The future of energy generation and storage

SirRumpole said:

Potential sale of hydrogen by SA government to Whyalla steelworks.

SA government signs hydrogen deal with Whyalla steelworks in move away from coal

The South Australian government has signed an agreement to sell hydrogen to a company that owns the Whyalla steelworks in the state's Upper Spencer Gulf.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

Smurf1976 said:

That's always been the reason for Whyalla being the location of the hydrogen project.

If it wasn't for that, metropolitan Adelaide in the vicinity of outer harbour would make far more sense in every other way. But the steelworks needs hydrogen so there's an advantage in locating it there.

Click to expand...

At least it is a step in the right direction, a bit of a leap of faith, but it has to be done if the technology is going to be proven.
IMO well done S.A.

Looks like everyone is getting in on the action, all I can say is, about time.


Queensland has unveiled a five-year, $571 million Battery Industry Strategy, setting out a plan to establish a battery supply chain in the state, spanning from materials supply to advanced manufacturing, associated technologies and recycling.

Announced on Thursday, the strategy will draw on $360 million of existing funding, while adding a further $210 million added this week to build capabilities across the value chain, drive development of battery standards, and testing.

Part of the new funding includes $105 million towards the establishment of the Australian Battery Industrialisation Centre that is being co-funded by federal government and developed in partnership with a consortium of Queensland Universities.

In announcing the new strategy Queensland premier Steven Miles made special mention of flow battery technology – an alternative to lithium-ion that promises the sort of longer duration energy storage needed to help support the shift to renewables.

Already, the state is home to local zinc-bromide flow battery manufacturer Redflow, which is based out of Brisbane, but currently does most of its business overseas. Most recently it has been particularly successful in the US, due to policies that favour uptake of non-lithium battery solutions.

Minister for energy Mick de Brenni says the new five-year plan will also work to diversify the technology used to improve battery safety and ensure that Queensland can make the most of its “rich mineral reserves.”

“Batteries are critical for the energy transition, and if we’re going to use them – we should make them,” de Brenni said on Thursday.

“This investment will be welcomed by the manufacturing sector, the resources sector, by climate advocates and anyone who is looking to save money on their household or business budget.

“Setting up a Queensland made battery industry means that soon every Queenslander will be able to store our plentiful and free sunshine and wind resources, to be used in their home and slash money off their bills,” de Brenni said.

Reality starting to kick in, with process industries.



Rio Tinto CE Jakob Stausholm told investors on the company’s earnings call last night (Wednesday night Australia time) that the company needs to secure competitive low carbon “firming” power to support its big investments in wind and solar, and make its smelters and refineries competitive in the international market.

The three big smelters and refineries in Queensland are currently powered by coal, but this is no longer tenable in an international market focused on low, or zero carbon products, so Rio Tinto is trying to secure reliable, low carbon solution by the end of the decade.

“We’ve done two things so far. We are building the biggest solar farm in Australia and we are with building the biggest wind farm,” Stausholm said, in reference to its deal with the 1.1 GW Upper Calliope solar project announced in January, and the 1.4 GW Bungapan wind project on Wednesday.

“But ultimately the next step has to come from the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth, namely to offer competitively priced firming power,” he said.

“And if we can’t get that to work then we don’t have long term solutions for our Pacific aluminium business (which includes the Boyne Island smelter, and the Yarwun and Queensland alumina refineries).

“We want to protect the Australian business, but we have to bear in mind that it is not an Australian business. It’s an export business that competes with our aluminium in Canada that competes.

“It’s an export business that competes with our aluminium in Canada that competes with aluminium from the Middle East everywhere.

“So we need to make sure that it becomes competitive. But it is also probably the biggest manufacturing assets remaining in Australia. So … I would argue (that as) we are in the same boat (as the government) we should be interested in finding a viable pathway forward for those assets.”

Rio Tinto has said that it will need around 1 GW of dispatchable capacity to power its refineries, and so far has locked in more than 2.2 GW (its share of the output of the two wind and solar assets).

It could boost that solar and wind capacity to up to 4 GW, but its clear preference is to lock in some dispatchable capacity, be it in the form of battery storage, peaking gas plants, or existing infrastructure.

It is looking for government support on this component, because while wind and solar is relatively low cost, dispatchable capacity is less so.

