The future of energy generation and storage

sptrawler said:

I think the fact homeowners will want to use their battery storage to feed their own demand, rather than export it to the grid, was brought up in this thread when posters were talking about EV batteries supporting the grid.
Reality catching up, yet again.

Consumer attitudes and earlier coal closures: AEMO mulls scenario tweaks ahead of new grid blueprint

AEMO flags potential forecast tweaks for consumer energy resources, the gas market, coal closures and EV uptake as it prepares input for its next grid blueprint.

reneweconomy.com.au

The three big movers appear to be the way that AEMO is looking at consumer energy resources (CER), the development of the gas market, and the uptake of EVs.

Some of the changes have been imposed on it by the new rule
changes that require it to better integrate consumer sentiment, gas and demand-side factors in the ISP.

CER – which mostly reflects household resources such as rooftop solar, battery storage and EVs – is considered important because, according to prior ISPs, they will likely account for more than half of total generation in years to come as Australian moves from a largely centralised to a distributed grid.

Harnessing that CER is considered crucial, but the latest publication raises questions about how easy and feasible that will be, given that many consumers may be reluctant to hand over control of their own assets to another party.


“Consumers are tentative to share control and coordinate the operation of their consumer energy devices through a third party such as their electricity retailer,” the document says.

Investment in CER, particularly in rooftop solar and batteries, reflects that households place high value on the benefits provided by these systems, and typically install relatively large household systems to improve their self-supply.

The issue is also being addressed by the NEM market review being led by energy economist Tim Nelson, who told the Energy Insiders podcast this week that household batteries – including his – are geared to optimise individual usage rather than providing grid-wide services that could help reduce costs for everyone.

Click to expand...

I think that if homeowners wanted to have more control over their solar/battery systems but didn't want to go entirely off grid, then they may find their grid connection fees hiked in response.

SirRumpole said:

I think that if homeowners wanted to have more control over their solar/battery systems but didn't want to go entirely off grid, then they may find their grid connection fees hiked in response.

Click to expand...

Agree, also I would think that there may be an Australian Govt requirement that home EV chargers have to be V2G enabled, in order to be sold.

That would make it difficult for owners to avoid it, a bit like air conditioners have to be fitted with remote switching devices, so that power system can turn them off.

I think we are a long way from getting EV battery storage integrated into the grid, one obvious issue is can your local distribution system cope with a load of EV batteries and solar feeding back into the grid. When I looked at upgrading my solar, I was going to have to install a export limiting device, to limit how much I could feed in.

There are a lot of inherent technical problems changing a grid, that worked on the principle that power fed one way from the power station out, to one that can feed from the small end back in.

It is somewhat like saying, we are going to get everyone to push water back up their garden hose and fill up the dams.
Sounds good in theory, but difficult to do technically.

sptrawler said:

Agree, also I would think that there may be an Australian Govt requirement that home EV chargers have to be V2G enabled, in order to be sold.

That would make it difficult for owners to avoid it, a bit like air conditioners have to fitted with remote switching devices, so that power system can turn them off.

I think we are a long way from getting EV battery storage integrated into the grid, one obvious issue is can your local distribution system cope with a load of EV batteries and solar feeding back into the grid, when I looked at upgrading my solar I was going to have to install a export limiting device to limit how much I could feed in.

There are a lot of inherent technical problems changing a grid, that worked on the principle that power fed one way from the power station out, to one that can feed from the small end back in.

It is somewhat like saying, we are going to get everyone to push water back up their garden hose and fill up the dams.
Sounds good in theory, but difficult to do technically.

Click to expand...

Yeap the socialist/Stalinist mindset is not dead...
So the retail customer is spending his money buying, installing and maintaining the battery or EV system, taking both risks, effort , low return yet is expected to be sacrificed for the "common(er) good"
"Why would theses filthy rich bastards still have power if i can not?"
And the usual socialist argument following is:
They got a tax deduction, or lower taxes, or CGT discount to buy these so they owe us..

Ultimately the power grid is one single system serving everyone and by virtue of its operation redistributes the efficiencies gained by doing so. That doesn't mean it can't be a capitalist for-profit business, but it does have an inherent dash of socialism embedded into the very nature of it as a shared system for mutual benefit.

