The future of energy generation and storage

sptrawler said:

Which is exactly why the government has to build it, also why most of the really large scale pumped hydro, will have to be funded by Federal or State Governments.
The capital cost, the acquisition of land cost, the public backlash cost and the amount of pumped storage required, will take it way out of the cost base analysis spectrum for private funding IMO.

Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying all along.

SirRumpole said:

That's the lifetime, I was thinking more of continuous output. eg if there are long periods of overcast weather, how long could a battery keep up the supply ?

Click to expand...

In theory it's possible to build a truly massive battery that would last for a month or more. That would bankrupt anyone who tried it however......

To put some numbers on it, the Hornsdale Power Reserve (aka the Tesla "big battery" in SA) was originally commissioned with a peak discharge of 100 MW and with energy storage of 129 MWh. So in simple terms it can sustain that 100 MW for 1.29 hours or it can sustain half that rate of output for twice as long. There's some minor variation due to efficiency not being linear but it's close enough.

In contrast Snowy 2.0 has a proposed generating capacity of 2000 MW and storage of 350 GWh. So it could sustain that 2000 MW constantly for 175 hours, or half as much for twice as long and so on.

Hornsdale (battery) = 129 MWh

Snowy 2.0 (pumped hydro) = 350,000 MWh

Hydro Tasmania existing integrated system "as is" = 14,400,000 MWh

As a means of getting a high output for a relatively short duration, batteries are a very serious contender. If you want bulk storage though well then at present hydro leaves batteries for dead.

In an ideal world and if it were up to me then I wouldn't build Snowy 2.0 or the Tasmanian projects right now since so long as there's a solid backbone of fossil fuel generation, there's no pressing need for that bulk energy storage. Batteries or smaller pumped hydro schemes such as the ones AGL, EA and Origin are looking at could provide peaking capacity more cheaply given the certainty that they can be recharged from whatever wind, solar, coal, gas, hydro or if really necessary diesel generation happens to be available outside the peaks. Discharge during the evening, charge overnight, discharge in the morning, charge during the day. Works so long as there's plenty of coal etc plant still running.

Where the need does arise is next decade noting that there's a huge amount of generating plant set to close between 2029 and 2035 indeed most of the NSW coal-fired power industry will disappear during that period as will a chunk of other generating capacity in various states. There ends the certainty that batteries can be recharged twice a day since there simply won't be enough remaining fossil fuel and storage hydro to do it unless something new is built. That's where Snowy 2.0 etc comes in.....

In practice though we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world where there's a thing known as politics, and there's no guarantee that a proposal to build Snowy 2.0 and to put two additional cables across Bass Strait would be efficiently rubber stamped by parliament in 2025. It could end up in protracted debate and might not even happen at all if the government prefers to instead try and force the construction of a new coal (or nuclear) station in NSW or Vic.

For that reason I'm in favour of doing both of them ASAP. Now or possibly never so get on with it whilst the politics is reasonably favourable. There's no realistic chance they end up useless assets, worst case there's a quantum leap in batteries in the next few years and it turns out that we could have saved a few $ but the pumped hydro won't end up being obsolete as such.

All things considered though, well I'd rather take that risk and in any event, creating employment in regional NSW and north-west Tasmania is of itself not exactly a bad thing to be doing, those regions could do with some jobs, so if it turns out that it could be done more cheaply then it's not as though there won't have been some benefits from the whole thing. Plus it's a very permanent sort of asset, it's not something that'll wear out anytime soon.

The big concern however is timing noting that by the end of 2023 on current plans Torrens Island A (AGL, SA, 480 MW, gas), Osborne (Origin, SA, 180 MW, gas) and Liddell (AGL, NSW, 1680 MW, coal) will all be shut and there's no chance of Snowy 2.0 being built in that time so hopefully some of the smaller projects do go ahead and are done by then.

If you look at what's closing then it's by no means a case of Snowy 2.0 and the Tasmanian projects OR privately owned batteries and small pumped hydros. Rather, we need the whole lot and the question is about the order of building them and to what extent Snowy 2.0 and the Tas projects could be done with gas instead.

SirRumpole said:

That's what I've been saying all along.

Click to expand...

And I agree with you 100%.
The Government is funding Snowy 2.0 and helping fund the Tassie battery, which aids with pumped storage. It is o.k everyone pushing the batteries and they are good, but pumped storage and to a degree hydrogen storage, is going to be the grunt that replaces coal.
The hydro turbines, H2 fired gas turbines and synchronous condensers are going to provide the inertia in a renewable fed grid.Also if they perfect the molten salt storage, the steam turbines will be another source of inertia, which will help with grid stability.
Just my opinion.