“Renewable energies are less stable and more complex to firm up,” Stausholm said in response to a later question, adding that batteries and gas peaking plants, and other existing infrastructure on the grid could provide the capacity.

Andrew Forrest accuses nuclear proponents of trying to perpetuate fossil fuels.

SirRumpole said:

Andrew Forrest accuses nuclear proponents of trying to perpetuate fossil fuels.

Nuclear 'bulldust': Forrest slams Coalition and fossil fuel industry for promoting 'fairy godmother' approach to clean energy

In a searing Press Club speech, mining and clean energy magnate Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest slams the Coalition and fossil fuel lobby for using nuclear energy "bulldust" to delay the transition to a zero emissions economy.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

He has a lot of skin in the renewable game and you have to commend his passion, but even he has to realise that there has to be a plan B if renewables can't or don't manage to carry the load.
We are fast getting to the point where it has to be decided, do we pin everything on renewables, if that is the case a hell of a lot more money I mean eye watering amounts of money ha sto thrown at it.
Massive wind farms, massive solar farms, huge amounts of battery storage and pumped hydro has to be done and soon.
There is no point getting to 2035 which is just over 10 years away and saying $hit we aren't going to be able to install enough generation and storage to meet demand and meanwhile all the power stations are falling in a heap.
It is about time Twiggy, Bowen and the boys explained how much needs to be installed in the next 10 years, rather than just making holistic quotes about the naysayers, the problem is people aren't as silly as the Govt and Twiggy think.
So stop treating them as stupid and tell them the truth, maybe then everyone will get onboard, but maybe the reality is that big that they don't believe they will be able to sell it.
Time will tell.
I just wish they would get on with it and stop poncing on, do they think a fairy godmother is going to wave a magic wand and get this all happening? Twiggy in @SirRumpole ABC post says Quote:
"Can we just stop all the bickering and politicking and get on with it?"

Well actually no one is bickering and the renewables have the floor, it is just no one is pouring the billions in quick enough to make the transition, that is the real issue.
Where are the second, third and fourth Snowy 2.0 going, when are they going to start, when are the massive solar and wind farms going to be deployed, how long before the 30 or 40GW of grid batteries will be supplied and installed?
They must have some idea, but no plan has been presented to the public in plain english, so people get worried, simple really.


Mining billionaire Andrew Forrest has slammed the Coalition for advocating nuclear energy as the way to modernise the electricity grid, calling the idea “bulldust” and warning it is too expensive compared to wind and solar power.

Forrest, whose private company is spending billions of dollars on wind and solar farms, said politicians were “masquerading as leaders” on the proposal for nuclear power when the idea would only be used to extend the life of existing coal-fired power stations.

The remarks come as an exclusive survey reveals that 36 per cent of voters want nuclear energy but 23 per cent oppose it and 15 per cent are undecided.
The new findings, in the Resolve Political Monitor conducted for this masthead, also show that 27 per cent of voters do not have strong opinions on nuclear power and are open to the government investigating the policy.

Forrest is planning to invest $20 billion in renewable energy by 2030 through his private company, Squadron Energy,

sptrawler said:

It is about time Twiggy, Bowen and the boys explained how much needs to be installed in the next 10 years, rather than just making holistic quotes about the naysayers, the problem is people aren't as silly as the Govt and Twiggy think.

Click to expand...

Yes and the other side has to come up with some costed plans for nuclear instead of waving their own wand around.

Meanwhile , in the US, a leading SMR project has been cancelled.

Small nuclear reactors have been used for decades in naval ships and submarines.

Why is it so hard to develop an SMR for land-based civilian use?

SirRumpole said:

Yes and the other side has to come up with some costed plans for nuclear instead of waving their own wand around.

Meanwhile , in the US, a leading SMR project has been cancelled.

Small modular nuclear reactor that was hailed by Coalition as future cancelled due to rising costs

Opposition climate and energy spokesperson had pointed to SMRs as a solution to Australia’s energy needs, but experts raise questions over price tag

www.theguardian.com

Click to expand...

