The future of energy generation and storage

Small modular Carbon capture and storage.

SirRumpole said:

Small modular Carbon capture and storage.

Click to expand...

When in China, i was toying with such a scam, sell a usb powered device with bubbling water, a few colour changing lights aka lava lamp and sell cartridge of "natural" soda lime..so ongoing sales a la inkjet printers
A 100g cartridge absorbing 26l of CO2
So you can get netzero at home.
Only the dumbest would be takers but it seems the market is quite big.
My ethics prevented me to go ahead.
Some people are less ethical than me, and they are probably right as applying ethics should be restricted to people deserving it...

qldfrog said:

When in China, i was toying with such a scam, sell a usb powered device with bubbling water, a few colour changing lights aka lava lamp and sell cartridge of "natural" soda lime..so ongoing sales a la inkjet printers
A 100g cartridge absorbing 26l of CO2
So you can get netzero at home.
Only the dumbest would be takers but it seems the market is quite big.
My ethics prevented me to go ahead.
Some people are less ethical than me, and they are probably right as applying ethics should be restricted to people deserving it...

Click to expand...

The presenter of that video is a well regarded engineer, so I doubt if she was perpetrating a scam, but that's not to say that something that works on a small scale would work at a larger scale.

Caveat Emptor.

SirRumpole said:

The presenter of that video is a well regarded engineer, so I doubt if she was perpetrating a scam, but that's not to say that something that works on a small scale would work at a larger scale.

Caveat Emptor.

Click to expand...

She works at reducing co2, what would you call a scientist whose aim would be to increase desertification and reduce forests in 2025?
Yet...
The scam is not in the device not capturing co2, i assume it does , my bubbler does too BTW, but in selling the concept to ignorant buyers.

Sodium fuel cell by MIT.

How much was hydrogen part of Bowen's RE plan?




Australia’s largest green hydrogen project has been terminated, with the collapse of the international consortium developing the $12.5bn plant and pipeline in Gladstone.

The quiet scrapping of the Central Queensland Hydrogen Project (CQ-H2) follows the axing or lack of progress in a near-$100bn pipeline of ambitious proposals in the emerging green hydrogen sector, still being championed by Anthony Albanese as a future export industry and to meet net-zero emissions targets.

Queensland’s state-owned Stanwell Corporation, the lead developer of the Gladstone site, has confirmed to The Australian it has ended all involvement in the project, which was proposed and promoted by former Labor premiers Annastacia Palaszczuk and Steven Miles.

Sean K said:

How much was hydrogen part of Bowen's RE plan?

View attachment 202645


Australia’s largest green hydrogen project has been terminated, with the collapse of the international consortium developing the $12.5bn plant and pipeline in Gladstone.

The quiet scrapping of the Central Queensland Hydrogen Project (CQ-H2) follows the axing or lack of progress in a near-$100bn pipeline of ambitious proposals in the emerging green hydrogen sector, still being championed by Anthony Albanese as a future export industry and to meet net-zero emissions targets.

Queensland’s state-owned Stanwell Corporation, the lead developer of the Gladstone site, has confirmed to The Australian it has ended all involvement in the project, which was proposed and promoted by former Labor premiers Annastacia Palaszczuk and Steven Miles.

Click to expand...

How many billions in smoke like that, not only here but in the whole west....
For memory,Qld spent one billion on a CO2 capture program which got axed a few years ago...
Why is our western society to keen on suicide?
And if less naive, where is the money?

qldfrog said:

How many billions in smoke like that, not only here but in the whole west....
For memory,Qld spent one billion on a CO2 capture program which got axed a few years ago...
Why is our western society to keen on suicide?
And if less naive, where is the money?

Click to expand...

I asked google AI how much we've spent, or intending to spend, on hydrogen.

The Pilbara:

AI
"Several ASX-listed companies are involved in gas development in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, including Woodside Energy Group, Chevron, and APA Group. Woodside is a major player with the North West Shelf Project and the Scarborough Energy Project, while Chevron operates the Wheatstone Project. APA Group is expanding its presence in the Pilbara's power generation sector, including gas and solar assets."

APA talks role of gas in Pilbara

Many years ago I wrote on Snowy 2.0 in this thread, summarising along the lines that it would be a white elephant. Conversely, I have no problem where simple hydro storage projects can be viably established.

