This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new


Having worked in mining, power generation and also power generation for mining Tehan's saying using reactors (that are not available) for mining is pretty dumb IMHO.

Supply company's are not event thinking it.

Actually hard to believe he is even saying it he would know better.

Mining at least in WA is costed for the highest extraction for the lowest cost and generally (particularly gold) short term (say 10 years). there are sites that have been around far longer but all the ones I worked for in the 80's are gone.

WA ran a gas pipe line through some of the mining areas which mean diesel engines covered to gas or the odd turbine.

For most of the smaller operations solar with diesel / gas backup would I assume be the best cost setup.

Still I haven't been out there for awhile maybe things have changed.

Edit: Surely this persistence by elements of the Coalition on nuclear is due to money from some where to the party?
 
Last edited:
If there was such a thing as a small reactor. Maybe one day.
It is cheaper and more practical in many circumstances to for the solar / battery rout. it depends a lot on the electrical load diversity.
And as the article says even Gina Reinhardt is doing it.
We electrical engineers do the study and if it works out cheaper it works out cheaper. no amount of politics will change that.
 

Either that or a desperate attempt to provide an alternative to Labor's policies, otherwise the Coalition would be seen as useless.
 
Just another example of why (imho), governments have to get( more of) a grip on the energy transition process to give the market certainty.

Owner switches off solar farm powering area twice the size of Tasmania

The owner of a huge solar farm in outback Queensland hits the kill switch after almost a decade, saying his contract with Ergon Energy was unfair.
www.abc.net.au
 
From the RE article..

"As the ANU’s Centre for Energy Systems wrote this year, the energy industry is aware that baseload is not just endangered, it is already functionally extinct. And they explain why in more detail."

Correct or not?
 
SirRumpole said:
From the RE article..

"As the ANU’s Centre for Energy Systems wrote this year, the energy industry is aware that baseload is not just endangered, it is already functionally extinct. And they explain why in more detail."

Correct or not?
Click to expand...
It is stating the problem, that we keep referring to:

Excess energy in the middle of the day is useless if no-one wants to use it or if they want to use it overnight; this is where firming is required. When variable renewables are paired with enough storage or back-up power, it is called “firm”. For a utility grid, this means large amounts of storage such as batteries and pumped hydro energy storage, as well as flexible generation such as hydro and possibly open cycle gas turbines.

It's all about timing, even if nuclear was adopted eventually that has to be replaced with renewable / storage all nuclear would do, would give more time to do it, with no emission generation.

Time will tell how it all goes, but either way gas or nuclear, at the end of the day renewables is the end game.
The only difference is how you get there.
IMO nuclear will only become viable IF gen 4 reactors are developed and H2 can be produced as a process by product, if that eventuates, then everyone will be chucking them in.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
From the RE article..

"As the ANU’s Centre for Energy Systems wrote this year, the energy industry is aware that baseload is not just endangered, it is already functionally extinct. And they explain why in more detail."

Correct or not?
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking base load is a reference to consumption and is most definitely not extinct since there's no point under normal (non-fault) conditions where electricity consumption goes to zero.

In practice however what they mean is generation built for the specific purpose of operating to supply the base load, or in other words generation built to operate constantly. Traditionally in most places that means coal or nuclear although exceptions do exist. Eg places with geothermal, those with enough hydro to use it for base load(eg Tasmania, New Zealand, Canada) and those places where due to local circumstances oil or more commonly gas worked out cheaper. Generically though it's coal or nuclear.

Is it extinct?

It's complicated....

In a strict definition sense it's extinct in Qld, NSW (incl ACT), Vic and SA and very close to it in WA but not extinct in Tas or NT.

On a mild sunny day with clear skies, a decent breeze and low demand (mild weather so little if any heating or cooling) then wind + solar can at midday meet demand in full. So on that strict definition a need for base load generation is extinct in most states.

However it's more complex than that since for reasons of system inertia, fault current, frequency control, voltage control, reactive power and so on, which AEMO generically refers to as "system strength" (not really a traditionally used term, just one AEMO came up with but nobody's arguing, it's descriptive enough) it isn't practical to run the system with no synchronous generation online. Synchronous generation being big rotating machines at synchronous frequency or in simple terms anything that burns fuel or hydro. Not relevant to Australia at the present time but nuclear and geothermal also fit into this category - at a technical level they're steam turbines much the same as coal, just with a different heat source.

The other problem is this period of abundant wind and solar is highly intermittent as the following charts will explain.



Chart is for the past 24 hours in NSW.

To explain it from the top down.

Shaded light blue area at the top is VRE (wind / solar) that was available but not used. That is, it was wasted.

Dark grey is coal, gas, diesel, hydro in total.