In practical terms if we consider a small consumer, eg a single person living by themselves in a small apartment, right up to the largest consumer on the grid (which for the record is Rio Tinto) then both benefit from each others' existence. The economies of scale and improved system load factor brought about by RT's operations benefit the residential user in their apartment. The existence of the small users taken collectively lowers the cost of supply to RT. In other words, everyone wins.

Hence the mining companies where they run generation have never objected to the idea of providing bulk supply for someone to distribute to others.

If you go to Mt Isa well there's one system that serves everyone - mostly mining but households are also supplied from the same source.

Go to north-west WA and ultimately it's big business generating and using most of the electricity, the transmission is mostly owned by mining companies, but Horizon Power, a WA government entity which supplies small consumers, is ultimately just distributing bulk supply obtained from the same system that primarily exists to power the mines.

Once people start thinking individually, that's the surest way to increase costs. Because the key to keeping costs low is firstly scale and secondly it's the benefit of diversity of demand.

Regarding the latter point, in short not everyone will have their individual maximum demand at the same time and that being so, if we put everyone on the same system then the generating capacity required is very much lower than would be required if everyone ran their own separate system. That's a big part of the reason to want the system (grid) to be as large as possible.

For a somewhat extreme example of that, peak demand in Queensland is a full 6 months out of sync with peak demand in Tasmania. Hydro inflows in north Qld are also very much out of sync with those in the Snowy, Victoria and Tasmania. That being so, there's fundamental logic in having them interconnected, it enables the system to work with significantly less capacity than would otherwise be required.

Another is that SA and NSW peak doesn't occur at the same time. Can occur in the same week but it doesn't occur at the exact same time, so interconnection does enable some sharing of generation and reduction in cost.

Once it goes down the track of individualism, here comes a price rise for everyone that's a given. That's partly where it's going wrong, ideology hell bent on doing things that increase costs.

Smurf1976 said:

Ultimately the power grid is one single system serving everyone and by virtue of its operation redistributes the efficiencies gained by doing so. That doesn't mean it can't be a capitalist for-profit business, but it does have an inherent dash of socialism embedded into the very nature of it as a shared system for mutual benefit.

In practical terms if we consider a small consumer, eg a single person living by themselves in a small apartment, right up to the largest consumer on the grid (which for the record is Rio Tinto) then both benefit from each others' existence. The economies of scale and improved system load factor brought about by RT's operations benefit the residential user in their apartment. The existence of the small users taken collectively lowers the cost of supply to RT. In other words, everyone wins.

Hence the mining companies where they run generation have never objected to the idea of providing bulk supply for someone to distribute to others.

If you go to Mt Isa well there's one system that serves everyone - mostly mining but households are also supplied from the same source.

Go to north-west WA and ultimately it's big business generating and using most of the electricity, the transmission is mostly owned by mining companies, but Horizon Power, a WA government entity which supplies small consumers, is ultimately just distributing bulk supply obtained from the same system that primarily exists to power the mines.

Once people start thinking individually, that's the surest way to increase costs. Because the key to keeping costs low is firstly scale and secondly it's the benefit of diversity of demand.

Regarding the latter point, in short not everyone will have their individual maximum demand at the same time and that being so, if we put everyone on the same system then the generating capacity required is very much lower than would be required if everyone ran their own separate system. That's a big part of the reason to want the system (grid) to be as large as possible.

For a somewhat extreme example of that, peak demand in Queensland is a full 6 months out of sync with peak demand in Tasmania. Hydro inflows in north Qld are also very much out of sync with those in the Snowy, Victoria and Tasmania. That being so, there's fundamental logic in having them interconnected, it enables the system to work with significantly less capacity than would otherwise be required.

Another is that SA and NSW peak doesn't occur at the same time. Can occur in the same week but it doesn't occur at the exact same time, so interconnection does enable some sharing of generation and reduction in cost.

Once it goes down the track of individualism, here comes a price rise for everyone that's a given. That's partly where it's going wrong, ideology hell bent on doing things that increase costs.