Just read your synopsis smurf, absolutely spot on, there would be no way a business model would suggest Snowy2.0 and Tassie battery, but as you say the general public is screaming for an indication that something of substance is being done.
When they are finished and the interconnector between NSW and S.A is completed, NSW will get a huge benefit from Snowy 2.0 and the benefits wont be realised untill well after it is completed and the coal plants start closing.
One would think it will have a marked effect on pushing down the spot price of electricity in NSW, with renewable generation coming from S.A and Snowy 2.0 pumping into the high demand evening market, GT's may have to come off instead of coal.
I could be wrong but that is my guess.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/18/21128205/climate-change-japan-coal-energy-emissions-pikachu
While i do not suggest we build new coal plants here with the sun we have, this or the fact China is still building so many coal stations should maybe make people think.
Are Chinese and Japanese people purposely ready to kill their children?
it is well known NOT that Asians are only looking at short term personal benefits more than long term own country's vs our western 3y mandates politician are future looking....
Out of this:
Forget about nuclear: Japan and Germany even France are closing uranium nuclear plants
Maybe just maybe, Asia is not swallowing the CO2 is causing global warming mantra.
Of course i expect to be slaughtered by the cult leaders for this blasphemy.
It is to be noted that Japan has no domestic coal production

qldfrog said:

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/18/21128205/climate-change-japan-coal-energy-emissions-pikachu
While i do not suggest we build new coal plants here with the sun we have, this or the fact China is still building so many coal stations should maybe make people think.
Are Chinese and Japanese people purposely ready to kill their children?
it is well known NOT that Asians are only looking at short term personal benefits more than long term own country's vs our western 3y mandates politician are future looking....
Out of this:
Forget about nuclear: Japan and Germany even France are closing uranium nuclear plants
Maybe just maybe, Asia is not swallowing the CO2 is causing global warming mantra.
Of course i expect to be slaughtered by the cult leaders for this blasphemy.
It is to be noted that Japan has no domestic coal production

Click to expand...

Interesting story.

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

SirRumpole said:

Interesting story.

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

Click to expand...

Jeez Rumpy, 1000GW of installed coal, with 121GW under construction, that is mind boggling, when you consider the Eastern States has 23GW in total soon to be 21GW with closure Lidell.
Western Australia has 1.7 GW of coal soon to be 1.3GW , it kind of puts it all into perspective.

sptrawler said:

Jeez Rumpy, 1000GW of installed coal, with 121GW under construction, that is mind boggling, when you consider the Eastern States has 23GW in total soon to be 21GW with closure Lidell.
Western Australia has 1.7 GW of coal soon to be 1.3GW , it kind of puts it all into perspective.

Click to expand...

Well they do have a billion people to supply with power.

They are pretty technology neutral, with nuclear and hydro in the mix as well.

SirRumpole said:

Well they do have a billion people to supply with power.

They are pretty technology neutral, with nuclear and hydro in the mix as well.

Click to expand...

I just can't imagine with current technology, how they will replace that amount of generation, with renewables the power output just isn't there yet.
That is 1000,000MW,
If coal is really causing global warming, everyone had better get used to it, because that amount of coal generation wont be getting replaced by solar panels.

sptrawler said:

I just can't imagine with current technology, how they will replace that amount of generation, with renewables the power output just isn't there yet.
That is 1000,000MW,
If coal is really causing global warming, everyone had better get used to it, because that amount of coal generation wont be getting replaced by solar panels.

Click to expand...

Well, the story said that many coal stations were built by "regulation" and the reality is that a lot of them are not in operation.

Don't know if that's true. I doubt if China is too pleased about being dependent on Oz for coal. I think they would prefer self sufficiency in their power supplies.

SirRumpole said:

Well, the story said that many coal stations were built by "regulation" and the reality is that a lot of them are not in operation.

Don't know if that's true. I doubt if China is too pleased about being dependent on Oz for coal. I think they would prefer self sufficiency in their power supplies.

Click to expand...

If they are going to 'urbanise' 100,000,000 people in the next few years, their demand will grow a lot, maybe the Power Stations were built in preparation for the urbanisation it would make sense.

SirRumpole said:

doubt if China is too pleased about being dependent on Oz for coal.

Click to expand...

@SirRumpole china is in no way dependent on Australian coal, its reserves and annual domestic production is massive and dwarfs us
https://images.app.goo.gl/DoyxGB47z63cCzZ36
I am not a coal fanatic but i know the business

China's EV move would make it less reliant on oil, this is an area they want to reduce dependency replacing it with domestic coal and providing work and so social cohesion in their model.
Sometimes tech decision are first based on social issues, in the same way we in the west, close some coal plants here just to please our media shapers and so gain votes in the next poll

On the CO2 question I'm somewhat of a fatalist for the simple reason that China is now burning more coal than everyone else combined and there's not much chance of that coming down in a big way anytime soon.

That's not being racist against China or Chinese people, it's just an observation that the "Western" approach only works so long as most of the world doesn't do it. Trouble is, China in particular not unreasonably decided they wanted what we've got - we did agree to give it to them after all so can't blame them.

What I do see though is an economic opportunity.

There's no chance we're going to beat others with high grade coal, oil, natural gas or uranium. To the extent that we've got any natural advantage in energy at this point in time it's with either lower grade coal or renewables.