The idea of a big battery is ceratinly compelling, even today in the right circumstances. But Snowy2 was never properly costed, had an ambitious timetable, required substantial infrustructure to support it - including large wind and solar farms - and had huge geological unknowns, the latter never really explained. Furthermore, its recoupment cost would only be realised with a guaranteed grid feed-in share which now must rise because total project costs are nearing $25B: Snowy 2.0. Will the Auditor-General get snowed again?

Countering the need for Snowy2 was the well established trend of annual declining costs for RE+Storage. So let's look at where this sits today.

China leads the way in every area of RE+Storage and a new record low price was set recently when more than 70 bidders competed for 25 gigawatt hours of capacity. A stunning price of $US51.59/kWh was set for a four hour battery (the average was $US59c/kWh), which Energy Storage News says represents a 30 per cent drop from 2024 levels.

Just remember that Sodium ion storage batteries have not yet come into play, and their costs at scale will be much lower than the LFP prices above.

Yes @rederob all true, as is the increasing problem of lack of renewable energy available, or indeed any spare capacity.

So the issue really isn't about Snowy2 being a white elephant, the issue is from what I've read we need another 5 Snowy size elephants, so it will certainly throw up some interesting outcomes as shown below.



The mill's new owner, businessman David Marriner, wants to cut off its coal connection and bring in electric boilers.

The switch to electric would cut the plant's on-site emissions by about 95 per cent — roughly the same as taking one third of Tasmania's cars off the road.

There is just one problem — getting the extra electricity needed.

Mr Marriner said he had been told by state-owned power company Hydro Tasmania that it could not supply him with power from the Tasmanian grid, due to a lack of availability.

Instead, it would have to import electricity from Victoria, which Mr Marriner said was offered a much higher price.

rederob said:

Many years ago I wrote on Snowy 2.0 in this thread, summarising along the lines that it would be a white elephant.

Click to expand...

Based on the figures you posted, USD59 per kWh, SH2 would need to cost AUD 31 billion to break even. Anything below that it's cheaper up front.

But then we need to consider two other issues.

First is lifespan. SH2 once built is effectively permanent whereas batteries suffer cyclic wear which gives them a finite life an order of magnitude shorter than pumped hydro. So we have to build them over and over, versus hydro being built once only.

Second is execution and I'll readily acknowledge SH2 has not been executed at all well as a project.

I'll argue however that the failures in execution aren't fundamental to the technology so much as they're a product of "the Australian way" aka the denial of reality. In that sense it has a lot in common with the housing crisis, cost of living crisis, healthcare crisis, crime crisis and every other thing being referred to by mainstream media as a crisis. A consequence not of any fundamental flaw in the underlying objective but rather in the way it's being approached.

First rule of civil construction = if at all possible build it on the ground not under it. As anyone who's done even the most basic civil works is all too aware, underground is where unexpected things go wrong.

Second rule = if you absolutely must build it underground, make very sure you've done comprehensive geological survey work before deciding how to build it.

Third rule = remember there's a reason mining companies don't just drive big tunnel boring machines underground. TBM's are no panacea, not even slightly, and good old manual methods will often be required.

Plus the rule of government works in general = don't engage contractors to do anything you're incapable of properly supervising.

The execution of SH2 has broken all of those rules as do most things in Australia. Hence they keep going wrong and we've got similar themes cropping up in all manner of unrelated areas.

For much the same underlying reasons costs are blowing out on road and rail projects in Sydney and Melbourne. For much the same reasons there are businesses that hop from one government funded scheme to another, whatever's throwing around money with no effective auditing they'll be right on it.

Or to be really pointy - for the same reasons the Tasmanian Government bought two ships with nowhere to dock them, then realised it needed to spend $90 million to fix that problem, and has now budgeted $493 million for the fix. That's the cost for the dock only, not the ships, and the saga isn't finished yet...

What we really need to fix in Australia is our woeful approach to getting things done. Adopt the sound principle of "lead, follow or get out of the * way".

* Insert your choice of expletive there.

And for heaven's sake don't let someone with no geological or engineering qualifications make civil engineering decisions on public infrastructure. Just don't do that, really do not do that. That one isn't a hydro project for the record.

sptrawler said:

the increasing problem of lack of renewable energy available, or indeed any spare capacity.

Click to expand...

Let's just to say I know the details of the paper mill issue a little too well......

No.5 boiler was built specifically to use Tasmanian coal and all was fine so long as there was a supply of coal mined in Tasmania.

Trouble is the only company that mines coal in the state hasn't been keen to invest in production, supply's become inadequate, and now the mill is using exclusively coal mined in NSW and shipped to Tasmania.

First and most obvious problem there is cost.

