The future of energy generation and storage

SirRumpole said:

What are these "small storages" ?

Batteries ?

Click to expand...

Batteries yes but also small pumped hydro schemes.

Those which would typically have a capacity of ~300MW and store enough water to run for ~5 hours to cover the peaks.

A perfectly workable idea but it relies on being always able to pump the water back up each day. Wind and solar when available, gas (or coal) when it’s not.

In contrast Snowy 2.0 has a capacity of 2000 MW and the ability to run at constant full load for a week.

In a fully renewable grid there would be occasions when SH2 runs flat out through the night, so base load, and other occasions when it pumps constantly.

Another way to look at is that it becomes the “reserve bank” for the smaller storages which still eventually get built for their peak capacity. They get filled each day and SH2 and the Tas system operates to balance total input (wind and solar) with demand.

SH2 and Tas levels rise each day when there’s more wind and sun than there is electricity consumed and fall when the reverse occurs. Meanwhile the small storages cycle daily to cover the hour by hour variations.

Meanwhile in SA right at this moment the large solar farms are all completely shut down and going to waste. Can’t use it, can’t store it so it’s wasted. Not there yet but Vic will end up with similar problems before too long, that’s the track they’re on.

About gas

"Norway delivered its oil & gas riches to its people, Australia delivered the profits into foreign hands, having done the exploration, spending years and billions proving up giant gas fields. As the gas cartel rakes in the profits exporting LNG at the expense of local consumers"

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/gas-how-australia-privatised-the-profits-and-socialised-the-losses/

Which means our gas electricity will be more expensive and probably burn imported foreign gas while exporting our own gas on cheaper contract, the irony , the waste and carbon cost, but it's ok, we will eat less meat, Bangladesh as a role model?

Regardless of whether or not Snowy 2.0 is built, something needs to be built if we're not going to have people sitting in the dark and to be clear, that something needs to be firm dispatchable generation not simply more intermittent renewables. The latter are useful as such, but they don't address the issue of peak generating capacity in an effective manner.

Planned closure dates of existing plant in the NEM (all states except NT and WA) over the next decade. There's plenty more coming after that but the next 10 years makes the point. Note that I've only included units with capacity exceeding 10 MW to keep the list short.

Note that "gas" means natural gas unless stated otherwise and for simplicity I've simply referred to any fuel produced from oil (diesel, kero, fuel oil etc) as "oil" since the detail isn't important there.

Plant ratings shown are nameplate ratings which are the same as actual ratings except at Liddell where the machines have been derated to 420 MW each and at Yallourn where they run to around 360 - 380 MW depending on various factors.

Closing in 2020:
Torrens Island A unit 2: 120 MW, gas, SA.
Torrens Island A unit 4: 120 MW, gas, SA.

Closing in 2021:
Mackay: 34 MW, oil, Qld.
Torrens Island A unit 1: 120 MW, gas, SA

Closing in 2022:
Daandine: 33 MW, gas, Qld
Torrens Island A unit 3: 120 MW, gas, SA
Liddell unit 4: 500 MW, coal, NSW

Closing in 2023:
Osborne: 180 MW, gas, SA
Liddell Unit 1: 500 MW, coal, NSW
Liddell Unit 2: 500 MW, coal, NSW
Liddell Unit 3: 500 MW, coal, NSW

Closing in 2024 (none)

Closing in 2025:
Clayton: 12 MW, landfill gas, Vic
Lucas Heights 2: 17 MW, landfill gas, NSW
Oaky Creek: 21 MW, waste coal mine gas, Qld

Closing in 2026:
Broken Hill: 50 MW, oil, NSW

Closing in 2027:
Glennies Creek: 13 MW, waste coal mine gas, NSW

Closing in 2028:
Swanbank E: 385 MW, gas, Qld

Closing in 2029:
Yallourn W unit 1: 350 MW, coal, Vic
Vales Point B Unit 1 (aka Vales Point PS unit 5): 660 MW, coal, NSW
Vales Point B unit 2 (aka Vales Point PS unit 6): 660 MW, coal, NSW

So all up that's 4895 MW of plant being closed over the next decade and a lot more coming in the 2030's. Source for the above information is various AEMO data sets.

Then there's the question about the use of renewable energy and how all that fits in. In the absence of someone coming up with economical and practical means of supplying renewable gas or petrol, a renewable energy economy is an electric economy at the point of use.

With that in mind it's worth noting that whilst Australians tend to think "electricity" if someone says "energy" the reality is that except in Tasmania, electricity is a relatively minor player in terms of the energy supplied to end users.

Based on Australian Government statistics and avoiding double counting, so that is looking at the forms of energy "as supplied" to end users so that's petrol or diesel not oil, it's electricity not the coal used to produce it, etc, then the figure for electricity is very much lower than most would be expecting:

Tas = Electricity is 39% of all energy supplied to end users.
NSW = 23%
SA = 20%
Qld = 19%
NT = 17%
Vic = 17%
WA = 15%

Figures calculated by Smurf from Australian Government statistics which can found at energy.gov.au

That the figures are so low is best explained by saying that if we take Victoria as an example, well natural gas is a bigger industry in terms of energy supplied to end users (so excluding gas-fired power stations) than is electricity whilst petroleum products (petrol, diesel etc) are larger again. It's even more extreme in WA and then there's things like wood fires in homes, coal used in industry (steel, cement, paper and others), the use of fuel oil to fire boilers etc and so on plus of course transport.