With the application of some brains rather than ideology, the potential seems real to generate cheap electricity from renewables and use that as the primary basis for industry. Transform Australia from a low value quarry and service economy into a higher value manufacturing or at least processing one.

This is essentially 20th century Tasmanian style hydro-industrialisation only this time at the national scale and without much hydro but it's otherwise the exact same concept. Ramp up energy production, do it cheaper than anyone else, use it to run industry and that's where the benefits arise.

Noting that it's based on wind and solar which are commonly abbreviated to RE (Renewable Energy) and given the need for a word to describe it which isn't hydro-industrialisation, I've come up with the term "REindustrialisation" which has the added bonus of an appropriate double interpretation.

REindustrialise Australia - sounds like a plan whose time has come given that globalisation has been sputtering since the GFC. There are risks but then there are risks with continuing to rely on fossil fuel and iron ore exports too.

I said early on in this thread, if we are going to do it (go to renewables), we really need to go for it.
I'm of the belief we are actually doing that, the impetus is growing extremely quickly, but we don' want the cart to get in front of the horse IMO.
ATM moment, we are doing extremely well IMO, the fact S.A got ahead of itself has accelerated the requirement for the system to catch up. The litmus test IMO will be, what comes out this year regarding the plan for electric cars and the grid transformation, when that is published IMO it will give an indication of how serious the intent is at a Federal level.
Until then we just have to be gratefull we are well positioned regarding, population, topography and overall costs required.
In reality we are well positioned to make the most of it, as you say smurf.
Just my opinion, but very interesting times, IMO.

Smurf1976 said:

REindustrialise Australia - sounds like a plan whose time has come given that globalisation has been sputtering since the GFC. There are risks but then there are risks with continuing to rely on fossil fuel and iron ore exports too.

Click to expand...

We have the second largest supplies of lithium in the world so surely there is a processing opportunity there ?

Trouble is if our muppet government moan "but it can be done cheaper overseas" and just let the whole raw stuff be exported with no industry here.

This is really where you need some foresight. How did the Japanese and US car industries grow to the size they are now ? Exclusion of competition that's how. Keep the weeds out of the garden until the industries have economies of scale.

Of course that doesn't fit in ideologically with the PC globalised world we now have, but economically it will work.

Smurft I always imagined batteries were primary for faults and sudden load changes (grid system stability) rather than act like a hydro is this correct?

SirRumpole said:

We have the second largest supplies of lithium in the world so surely there is a processing opportunity there ?
.

Click to expand...

Not only lithium, we have nickel, cobalt, graphite, rare earths, everything that is required for a battery electric World.
Why we can't value add, is because it is obviously cheaper to manufacture elsewhere, so if we make our energy cheap again it should with luck reverse the trend.
I certainly hope it works, for the grandkids sake.
Another item that I posted in the CWY thread, which may actually cause a slight increase in manufacturing, is now the Government has legislated all recycling must be done in Australia.
This may force companies to invest in using the recycled product, rather than import pre packaged, eg beer, bottled juices etc, it may end up the major companies have to use Australian recycled packaging, or manufacture their own packaging from recycled product wherever possible.
Otherwise there will be a lot of processed recyclable product sitting around without a home.

SirRumpole said:

Well, the story said that many coal stations were built by "regulation" and the reality is that a lot of them are not in operation.

Don't know if that's true. I doubt if China is too pleased about being dependent on Oz for coal. I think they would prefer self sufficiency in their power supplies.

Click to expand...

They are working on it, they already own a lot of our mines and will be happy to buy the rest just as soon as they are available.

IFocus said:

Smurft I always imagined batteries were primary for faults and sudden load changes (grid system stability) rather than act like a hydro is this correct?

Click to expand...

Under present circumstances with technology and economics, batteries are good for short, sharp peaks but not for bulk storage.

So as a response to a fault or to meet the 6 - 7 pm peak then sure, they can do that most certainly and they do it pretty well. There's a place for them definitely and a good reason why batteries are typically being built with 1 - 2 hours storage capacity.

As a means of bulk storage though, well a dam's a lot cheaper.

It's a bit like saying that a courier with a small van is good for delivering and picking things up in the suburbs and that could be compared to a battery.

If you want to move 500 shipping containers across the country though well a train or at least large trucks are a far cheaper method than driving lots and lots of small vans across the Nullabor each carrying a few boxes.

Batteries can provide the peak output more cheaply than hydro but hydro can do the energy storage more cheaply than a battery. Cheapest solution = combine them in a properly calculated ratio such that the batteries have an assured means of charging outside the peaks use hydro for the bulk storage that it's good at.

The battery I've got at home will certainly even out the minute by minute fluctuations in solar output and household consumption from sunrise to sunset and it'll power the house during the evening. Reality though is that if I want to use all the available solar then on mild sunny days I need someone else to take it and if I want constantly available power on hot summer nights or during the depths of winter then I need someone to be able to sell me some. This requires that someone else has much longer term storage than the battery I've got on the wall.

The other thing needed in all of this is to get smarter with load management and making use of what we've already got. Suffice to say I've poked and prodded a rather large "household name" company over that one today.......