Click to expand...

but it is seem as normal that society overall rackets an individual user who go, buy install and maintain his own production and or battery system to later on steal his capacity for the common good and basically screw him, ' cause there is always a more urgent need for someone else..insert image of premature babies in a maternity ward during blackout and a kitten in an rspca shelter during the heat wave
Is it cynicism or reality?
. I though we were old enough to know where this leads: USSR model followed by economic collapse;
who are the simpletons who would spend their money on buying something they can not use when needed ...
Capitalism has the answer : reward the said private owner if there is a need for his power: he becomes a rewarded producer;
And decide if it is worth or not his effort to feed power back
But that is not what is proposed is it?
Just mandate , force and more laws and taxes plus a new PS branch to manage and enforce the lot?
Most of the power I produced and sent to the grid was just done for $0 reward last year at the now sold farm.
Never again; there was a limit on how much I could feed back per day at a daily fee and a ridiculous feedback price of a few cents..so people are now setting systems which are not connected anymore, and good on them to use their brain.

Well it sounds as though the walls are closing in, as we have been saying in this thread, they can only keep coal running for so long.
Hopefully the renewable dream comes to fruition sooner, rather than later.


Australia's largest coal-fired power station is unreliable and driving up electricity prices, according to a new report that argues against the viability of keeping coal plants open beyond their scheduled closure dates.

The report from clean energy consultancy group Nexa Advisory questions the wisdom of a New South Wales government deal to extend the life of the Origin Energy-owned Eraring.

Last year, the state's Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the 43-year-old coal plant open for an additional two years, until August 2027.

Eraring is the largest coal-fired power station in the country, supplying NSW with about a quarter of its electricity needs.

Under the agreement, the state government agreed to cover Origin's operational losses of up to $225 million a year from 2025.

Origin Energy has until the end of this month to opt into the underwriting deal for 2025-26.

The NSW government's move to extend the life of Eraring followed concerns that the state would struggle to keep the lights on, after Origin announced it would bring forward the plant's closure by seven years, to August 2025.

While Origin has said Eraring's operations will not be extended beyond April 2029, energy experts say that timeline leaves the door open to further taxpayer support, beyond the current deal that runs until 2027.

sptrawler said:

Well it sounds as though the walls are closing in, as we have been saying in this thread, they can only keep coal running for so long.
Hopefully the renewable dream comes to fruition sooner, rather than later.

MSN

Australia's largest coal-fired power station is unreliable and driving up electricity prices, according to a new report that argues against the viability of keeping coal plants open beyond their scheduled closure dates.

The report from clean energy consultancy group Nexa Advisory questions the wisdom of a New South Wales government deal to extend the life of the Origin Energy-owned Eraring.

Last year, the state's Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the 43-year-old coal plant open for an additional two years, until August 2027.

Eraring is the largest coal-fired power station in the country, supplying NSW with about a quarter of its electricity needs.

Under the agreement, the state government agreed to cover Origin's operational losses of up to $225 million a year from 2025.

Origin Energy has until the end of this month to opt into the underwriting deal for 2025-26.

The NSW government's move to extend the life of Eraring followed concerns that the state would struggle to keep the lights on, after Origin announced it would bring forward the plant's closure by seven years, to August 2025.

While Origin has said Eraring's operations will not be extended beyond April 2029, energy experts say that timeline leaves the door open to further taxpayer support, beyond the current deal that runs until 2027.

Click to expand...

But no other choice now...
Or a brand new efficient coal station..ohh sorry we are in Australia, unless we float one from China, will not happen for a decade, and we all know RE are so much cheaper and better...

sptrawler said:

Well it sounds as though the walls are closing in, as we have been saying in this thread, they can only keep coal running for so long.
Hopefully the renewable dream comes to fruition sooner, rather than later.

MSN

Australia's largest coal-fired power station is unreliable and driving up electricity prices, according to a new report that argues against the viability of keeping coal plants open beyond their scheduled closure dates.

The report from clean energy consultancy group Nexa Advisory questions the wisdom of a New South Wales government deal to extend the life of the Origin Energy-owned Eraring.

Last year, the state's Labor government struck a deal with Origin to keep the 43-year-old coal plant open for an additional two years, until August 2027.

Eraring is the largest coal-fired power station in the country, supplying NSW with about a quarter of its electricity needs.

Under the agreement, the state government agreed to cover Origin's operational losses of up to $225 million a year from 2025.

Origin Energy has until the end of this month to opt into the underwriting deal for 2025-26.

The NSW government's move to extend the life of Eraring followed concerns that the state would struggle to keep the lights on, after Origin announced it would bring forward the plant's closure by seven years, to August 2025.

While Origin has said Eraring's operations will not be extended beyond April 2029, energy experts say that timeline leaves the door open to further taxpayer support, beyond the current deal that runs until 2027.

Click to expand...