From what I've read, the discussion is all about having a discussion, I don't think costings or any thing above the conceptual discussion is being said.
It is really weird, the scare mongering is all about pie in the sky stuff, but it would be remiss of all politicians not to look at all options and possibilities.
At the moment it is like kids sitting there with their fingers in their ears saying we're not listening.
If, as Europe is starting to realise, it becomes the only viable option, it makes sense to be at least across the problems that would have to be faced and overcome.
It is no different to the nuclear subs, the diesels made zero sense, so we move to nuclear. Who knows in 10 years time there may be new technology that makes the nuclear subs redundant, that doesn't mean you don't move down that track at the moment.
As I said in the earlier post, people get nervous because of lack of certainty and at the moment the renewable story is looking like a lot of rhetoric and not a lot of planning, so people start thinking well what is plan B if this turns to manure.
SMR are like EV's were 20 years ago, pie in the sky, now things have changed, 15 years ago renewables were a waste of space, now.
It's funny how the renewable sector say that he price of batteries, the price of renewables, the price of technology will go down massively, yet they say the price of H2 and nuclear goes up.
Funny that, except for twiggy, he says the price of H2 will go down but the price of nuclear goes up, always be cautious where vested interests are concerned.
There isn't much money for local companies in nuclear.
We all hope renewables can do it, but there has to be a plan B.

Ferret said:

Small nuclear reactors have been used for decades in naval ships and submarines.

Click to expand...

Some of them are reasonably large. Eg from memory the USS Carl Vinson, an aircraft carrier, has two reactors and generates about 190MW so about 95MWe each.

Similar size reactors can certainly be built on land indeed it's been done in the past eg the first UK nuclear stations used 50MW units.

Here in Australia every state has at some point seriously looked at it. NSW looked at 600MW and Victoria looked at 500MW but in Tasmania the thinking was 120 or 200MW units and places like NT it would've been tiny machines. Technically all very doable, sites were identified and so on.

Some of those sites did end up being of some use by the way. NT later put a gas-fired power station on it so that's the closest thing and the only other to have generated electricity is Tasmania with a wind farm built very near the site. NSW got as far as building a car park, the others to my knowledge went nowhere.

Those were all ideas for conventional reactors however. Small but not SMR's since they'd be built on site, they wouldn't have been built in a factory, and they'd have needed skilled nuclear people to operate them.

The idea with SMR's is more that it's a factory built device that any random company needing steam or hot water can use, no nuclear engineering expertise required. So it's not just about electricity utilities but it also extends to other users, right down to things like hotels using them to provide hot water.

Personally I've serious doubts about the "holy grail" being achieved in terms of mass manufacturing and letting pretty much anyone have one. More realistically I'm expecting it'll get to the point of something built in a factory but not true mass production, with the use case being limited to electricity generation plus the absolute largest industrial facilities but nothing smaller than that.

Agree 100% @Smurf1976 , it will be a long way in the future, if at all. But as time passes and fossil fuel gets phased out, a lot of very industrialised countries will probably need them for firming but who knows what technology will be available in 50 years time.

This was an interesting article on the state of play in Australia.

Ferret said:

Small nuclear reactors have been used for decades in naval ships and submarines.

Why is it so hard to develop an SMR for land-based civilian use?

Click to expand...

Why not just build a submarine/ship and anchor it off the land to connect into the grid?
Ultimate portability.
Mick

"there has to be a Plan B" ???
At this point in the technological transition with periskite lifting solar to electricty transformation to above 30% on top of what aready is the cheapest form of energy generation in human history. And you can make the stuff at home yourself. Utility scale battery installations dropping 50% perW/h in the last 5 years and even back then projects were 30% plus ROI. Silicon carbide power electronics doing it better cheaper and faster as every day goes by........ ( my view is Wolfspeed WOLF have about hit there bottom US $24-25)
Then there's wind.

If Nuclear is a 'Plan B' it's the same as towing a trading clipper out of the doldrums with blokes in a row boat. But less ecomonically efficient.
The sort of thing that might have to be done, but not the position you want to get yourself into in the first place.

Towing blokes out of the doldrums; feels like it has broarder resonance.

sptrawler said:

From what I've read, the discussion is all about having a discussion, I don't think costings or any thing above the conceptual discussion is being said.
It is really weird, the scare mongering is all about pie in the sky stuff, but it would be remiss of all politicians not to look at all options and possibilities.
At the moment it is like kids sitting there with their fingers in their ears saying we're not listening.
If, as Europe is starting to realise, it becomes the only viable option, it makes sense to be at least across the problems that would have to be faced and overcome.
It is no different to the nuclear subs, the diesels made zero sense, so we move to nuclear. Who knows in 10 years time there may be new technology that makes the nuclear subs redundant, that doesn't mean you don't move down that track at the moment.
As I said in the earlier post, people get nervous because of lack of certainty and at the moment the renewable story is looking like a lot of rhetoric and not a lot of planning, so people start thinking well what is plan B if this turns to manure.
SMR are like EV's were 20 years ago, pie in the sky, now things have changed, 15 years ago renewables were a waste of space, now.
It's funny how the renewable sector say that he price of batteries, the price of renewables, the price of technology will go down massively, yet they say the price of H2 and nuclear goes up.
Funny that, except for twiggy, he says the price of H2 will go down but the price of nuclear goes up, always be cautious where vested interests are concerned.
There isn't much money for local companies in nuclear.
We all hope renewables can do it, but there has to be a plan B.

‘Renewables’ Failure Rekindles German Love Affair With Nuclear & Coal-Fired Power

The fact that consumers want power as and when they need it, at prices they can afford, has scuttled Germany’s grand wind and solar ‘transition’. This is one of the stories that the MSM has been ru…

stopthesethings.com

Click to expand...

Germany, population 83 million, land area 360,000 km2

Australia, population 27 million, land area 7.8 million km2.

So Australia has a lot more places it can put renewables without disturbing people (except our serpent brothers) while Germany needs compact power stations, so it's not surprising to me that Germany went back to coal and nuclear.

SirRumpole said:

Germany, population 83 million, land area 360,000 km2

Australia, population 27 million, land area 7.8 million km2.

So Australia has a lot more places it can put renewables without disturbing people (except our serpent brothers) while Germany needs compact power stations, so it's not surprising to me that Germany went back to coal and nuclear.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.
We are probably one of the only western countries that will feasibly be able to do it, the only issue we have is equipment supply and cost issues but they aren't insurmountable.
I'm pretty sure @Smurf mentioned a feasibility study has been carried out and it is possible, the issue for us is time before the system becomes unreliable due to aging plant IMO.
Even nuclear is a finite resource, so it isn't a long term answer, IMO the issue is everything has to be considered on its merit until a true renewable energy source with enough generating capacity is discovered.
We are at the very early stages of the journey and enthusiasm appears to be overiding a cautionary measured approach IMO.
It will be an interesting journey and those in charge know they can't let this implode, even the champions of the cause are asking for the Government to supply firming capacity, so it isn't as though the issue is being ignored.

SirRumpole said:

So Australia has a lot more places it can put renewables without disturbing people (except our serpent brothers) while Germany needs compact power stations, so it's not surprising to me that Germany went back to coal and nuclear.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I agree with you, but when I look at the state of play regarding deployment in areas like W.A and Victoria, the rhetoric doesn't seem to align with the reality.
Victoria is going on about shutting down Loy Yang, then you look at the deployment of solar farms in Victoria and it all becomes confusing.
From this website.




These in W.A have been in for quite a long time, so new large capacity solar in the SWIS doesn't seem to be ramping up as quickly as I would expect.

Macquarie Group will sell its share of the $55 billion flagship for Australia’s dream of green hydrogen exports, likely leaving BP with a 64 per cent stake in a vast project to export clean fuel from WA’s Pilbara.

The Australian Renewable Energy Hub, which sprawls 6500 square kilometres of northern WA, plans to install over a decade more than 1700 wind turbines and enough solar panels to produce 26 gigawatts of emissions-free electricity – nine times more than Australia’s largest power station, Eraring in NSW.
A BP spokesman said as the operator and major shareholder, it was perfectly poised to buy Macquarie’s stake. Macquarie Group did not respond to questions from this masthead.
The size and target market for the ambitious project has changed several times over the past seven years.

In 2017, two international energy project developers InterContinental Energy and CWP Global launched the Asian Renewable Energy Hub to send six gigawatts of emissions-free power to Indonesia through a subsea cable.
Loading
Macquarie joined in 2019, when the capacity of the project was doubled to also sell power to WA’s iron ore-rich Pilbara region to the south.
The participants later doubled down again, increasing the size of the project to its current 26 gigawatts of solar panels and wind turbines to produce green ammonia for export, and dumping supplying power to Indonesia from their plans.
The now-$US36 billion ($55 billion) project needs vast banks of electrolysers run by renewable power to split hydrogen from water sourced from a desalination plant.

