
Replies
15
Views
2K
farmerge
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
2K
Smurf1976
Official Microsoft Office 2024 Professional Plus License Key $59 with lifetime free updates ends March 20
Replies
0
Views
1K
bigdog
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
2K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...