Second problem is the calorific value doesn't match although that can be worked around. Coal mined in Tas is typically 24.2 MJ/kg sub-bituminous, versus 26 MJ/kg bituminous from NSW.

Third problem is the size is different. Tas coal has been processed to a smaller size than NSW coal, and the boiler's firing system can't cope with the larger size pieces of coal. So they've been manually crushing it up to make it work - needless to say that's really not a great solution, but it beats having no fuel at all.

The idea of electrification's been around for a while now and in theory it's very doable. The mill does have 110kV transmission to the site and a present load of about 95MW and needs another ~60MW to replace coal.

Trouble is the market, the financial side of it, makes that rather hard in practice. Even if supply is physically available, there's the problem of a large number of owners within the NEM and trying to tie down the price. For obvious reasons Hydro Tas isn't keen on taking on net short position since that'd expose HT to large financial losses if the market price spikes in Victoria. Noting the risk of physical supply shortfall greatly increases the chance of that actually happening.

Gas? Well that's about twice the price of the coal they're buying from NSW, not including pipeline charges. So probably not.

What really needs to happen is to fix the broken market, stop the price tail wagging the physical supply dog. In practice I expect federal money will be used to prop up the mill.

Smurf1976 said:

In practice I expect federal money will be used to prop up the mill.

Click to expand...

And the smelters and the furnaces.
Interesting times.

sptrawler said:

And the smelters and the furnaces.
Interesting times.

Click to expand...

Even the retail consumption...send cheques
Ideology, or one could say religious belief in this co2 CC scam has a serious cost.

Just a small inconvenient truth which can be hard to deny
France since the 1960s had a mainly nuclear grid: 75% nuclear for decades, add hydro and bits and pieces..went smoothly
Then the Green and allied socialists came in power from the 1990
Nuclear plants were stopped,and all initially planned to be shutdown to follow the new Renewable faith.
Aka like we do/did for coal here ,with just a better engineering culture
In France, there is still a de facto state owned single electricity provider and distributor so in no way we can pretend seriously to blame liberalism or market board, not that it is not tried of course...
That is for Mr @Smurf1976 justified pet hate: we indeed make it even worse here but the renewable push is inherently flawed
So for the last decade: solar panels, windmills everywhere in France..wind mostly
End result: power price has more than doubled in the last few years, EDF has had to import power as the due to be closed nuclear plants have to go thru major maintenance to see their life extended ,
Remind you something ?
For the last few years, offices and home have been frozen in winter 16c to 18c indoor!!! blamed on Ukraine war and AC is not affordable in summer.
Plus AC is
frowned upon as French people should fight CC with their 1% of man made CO2 contribution, not manage the consequences of climate changes..man made or not.
This is last year mix there

An economy destroyed, poverty for a religious faith with a grand result 13% of power consumed Solar+ wind..
Hydro has 'always' been there and no new hydro added for decades...
Note that hydro means batteries are not really required there so their renewable cost is cheaper than for us!!!;
Turn it as you want, solar and wind can not provide cheap 24/7 power for a whole economy
The frog..100% solar powered off grid

SirRumpole said:

Energy giant drops offshore wind project amid global 'headwinds'

International energy companies are reconsidering their investments in Australian offshore wind projects as the Trump administration's disruption of the industry causes global uncertainty.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

Let's blame Trump again..
Why would anyone drop an investment in a wind farm in Australia "because of Trump"
What about because it is not profitable and Australian taxpayers subsidies are threatened by a collapsing economy?
Anyway, some good news at last from their ABC...

qldfrog said:

Let's blame Trump again..
Why would anyone drop an investment in a wind farm in Australia "because of Trump"
What about because it is not profitable and Australian taxpayers subsidies are threatened by a collapsing economy?
Anyway, some good news at last from their ABC...

Click to expand...

If Trump defunds the wind industry in the US, then it doesn't have the resources to invest elsewhere.

Having said that, it seems increasingly unlikely that enough renewables can be built in time to replace the old coal stations, so the best option to me is build new coal stations, but continue the development of renewables in parallel.

SirRumpole said:

If Trump defunds the wind industry in the US, then it doesn't have the resources to invest elsewhere.

Having said that, it seems increasingly unlikely that enough renewables can be built in time to replace the old coal stations, so the best option to me is build new coal stations, but continue the development of renewables in parallel.

Click to expand...

You are a voice of reason, let's put you and @Smurf in a government, i will join to balance your ethically correct but unrealistic leftist side and we can move this country forward...
In my dreams...