That hydrogen, a difficult-to-transport gas, would then be combined with nitrogen from the atmosphere to make liquid ammonia for export. Its eventual production of 1.6 million tonnes a year of green hydrogen would allow nine million tonnes of ammonia to be made.
Should the sale of Macquarie’s stake to BP be completed, the $150 billion energy giant will have a 64 per cent stake and project founders InterContinental Energy and CWP Global a 26 per cent and 10 per cent stake, respectively.

Ferret said:

Small nuclear reactors have been used for decades in naval ships and submarines.

Why is it so hard to develop an SMR for land-based civilian use?

Click to expand...

The smaller reactors on warships still have the capability of a runaway out of control reaction (China syndrome) in theory SMR's not so much.

Even though they are smaller still extreme cost to start at zero to build one, probably 30 to 40 years to get one going... maybe, no one will give away details or design of a warship nuclear reactor and its control systems.

Next problem with nuclear any thing is fuel we don't have the technology to make the stuff (30 to 40 years development) again no one will give it to us (technology) so would need to buy and transport (back to the cost problem) then dispose all of which leads you straight to not in my backyard syndrome.

SMR's realistically will be just 5 years away for the next 20 to 30 years.

Gas was always the interim energy as we move from coal to renewables (solar, wind, hydro, pumped hydro, SMR's, fusion reactors etc) unfortunately corporations now run Australia and have said firmly the gas doesn't belong to Australians.

Thats except for the Western Australian Labor Party's premier Alan Carpenter who called their bluff, the state now has 15% reserved.

The whole thing is back on the table as various billionaires are looking the develop onshore fields to make a motza and want no part of it.

Ferret said:

Small nuclear reactors have been used for decades in naval ships and submarines.

Why is it so hard to develop an SMR for land-based civilian use?

Click to expand...

The two main issues facing SMR's are, licensing and efficiency.
There are huge amounts of safety and legislative issues with getting licensing permission.

Also they are having a lot of problems with getting reasonable thermal efficiency at the SMR size up to 300MW, with the military that isn't a problem, when you are trying to make money it is.
Nuclear is expensive to build but reasonably cheap to run, if they can't get the thermal efficiency up, they can't compete.

As IFocus says gas is the easiest and most practical way forward, even if they debate nuclear, they will still find gas is the way to go.
However as smurf has mentioned, there isn't a huge amount of that and it is still a fossil fuel creating emmissions, so there will always be a changing landscape on the energy mix IMO.

sptrawler said:

I'm pretty sure @Smurf mentioned a feasibility study has been carried out and it is possible, the issue for us is time before the system becomes unreliable due to aging plant IMO.

Click to expand...

Yep, from a technical perspective 100% renewable can be done provided that nobody kicks up too much fuss about deep storage, hydro, being part of it.

Quite a few have crunched the numbers there on the engineering side and it's doable subject to that condition. Noting that some of what's needed wouldn't be without a degree of controversy due to various impacts.

IFocus said:

Gas was always the interim energy as we move from coal to renewables (solar, wind, hydro, pumped hydro, SMR's, fusion reactors etc) unfortunately corporations now run Australia and have said firmly the gas doesn't belong to Australians.

Thats except for the Western Australian Labor Party's premier Alan Carpenter who called their bluff, the state now has 15% reserved.

Click to expand...

The big problem with gas is the vast majority of it's been sold.

Some will argue that more will be found, and I agree with that as such, but try getting someone to sign a contract to sell that gas, at a fixed price, before they've found it and they really start squirming. At best it might be available someday but it's not available as a basis for any sort of major commitment today is the problem.

Without intending to be intentionally provocative, being aware this probably will raise a few eyebrows, there's a different company which is at present looking at coal gasification as the workaround. Bearing in mind they're looking at taking that all the way, turning the coal into CH4 so that is methane aka natural gas.

More broadly though, it'll take a while to ripple through but somewhat of a political earthquake is going on with all this at the moment in a big way. There's more to it but as a starting point:


Noting that whilst the details of solutions differ, both Labor and Liberal in Tasmania are saying enough is enough, let's get on with it. Both are actually pretty similar there and likewise the business lobby and the unions are standing together. Not an unprecedented situation in Tasmania for that to occur but it's one that historically has produced action. And whilst they're unsurprisingly not so keen on some of the details, the Greens have certainly acknowledged there are problems needing to be addressed.

There are things afoot on SA too and the broad thinking is similar. It's time to end the games and nonsense and get things done.