Deep blue is battery discharge.

Unshaded light blue is VRE actually used.

Below the zero line shows the total of exports to other states (Qld, Vic), hydro pumping and battery charging. That is electricity generated in NSW but not at that time consumed in NSW - it either went interstate or was used for pumping / charging.

So looking at that, at midday yes we could say base load generation is obsolete, since intermittent generation could've met the entire demand. Not for long however, that the lights are on in NSW at the moment being mostly due to "traditional" energy sources eg coal, gas, hydro.

Now here's NSW over the past 7 days illustrating that more clearly.

Yellow = solar.
Green = wind
Light blue = hydro
Dark blue = battery
Orange = gas
Aqua = biomass
Black = coal
Purple = from Qld / Vic
Below zero line = export / hydro pumping / battery charging



So in short, it's true to say that in a strict definition sense baseload generation has become obsolete as a concept in several states. In practice however NSW would be outright stuffed without the continued operation of the coal-fired generators or a suitable replacement.

Suitable replacement = something that can run all night, and in some cases during winter multiple consecutive days, without needing to recharge. Because the track record is very clear that this does occur, wind and solar "droughts" are relatively common during the period April - August and not totally unknown at other times.

Gas can do that if there's an adequate gas supply.

Hydro, either pumped or on-river, can do that if there's sufficient water stored.

Diesel can do that if there's enough fuel available.

Biomass in theory can do it, though actually getting enough of it is problematic but it can make some contribution.

Solar and wind don't do that, they're the intermittent thing that needs firming.

Batteries could do it in theory but not in practice, at the present time economics precludes building anywhere near that length of storage.
 
Regarding small nuclear reactors, I'll simply point out that nothing needs to be invented in order to build one indeed it's already been done.

The first nuclear power generated anywhere was on an experimental scale in the US in 1948 when a single light bulb was powered. That's all, one light.

On a more serious but still experimental scale another US facility became the first that could reasonably be described as an actual power station, albeit still experimental. It commenced operation running nothing more than a few lights, though did ultimately power a small town. It was experimental primarily for research purposes, not intended to be permanent, but did generate electricity.

The first that could be described as a permanent nuclear power plant was Obninsk, USSR, which commenced operation in 1954 and remained in service until 2002. It's electrical output was 6MW gross, although use within the plant itself for various purposes reduced that to about 5MW sent to the grid.

Early "commercial scale" plants in the UK (1956) and US (1957) used 60MW steam turbines.

So nothing needs to be invented in order to have relatively small nuclear power units. It's been done before in quite a few countries, and military reactors (eg submarines) are still quite small today.

That they were scaled up was simply for economic reasons that the bigger it is, the lower the cost per unit of capacity. Same goes for coal, it's a lot cheaper per unit of output to build a big one than to build multiple smaller units. Same with gas and to put a figure on that, CSIRO estimates that small gas turbines are 85% more expensive per unit of capacity when compared to large gas turbines as per their most recent published data.

That being so, the idea that small nuclear can do it cheaper than large nuclear is at odds with experience in everything from transport to paper mills to retail shops where economies of scale are a real thing. I won't say never, but there are some big hurdles to jump economically.
 

Unfortunately it seems not too many people are interested in constructing firming that will actually do the job.

Apart from Kurri Kurri, what other gas firming is being planned and approved?

Apart from Snowy Hydro 2.0 (years behind schedule and massively over budget), what other hydro schemes are being planned and approved?

I don't see any plans for biomass.

It all seems to revolve around batteries because they are easy, but as we know they can't do the job for days or weeks.

This is where the whole idea is falling apart it seems to me.

Maybe people more involved in the area can set me straight.
 
The White Elephant continues to grow bigger and bigger....
You can believe the hype, here:

Or the reality, here or here.
Bottom line is a chance of Snowy 2 flowing electrons in 2029 and coming in at a cost well over $20B (inclusive of transmission infrastructure and RE projects to resupply spent water to upper dam) instead of Turnbull's BS $2B announcement.
 
Unless Snowy Hydro 2.0 is fatally flawed, it will be finished whatever the cost.

It's gone too far to stop.
 
Well it certainly is a shame that Snowy hasn't gone well, however from what I have read they need a small herd of White Elephants, to successfully have a renewable grid.
As usual time will tell.

 
The ongoing penetration of solar plus batteries in Australia's suburbia will negate many of the concerns about transmission, and focus more on the inevitability and needs of more localised distribution networks.