Where all that goes is that if we're going to be moving away from the direct use of fuels to heat water, move vehicles and so on then we're going to be using more electricity not less and considerably so.

There's definitely opportunities to invest in the sector. Just be careful to pick the companies which are getting on with it not the ones which do a lot of jumping up and down.

Small gas turbine might take homes off the grid.

http://theleadsouthaustralia.com.au...s-turbine-could-help-take-homes-off-the-grid/

SirRumpole said:

Small gas turbine might take homes off the grid.

http://theleadsouthaustralia.com.au...s-turbine-could-help-take-homes-off-the-grid/

Click to expand...

Just another nonsense pizz ant idea, over East you guys are going to need some grunt, when they shut down major stations, all this airy fairy stuff is nonsense and window dressing.
The only winners will be the big companies, they will get a blank cheque to get you out of the $hit.
Just my opinion.
The funny thing is, everyone is letting the same companies and the greenies, get you in the mess in the first place.lol
Hope it all works out well.

I can see a military advantage with this in that it's far lighter than conventional diesel generators and has flexibility to use basically any liquid or gas fuel, whatever's available.

I've never served in the military but I'd expect those attributes of lightweight and being able to use a range of fuels would be advantageous from a practical and logistical perspective?

Cost not such an issue in that situation since it's not competing with grid power and the military would presumably be willing to spend the $ if there are practical advantages.

I don't think the company is listed however?

Smurf1976 said:

I can see a military advantage with this in that it's far lighter than conventional diesel generators and has flexibility to use basically any liquid or gas fuel, whatever's available.

I've never served in the military but I'd expect those attributes of lightweight and being able to use a range of fuels would be advantageous from a practical and logistical perspective?

Cost not such an issue in that situation since it's not competing with grid power and the military would presumably be willing to spend the $ if there are practical advantages.

I don't think the company is listed however?

Click to expand...

Smurf what do you think the efficiency of something like that would be?

sptrawler said:

Smurf what do you think the efficiency of something like that would be?

Click to expand...

Don't know really but if pressed then I'd guess about 30%. That's really just a guess though.

Smaller usually means less efficient than something larger but if it's for military use then throwing $ at it for exotic materials etc could push the efficiency back up.

Considering though that a large scale commercial OCGT doesn't go much past 40% and in practice usually lower so it's hard to see this being better than that in terms of its electrical output. Obviously higher if the heat could be put to use.

A significant occurrence in SA today with demand for power from the grid dropping to a low of 432 MW, down from the previous non-fault low of 501 MW.

The conventional explanation is the rise of rooftop solar, that the weather was mild and that it's a Sunday. Whilst I agree with that, I do wonder to what extent there may also be an economic signal of reduced consumption hidden in that? Speculation there but it's possible.

It is good to see AGL not capitulating to a group shareholders, wanting the closure of Liddle Power Station closing early, their response sounds very measured.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...oal-power-plant-closures-20190919-p52sve.html

From the article:
The resolution, brought by shareholder activist group Market Forces, would have required AGL to quit coal-fired power generation by 2030 – two decades before the company's planned exit date of 2050.

AGL's board on Thursday succeeded in recommending its shareholders reject the push, insisting that climate change and emissions were priorities for the company but that the transition away from coal must take place in an "orderly manner" .

sptrawler said:

It is good to see AGL not capitulating to a group shareholders, wanting the closure of Liddle Power Station closing early, their response sounds very measured.

Click to expand...

AGL has an advantage in coal-fired generation. As you're no doubt well aware, one thing you really need at a coal-fired power station is coal and AGL have this.

It would be a real nuisance for anyone else who had a coal-fired plant and didn't have enough coal to run it with.

Smurf1976 said:

AGL has an advantage in coal-fired generation. As you're no doubt well aware, one thing you really need at a coal-fired power station is coal and AGL have this.

It would be a real nuisance for anyone else who had a coal-fired plant and didn't have enough coal to run it with.

Click to expand...

I think maybe AGL has come to the party, might be an orderly transition, possible accumulation opportunity?

Smurf1976 said:

rise of rooftop solar

Click to expand...

Speaking of which one of the PV systems installed has a tendency to trip at the switchboard. It's done it a few times over the last few days and it isn't blazingly hot weather (around 28C now) although clear and sunny. The installer advised it isn't common with the systems the company has installed but has happened and they are heading out with electrician in tow. They consider the 25A at the switchboard and the 24A limit at the inverter may not be sufficient or the 25A is faulty. SolarEdge inverter.

