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
We actually DO know what the medium term end product will be.
And nothing in the energy industry is self resolving unless, using your logic, everything resolves. Resolution requires action in keeping with industry acceptance of the inevitable, and clearing the policy and implementation pathway for it.

That writing has been on the wall for over a decade, and with BESS in particular right now getting ridiculously cheaper each year we are heading there faster than all planners thought.

There is also a lot of gnorance, at least at the lay level, about how good the transition will eventually turn out. One of those elements relates to inertia, and it's well and truly a non-issue with renewables, providing the transitional grid infrastrure is properly planned. The other aspect the general population gets concerned about is baseload, because that's what we've been told is missing with RE. However the world has move on, and energy systems are now more concerned about managing the ever changing flexible supply paradigm. Within it the grid actually becomes more reliable overall, and GW-scale generator outages will no longer pose a problem.

Borrowing from here, we can see where we were, where are now, and where we will be in the 2030s:



I won't get into debates about electricity costs as in the RE+storage environment generator costs will keep reducing, while the same cannot be said for FF-based energy. There's also capacity, with proper planning, to significantly reduce transmission costs by scaling RE projects to meet more localised demand.
 
It will be nice, if it all goes well.

The hydrogen super power and battery manufacturing, seems to have been shelved and a few smelting processes appear to be on Government life support, but as with most things collateral damage has to be expected.

Hopefully there are no unintended consequences, that cause long term and lasting damage to the economy.

Your confidence and fervour is inspiring, I will watch with interest as it unfolds and definitely hope it is a spectacular success as a lot is banking on the outcome.
 
Last edited:
rederob said:
That writing has been on the wall for over a decade, and with BESS in particular right now getting ridiculously cheaper each year we are heading there faster than all planners thought.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter how cheap something is, the question is can it do the job at the scale required?

And how often do batteries need to be replaced, how much of them can be recycled, and what is the long term cost?

Questions that haven't yet been answered as far as I can see.
 
All your questions have answers.
You just need to keep up.

For example, in relation to scaling, You could read this.

The battery issues you raise are dependent on which technology is being used. There are lots of variables, but high-quality battery systems should continue to function for more than 15 years under normal usage conditions. Not yet produced at commercial scale but likely to be the longer term winner is the sodium ion technology. Here's an idea of some of the cost structures for fully installed systems, not just batteries. Regarding recylability, just about everything in a BESS is recyclable, so you are looking well into the 90%+ range.

The below charts looks the way they do because people with a lot of money want to make more, so invest it in the manner trending below:



 
I'll just cut and paste from AEMO.

Emphasis in orange text is mine, the original is all black.


Followed by:


And separately to that:


To be clear a direction is just that, an instruction to do something that otherwise wasn't going to to occur. It is not a penalty and no wrongdoing has occurred provided the direction is followed.

Point is though we're nowhere near to having all this sorted as yet.

On this I'm in the optimistic camp, I do think we'll get it sorted, but not yet, there's a lot of work still to be done before we see a system running without synchronous plant in operation.

For reference, Murray 2 is a conventional hydro facility in NSW very near the Victorian border. Barker Inlet is an internal combustion engine plant in Adelaide fuelled primarily with gas.
 
rederob said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of the key issues being overlooked in much of this is it mostly isn't about households.

Residential electricity consumption, including use of rooftop solar, is 29% of electricity consumed in Australia and is just 6.25% of total final energy consumption (all fuels, all end users).

So where does the rest go?

Electricity, all uses, is 21.5% of total final energy consumption nationally. Households are 29% of that.

At a state level, electricity (all consumers) as a % of total final energy consumption:

NSW = 24.2%
Vic = 18.6%
Qld = 21.9%
WA = 17.8%
SA = 22.4%
Tas = 40.8%
NT = 22.0%

All figures calculated from data in Australian Energy Statistics Table H for 2023-24. So the source is the Australian Government.

Therein lies a problem, virtually all political and public discussion focuses solely on electricity and on the notion that building renewables (or nuclear) fixes everything. Much of that discussion is even narrower, focusing solely on households.