The idea that our future's energy system's increaing complexity will be an inhibitor is defeated by the capacity of AI to resolve it providing the hardware is in place. Right now a key missing ingredient is the necessary hardware to move us ahead in keeping with the pace of RE+storage additions. Another missing ingredient is the implementation of an electricity pricing policy framework that balances as best as possible demand with all available generation+storage. Home battery+EV battery storage capacity is increasing massively and price signal arrangements and fair compensation for grid feed-in are needed to harmonise our network's future operation.
 
How much would it cost to equip a home with batteries that would last a week with little solar which is what you often get in winter?
 
As I say, it will be self resolving. If it works that will be great, if it doesn't work it will be fixed.
Australians wont accept a 3rd world electrical supply, what you or I say will be the finished product doesn't matter at all, neither of us actually know what the end product will be.

It's a bit like the NBN, I went to get it connected this week and it was much better and cheaper to get 5G wireless instead, it is much faster and $10 cheaper. Lol

I have had an optical cable to the property since it was first rolled out over 10 years ago, but I never connected to it, now I can get a cheaper and faster connection without having a hole in the wall and a box bolted inside the house.

So now tenants can take the internet with them. Lol who would have thought that would happen, when they were arguing about the NBN 15 years ago.
 
sptrawler said:
As I say, it will be self resolving. If it works that will be great, if it doesn't work it will be fixed.
Australians wont accept a 3rd world electrical supply
Click to expand...
The real danger is it ends up like housing where, like it or not, we basically do have the worst case outcome.

A situation where in a strict legal definition sense someone can say the lights are on but only because industry and a good portion of consumers can't afford to use it. Just as we can say "technically" we don't have a housing shortage - a statement that's true only because rather a lot are simply priced out.

The harsh reality is that as of right now, today, the absolute cheapest flat rate plan for a residential consumer using 5000 kWh per annum in SA will cost $2170 a year, the median is $2640 and the most expensive is $4200.

Adjusted for inflation as per RBA data, a third of a century ago that same customer would've paid $1245 per annum in today's money.

Therein lies the problem with all this. The lights are on but only if you can afford to use them. Multiple problems result from this:

First is the direct hit to household budgets, bearing in mind lower socio-economic groups often have higher than average consumption. If you're a working couple, no kids, and you eat out regularly then you won't use much electricity. Very different for a family with kids and anyone who's home a lot.

Second is the majority of electricity consumed is used by business, not households, and it's a given those serving a local market with essential goods and services will be passing on the full cost to consumers at a minimum, adding a mark up to it more likely.

For those selling discretionary goods and services there's a bigger problem. Consumers faced with higher bills and increases in the cost of essentials seek to cut back on discretionary spending. Meanwhile businesses supplying those discretionary goods and services have their own costs rising. Hence the wipe out of much of the hospitality sector - it's pretty much a wrecking ball gone through it at this point and that affects most states. Electricity isn't the only cause there but it's a significant part of it.

Third is trade exposed industry simply will not locate in Australia if costs aren't competitive with those available in countless other countries, including developed ones. And if we can't attract that sort of industry, that even the Greens concede we need more of, then we're left hoping the market for iron ore, coal and LNG holds up indefinitely and that's one hell of a gamble.

Fourth is the impact on electrification. For any given situation, higher priced electricity is never helpful to the cause of electrification. In some cases, eg garden tools, it won't make much difference but for industrial applications it's an outright killer, price at present is simply too high full stop. It's not helping commercial and residential electrification either.

Now the bit I've left to last is that's not a criticism of either renewable or fossil fuels. Rather it's the point neither side of that debate wants to address - the industry has structurally high costs that are a problem regardless of the technology of generation. That problem won't be fixed by arguing about renewables versus fossils versus nuclear. It requires reform of the industry itself.

Same goes for various other sectors of the economy. Costs are far higher than they rationally ought to be.
 
@Smurf1976 the media aren't complaining, so for all intents and purposes there isn't a problem, the fact that most of the media is based on the East Coast and their property values have doubled doesn't have anything to do with it. Lol
I hope Labor get another three terms in Government, which may well happen, then we may see some real change IMO.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
Apart from Snowy Hydro 2.0 (years behind schedule and massively over budget), what other hydro schemes are being planned and approved?

I don't see any plans for biomass.
Click to expand...
Nothing on a large scale.

Tarraleah redevelopment in Tasmania has physical works taking place but that's relatively small.

There's a few proposals for relatively short duration pumped storage in various places that sit between batteries and true deep firming.

Overall though nowhere near enough to remove the need for gas / diesel for actual deep firming.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
2K
moXJO
M
Electricity demand and data centres
Replies
15
Views
2K
farmerge
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
2K
Smurf1976
Official Microsoft Office 2024 Professional Plus License Key $59 with lifetime free updates ends March 20
Replies
0
Views
1K
bigdog
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
2K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...