So much under the surface that the public is not being told about the energy 'transition'.

We are desperately running out of time, but governments blunder on hoping that things will work themselves out.

They won't.

SirRumpole said:

So much under the surface that the public is not being told about the energy 'transition'.

We are desperately running out of time, but governments blunder on hoping that things will work themselves out.

They won't.

Click to expand...

Or leaving the grenade to the next government ?

SirRumpole said:

So much under the surface that the public is not being told about the energy 'transition'.

We are desperately running out of time, but governments blunder on hoping that things will work themselves out.

They won't.

Click to expand...

I don't think the general public has any idea of how the transition is going, they just expect the Government knows what it is doing, hopefully they do.

The worrying part IMO is, there isn't much from the spiel that was said before the last election, that has come to fruition.

The hydrogen projects have been abandoned, the critical minerals miners for the proposed battery industry are all struggling to stay in business expansion of the associated mineral processing has been abandoned. So this actually shows, that a lot of the plans were just wishful thinking and not based on a thorough analysis of the practicalities and difficulties. Hopefully the grid transition analysis was much more thorough, because unlike hydrogen and battery manufacturing which we don't rely on, the grid is a whole new ball game.

Coal generators are being propped up by the Governments and very little at call firming is being installed, so it is getting close to a situation where there is no plan B if the renewables have an issue, no country in the World has a fully renewable grid exclusively power by solar and wind so a lot of this is suck it and see engineering.

Exciting times, I would love to hear the thoughts of a seasoned power system engineer, as to the confidence in a smooth transition. Maybe @Smurf1976 can give an update on the complexities that are arising.
The underlying feeling from the media releases, seem to indicate that things aren't progressing as quickly as expected.

sptrawler said:

The underlying feeling from the media releases, seem to indicate that things aren't progressing as quickly as expected.

Click to expand...

Someone is going to have to bite a very hard bullet very quicky and hope it doesn't blow their heads off.

I get this feeling that this subject is one that Labor definitely don't want discussed at election time.

SirRumpole said:

Someone is going to have to bite a very hard bullet very quicky and hope it doesn't blow their heads off.

I get this feeling that this subject is one that Labor definitely don't want discussed at election time.

Click to expand...

What I would really like to know, because it is intriguing, is how a fully renewable grid would be re started if it went "black" as in completely dead and had to be started from scratch,

sptrawler said:

What I would really like to know, because it is intriguing, is how a fully renewable grid would be re started if it went "black" as in completely dead and had to be started from scratch,

Click to expand...

From tasmania hydro?
Renewable like wind and solar, battery are a dream pipe for anything more than residential, if we count hydro or even nuclear as RE, that is a different matter.

qldfrog said:

From tasmania hydro?
Renewable like wind and solar, battery are a dream pipe for anything more than residential, if we count hydro or even nuclear as

Click to expand...

With the Bass link being DC coupled that may pose a problem, I'm not sure, @Smurf1976 will know.

It may be that a gas unit will always be available for black starts, W.A had one at KPS, but our grid is a hell of a lot smaller.
Interesting subject IMO.

sptrawler said:

What I would really like to know, because it is intriguing, is how a fully renewable grid would be re started if it went "black" as in completely dead and had to be started from scratch,

Click to expand...

Sun rise all good gas turbines….just a problem about the gas

sptrawler said:

What I would really like to know, because it is intriguing, is how a fully renewable grid would be re started if it went "black" as in completely dead and had to be started from scratch,

Click to expand...

In the Australian context and sticking to the technical side:

NSW easily done with the Snowy Hydro stations. They can't run all the load but they can run a substantial portion for a long enough period (limited by water) and can of course energize the grid to enable start of other generation.

Victoria can do with the AGL hydro stations. These aren't huge but they're enough to energize the system and restore critical loads before restoring other generation and load.

Tasmania there's lots of ways to do it within the state bearing in mind the hydro stations are the majority of generation anyway.

Then connect NSW, Vic and Tas to each other.

SA the easiest option is just do it from Victoria or, once the line's completed, NSW. That's assuming at least one of the lines is intact. In the absence of that, and bearing in mind no significant hydro, at present the answer is gas turbines. If we assume they're removed (100% renewables) then we'd need black start capable batteries and a sufficient charge level reserved for that purpose - it can be done, it's technically possible, but would need to be set up. At the moment though the plan is gas turbines and interconnection with Victoria.