I was pretty surprised how much the other PV system (SMA inverter) has pumped out over the last 12 months. The company estimated 8,500 kwH over 12 months but the production reached 10,000 kwH in 11 months. It just lucked it to be in the right position apparently.

The solar hot water which was installed in August this year is going gang busters. I know little about them and was concerned at how much water was being released in the late morning. The plumber contacted me and after a bit of discussion told me it was doing what it should to stop blowing up. A 300 litre tank for a 4 bed room home fits but there is only one person (me) in the house so little hot water is used. As the tank can get to 180C, the pressure relief value is doing it's job. He suggested I can switch off the electric boost as apparently I don't need it on during this warmer period. According to the manufacture's the system will tend to release a comparatively large amount for safety reasons during the first Summer of operations after which it will settle down. We'll see.

Dragging this subject back from the climate threads.
This was what I was talking about.
No clarity or policy direction but, instead, brickbats from the inept Energy Minister.

Great new opportunities for engineers in the oil an gas industries.
Certainly a good news story.

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'
Supplies from turbines will prove to be the next great energy revolution, IEA predicts

Erecting wind turbines on the world’s best offshore sites could provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demand, according to a report.

A detailed study of the world’s coastlines has found that offshore windfarms alone could provide more electricity than the world needs – even if they are only built in windy regions in shallow waters near the shore.

Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terrawatt hours of renewable electricity a year. This clean energy boom would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terrawatt hours.

“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation, but its potential is vast,” said the IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol.

The study predicts offshore wind will grow 15 fold to emerge as a $1tn (£780bn) industry in the next 20 years and will prove to be the next great energy revolution.

The IEA said earlier this week that global supplies of renewable electricity were growing faster than expected and could expand by 50% in the next five years, powered by a resurgence in solar energy. Offshore wind power would drive the world’s growth in clean power due to plummeting costs and new technological breakthroughs which include turbines close to the height of the Eiffel Tower and floating installations that can harness wind speeds further from the coast.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...provide-more-electricity-than-the-world-needs

basilio said:

Great new opportunities for engineers in the oil an gas industries.
Certainly a good news story.

Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'
Supplies from turbines will prove to be the next great energy revolution, IEA predicts

Erecting wind turbines on the world’s best offshore sites could provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demand, according to a report.

A detailed study of the world’s coastlines has found that offshore windfarms alone could provide more electricity than the world needs – even if they are only built in windy regions in shallow waters near the shore.

Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terrawatt hours of renewable electricity a year. This clean energy boom would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terrawatt hours.

“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation, but its potential is vast,” said the IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol.

The study predicts offshore wind will grow 15 fold to emerge as a $1tn (£780bn) industry in the next 20 years and will prove to be the next great energy revolution.

The IEA said earlier this week that global supplies of renewable electricity were growing faster than expected and could expand by 50% in the next five years, powered by a resurgence in solar energy. Offshore wind power would drive the world’s growth in clean power due to plummeting costs and new technological breakthroughs which include turbines close to the height of the Eiffel Tower and floating installations that can harness wind speeds further from the coast.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...provide-more-electricity-than-the-world-needs

Click to expand...

Not good news for seabirds.

SirRumpole said:

Not good news for seabirds.

Click to expand...

Or coral reefs, good luck putting anything offshore within a stones throw of the barrier reef.

http://www.wattclarity.com.au/artic...-reflections-on-frequency-control-in-the-nem/

In short the frustrations expressed, politely, there sum it all up rather well.

Frequency control is as fundamental as it gets really. It's the sort of thing that's actually explained to visitors (general public) to power stations etc - it's really fundamental stuff. Much like someone explaining that the locomotive pulls the rest of the train along the tracks or that the heart pumps blood around the body - it's basic fundamentals as to how it works.

If we're still struggling to get that one fixed, despite well known solutions with a century of proof that they work, well then suffice to say why most who've seen this sort of thing have given up when it comes to relatively more complex things like the CO2 issue. If you're struggling to jog around the block then there's not much chance of winning anything at the Olympics, right?

This is an issue that was indeed done correctly and working just fine for many decades until the powers that be, with no relevant technical knowledge, decided to undo it. As I say - anyone expecting leadership from government on anything even slightly scientific or technical in any field from environment to medicine would be wise to not hold their breath waiting.

I think that underlying reality explains why discussions on such subjects go around and around aimlessly. NBN, CO2, the Murray River, energy and so on - they're all essentially akin to boarding a bus that goes around and around the same roundabout and never takes you to your destination. That's the inevitable consequence when you've got a scientific issue being run by people who don't think science is too important. Well, um, er.........

Hence my point about focusing on the practical aspects - in the context of this forum that's mostly what to invest in and more broadly it's what else you ought to do. Just don't be waiting on anyone connected with the federal government.

In the case of energy, it'll take a monumental debacle to force change in my view. Probably much the same with the other intertwined issues. No point stressing about it though.

I find it hard to believe they have disabled the governor droops on the units, that is a real recipe for disaster, if the units can't pick up the load relative to their size it wont take much for a domino effect to happen.