In practice wind, solar or nuclear generate electricity, they don't produce natural gas or liquid fuels, at least not via economically affordable processes, meaning we need a hefty dose of electrification in order to actually transition to renewables (or nuclear).

At a technical level that's doable, no argument there. Anyone who doubts it need only go as far as Tasmania to see proof that rather a lot of things can be electrified if you're keen enough. Bearing in mind Tasmania has slipped in recent times, it could be a fair bit higher than that from a technical perspective.

In practice however we're stuck with widespread use of gas for a long time to come. Walk around new or knockdown rebuild housing areas in Adelaide and the connection rate of gas for new homes is damn near 100%, it's very hard to find even one exception other than apartments.

Sydney it's much the same, visit new homes areas and gas is ubiquitous. Having a gas meter on a new house is as common as having a letter box.

In Victoria the state was outright forcing it until as late as 2023, even those who didn't want anything to with it were in most cases compelled due to state regulations at the time. Noting some councils in NSW also forced the use of gas, as do some developers in SA even today.

Now it's no secret this Smurf isn't exactly keen on it being that way, for the record it's an issue I've raised directly with the politicians, but reality is what it is. Gas is here for a long time to come, meaning that gas has to be supplied and its consumption emits CO2.

So in all this discussion about renewable energy, even if we did go 100% renewable (or nuclear) for electricity, we'll still be using a lot of oil and gas for direct uses.

In theory that could be changed, but we've missed the boat for 2050 realistically given the scale of what's required and more to the point there isn't even a decision to do it at this point. It's something that'll take decades in practice, not least due to the problems in modern housing estates with actually doing it (it's generally easier in older suburbs).

Factor that in, and it all starts looking rather different. Woodside, Santos, APA etc aren't wasting their money developing gas or upgrading pipelines, consumption's locked in in practice.

For anyone who has any doubts about this, see the following. It's a link to Google street view, nothing too exciting:

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.
www.google.com

Read what it says on the fence.

Note what's behind the fence.

Now realise there's a covenant on each property forcing the use of said services whether the owner wants it or not. This is legally binding with no end date.

Now zoom out on that image and note what's in the background to the top left, on the right hand side of the big tree. Now there's a better option that we ought be using but "developer says no".

There's a lot of things in all of this that are a cinch from the perspective of an engineer, academic or even just the average tradie assuming they have decision making authority. In practice however there's an awful lot of barriers in the way to doing it that those same engineers and tradies are well aware of.

On Sunday afternoon I walked past a new house being built (well, it's a knockdown rebuild). Slab is poured, they've started putting one wall up, gas line is installed..... That's another one locked in for decades to come.
 
Last edited:
The 82% the ANU were talking about in the above post, was the 2030 electricity generation target, not the 2035 emissions target, my mistake it's always an issue when reading info on a phone size screen.

Here is an article on the difficulty in meeting the 2030 target, it certainly doesn't sound as though it is an easy target to achieve.

The six charts that reveal Australia's (slow) climate progress

Climate and Energy minister Chris Bowen declared "Australia is on track to deliver on our legislated targets" in his annual climate statement. But new data challenges that optimism.
www.abc.net.au
 
Last edited:
The most important thing to remember is, just like Snowy 2.0 the cost is irrelevant and engineering is irrelevant in order to undertake Malcolm's 'clean energy transition'.

Never get in the way of Simon and Malcom's major investment into the 'clean energy transition'.

There is only one way of doing things according to 'the science'.
 
h
SirRumpole said:
They should buy it outright, but they will probably just prop up another asset stripping rent seeking business.
Click to expand...
how dare they not be profitable with what is one of the most expensive, unproductive workforce in the world using the most expensive power in the world.
the arrogance
Bloody capitalists!
and you are right
if we..no, some... want socialism, we indeed need government owned factories, cooperatives and communautal lodging .
there is no middle half half way working on the long term
let the government run these companies...
 
I get the sarcasm there, and take your point. However if we want these facilities in the face of what China is doing, then we need to copy them and put these facilities in government hands.
 
The question we should be asking is WHY?

Financial incompetence?