Queensland is more difficult given overall large load, including some highly critical load, and only very limited hydro at present plus interconnection with NSW that's whilst of substantial capacity as such, is fairly small relative to Qld load. The obvious fix is build more hydro, without which Qld isn't going fully renewable that's a given at least with present technology. The hydro being not for base load generation, although there is some potential for that, but rather it's for firming the rest as well as peak power, black start capability, inertia and so on.

Basslink cannot connect to a dead system. So it's not possible to use Tasmanian hydro to black start Victoria and it's not possible to use anything in Victoria to black start Tasmania. Both systems need to be live before the link can operate. That said, it can cope with differing frequency at both ends - it's not critical that both systems are perfectly stable, only that they're energized as such, and Basslink does have the ability to operate in a manner that responds to frequency. Eg Tasmanian generation can be used to maintain system frequency on the mainland so long as physical power transfer remains within the capabilities of the link.

In terms of restoration speed, Tasmania would almost certainly win the race and there's a few reasons for that. Hydro is one key but there's also very good documentation and rehearsals. As in shut down a power station, disconnect external supply, and actually black start it back on for real as a test and training exercise. Also a lot of options to split the system into sections and start each one individually (but simultaneously) if there's any concern that something might be damaged, thus being able to restore supply at least to the majority of consumers whilst the suspected damage is investigated.

Other states there's less option to split into sub-regions as a means of speeding it up, also less ability to just leave parts of it out if there's any concern about damage, and also can't run the whole lot from hydro so other generation simply has to be brought on. Plus a greater number of consumers over a physically larger area and a more complex transmission system.

For WA and NT, well something would have to be built. Eg batteries with black start capability can be done, indeed AGL has built one at Broken Hill which proves it, but it'd all need to be built. Bearing in mind no existing hydro in the main systems and no interconnection to anywhere else.

Thanks @Smurf1976 I could have asked @IFocus but I thought he knows SFA like me. Lol
Sorry IFocus, payback, that's all.

Another question @Smurf1976 , if you don't mind answering.
How will domestic solar/ inverter installations cope with high fault current local protection?
It is only from a personal technical perspective, so PM is available, if you want or not.

sptrawler said:

Another question @Smurf1976 , if you don't mind answering.
How will domestic solar/ inverter installations cope with high fault current local protection?
It is only from a personal technical perspective, so PM is available, if you want or not.

Click to expand...

Not something I've personally been involved with looking at but I'd be more concerned about the opposite, how fault current protection will cope with solar.

Eg a long distribution feeder with a lot of solar such that it's normally an exporter to the rest of the system at midday. Now if a fault develops which isn't a dead short but it's a fault nonetheless well I'm foreseeing that plausibly going undetected at least for long enough to start a fire.

In a conventional arrangement any given distribution line has load only, no generation, and if a fault occurs then the excessive current draw should result in a trip. But if there's a lot of solar connected to it then at least plausibly the resulting current draw isn't excessive, it's within normal bounds since the solar's actually feeding it, and therein lies a problem in that protection may not operate as intended.

It'd need a freak occurrence involving a partial fault that doesn't trip the solar inverters or line protection but I'm thinking it probably is possible simply because so much generation is on what's normally the load side. If it is, then someday it'll happen when nobody's expecting it.

Smurf1976 said:

Not something I've personally been involved with looking at but I'd be more concerned about the opposite, how fault current protection will cope with solar.

Eg a long distribution feeder with a lot of solar such that it's normally an exporter to the rest of the system at midday. Now if a fault develops which isn't a dead short but it's a fault nonetheless well I'm foreseeing that plausibly going undetected at least for long enough to start a fire.

In a conventional arrangement any given distribution line has load only, no generation, and if a fault occurs then the excessive current draw should result in a trip. But if there's a lot of solar connected to it then at least plausibly the resulting current draw isn't excessive, it's within normal bounds since the solar's actually feeding it, and therein lies a problem in that protection may not operate as intended.

It'd need a freak occurrence involving a partial fault that doesn't trip the solar inverters or line protection but I'm thinking it probably is possible simply because so much generation is on what's normally the load side. If it is, then someday it'll happen when nobody's expecting it.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that domestic solar would not be able to feed a fault having no real capacity and would probably have the smarts to remove itself off-line for its own protection in that situation.
Probably depends on the quality of protection.