Political incompetence?

Engineering incompetence?

Unforeseen circumstances?

Bad luck?

Factors beyond our control?

Someone knows the story and they aren't telling us.
 
SirRumpole said:
I get the sarcasm there, and take your point. However if we want these facilities in the face of what China is doing, then we need to copy them and put these facilities in government hands.
Click to expand...
But while a communist of some sort government, China is pure capitalistic as an eco system...
The success of China is the success of primal capitalism, a jungle fight and a government who is forward looking
There is absolutely no way any of the dimwits in charge here who are not even able to manage urban planning, road, power or water properly will get any more complex factory working properly in the face of international competition
 
SirRumpole said:
The question we should be asking is WHY?
Click to expand...
If you've got 25 minutes to spare then here's a 60 year old film regarding construction of the Poatina hydro scheme, Tasmania between 1957 and 1964.

Relevant since this was the first use of a tunnel boring machine in Australia for any purpose, indeed the machine was substantially redesigned specifically for the project, and was a world record achievement at the time.

On an unrelated project, at the same time work was proceeding at Poatina the Tasmanian HEC also built what was then the world's highest pre-stressed concrete dam at Catagunya, completed 1962. It also completed Liapootah power station, including a 6.6km tunnel, in 1960. It also commenced work on the smaller Repulse, Cluny and Meadowbank power stations during this period. It also investigated and designed a further 7 stations, since built, during this time.

Beyond power schemes, the Tasman Bridge construction in Hobart also took place during this period. So did Hobart's bulk water supply scheme from the Derwent. Meanwhile highways and other projects were also being built.

Meanwhile countless projects were built by private enterprise across all sectors including heavy industrial, commercial, retail, housing etc.

Now the real question to ask is how did Tasmania, which at that time had a population of just 340,000 people, manage to consistently pull off one major engineering project after another with remarkably few problems during construction in an era of a far less educated workforce, everything done on paper and by manual methods and so on?

The answer is at the 20:00 mark - put competent people in charge at the top, leave them to employ competent people to work under them and get on with it.

That's not to deny mistakes were made with the environment, a point I've previously acknowledged, but the engineering and construction has otherwise stood up remarkably well both at the time and to this day.

If we want to stop having problems then that's the fix - competent people. Those who can, not those who seek to cover their rear end.

I'll avoid names for obvious legal reasons but suffice to say I can certainly think of people who ought be kept well away from anything of this nature. Even building a small suburban roundabout they'd manage to triple the cost and have it two years late but still come out of it looking as though they'd done a good job.

The video, uploaded from what was originally film, is at the following link. Skip to 19:19 if you just want to see the bit about boring the tunnel. But if you've got time then watch the lot - the overall approach it depicts is what we need to get back to if we want to stop all this nonsense. Competent people at every level and a determination to make things happen, to get it done.


And here's some photos of Poatina in more recent times. Taken by myself a few years ago:

Road access tunnel:



Machine hall:

Note those pipes you see aren't for water, they're just the air filtration system to keep everything clean.

Next level down below the floor (and that's not the bottom of the station, turbines are down below)

 
For a simpler example of all this, trams.

Go back a century or so and many cities built extensive tram systems covering a wide area.

Most of those systems were decommissioned, and usually physically dismantled, within a relatively short period during the 1950's. Many consider that to be a mistake, a view I agree with subject to the detail of any particular circumstance, and have called for the re-introduction of trams.

So why can't we just put the trams back?

Well a tiny amount has been done but here's the problem, it cost an outright fortune to do it and in at least one case it hasn't even been built in a durable manner, meaning ultimately it will have to be done again.

So a century ago society could effectively and economically build tram systems. It wasn't just Melbourne, the other capitals had them to and even much smaller places such as Geelong, Bendigo and Launceston had their own tram systems, typically run by the council with inherently limited financial resources.

Today however trams are $ billions projects to build a tiny length of track. It's cost prohibitive to reinstate even part of the former network despite a far greater population base over which to spread the cost and the great advances in construction machinery that, in theory at least, ought make the job easier.

Explain that and there's the answer.
 
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...