The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Ultimately all power pollutes and there are no exceptions to that. It wouldn't be without any consequence.

That said, it would seem to be far less pressing matter than running short of gas.

Exactly, 130 years ago, no one thought there would be a global issue with burning fossilised wood.

It's like everything human's do, consequences are the least important criteria, in the decision making process.
As will be found out with renewables, when they work out they actually aren't and the consequences eventually manifest themselves.

 

[sptrawler]

Another one on taxpayer support.

Queensland tables support package to save Mount Isa smelter

The Queensland Government has tabled an offer of support to Glencore’s Mount Isa copper smelter and Townsville refinery.

www.australianmining.com.au

 

[qldfrog]

Exactly, 130 years ago, no one thought there would be a global issue with burning fossilised wood.

It's like everything human's do, consequences are the least important criteria, in the decision making process.
As will be found out with renewables, when they work out they actually aren't and the consequences eventually manifest themselves.

And guess what, there is none outside a new religion belief which does not want to look at all the sciences, but there is the limited supply issue.
Renewable are actually very questionable in a full life cycle as we will discover soon.
Does the average solar panel coupled to a battery to allow 24/7 power, built, installed and discarded actually produce a net energy gain.
Same for wind turbine....
Very different from does it make financial or commercial sense obviously which is what we should care as individuals but not as a society or as mankind

 

[Smurf1976]

Another one on taxpayer support.

So nationally that's a copper smelter, a copper refinery, a zinc smelter, a steelworks, a lead smelter and a ferro alloy plant and that's just the big ones.

I'm aware of 3 others that will be asking for serious $ in the near future along with a legally binding obligation on future governments to continue that arrangement.

That's the consequence of uneconomic energy supply. Industry will not, cannot, pay excessive prices given it has to compete internationally.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm aware of 3 others that will be asking for serious $ in the near future along with a legally binding obligation on future governments to continue that arrangement.

If governments have to keep bailing out private companies it would be more 'economical' for governments to take over the facilities and mandate the use of their products in our infrastructure projects.

Where are we getting copper wire for 'rewiring the nation' ?

 

[sptrawler]

Reality is catching up with ideology for Albo and Chris, companies are in business to make money and the Govt imposes legislated targets that make the bussiness uneconomical.

The outcome is predictable, blind Freddy could see that, sadly politicians and the chorus can't.

IMO this is only the beginning of closures, the ruler will well and truly have been run over the viability of our energy intensive processes and the companies will be developing their exit stratergies.

Oh what a mess.

 

[sptrawler]

If governments have to keep bailing out private companies it would be more 'economical' for governments to take over the facilities and mandate the use of their products in our infrastructure projects.

Where are we getting copper wire for 'rewiring the nation' ?

That is what happened, pre uncle Paul and globalisation.

We made our own trains, our own State ships, our own social housing, but it was cheaper to get everything made overseas and import our skilled labour.

Now we are over a barrel, the Government don't know how to run anything anymore and all the skills have moved to the private sector. Goverment is just full of talking heads, who call in consultants, to give them advice IMO.

It isn't going to be easy to stop this train wreck IMO, but the sooner it happens, the easier it will be to fix it. Lol

Even Ross Garnaut appears losing confidence and he was one of the driving forces, behind the rapid transition to renewables.
So now the call to add another cost to already ailing processes, to me it sounds like panic time has arrived.

From the Brisbane times.
Ross Garnaut called for a resurrection of the carbon tax to kickstart Australia's ailing green-energy transition. The

 

[Smurf1976]

If governments have to keep bailing out private companies it would be more 'economical' for governments to take over the facilities and mandate the use of their products in our infrastructure projects.

I do agree with using products locally but trouble is, the manufacturing ecosystem is at this point badly damaged.

As a random example of that, Bell Bay Aluminium in Tasmania produces aluminium like this:

Company photo that's in the public domain

Now the good news is there's about $750 million worth of metal like this produced at this smelter each year. The plant runs three production lines 24/365 doing that and is overall a large scale operation, indeed it's one of the largest businesses of any sort in the state:

The trouble however is the form of the product of itself isn't usable, what you're looking at is just ingots of metal, the basic stages of producing aluminium and where it's done in Australia being:

1. Mining bauxite (WA, Qld, NT). Key requirement = ore in the ground.

2. Alumina refining (WA, Qld, historically was done in NT and a long time ago was done on a small scale in Tas). Key requirements = ore, a large scale heat source.

3. Aluminium smelting (Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas) - that's what's being done at this facility. Key requirements = alumina, logistics, a very large source of electricity.

4. Rolling mills to produce sheet, bars, foil and so on. Historically done in NSW and Vic, now closed. Key requirements = source of bulk aluminium metal and a market for the products made. It's not a coincidence the rolling mills shut along with the car industry and other manufacturing eg appliances.

5. Manufacturing end products using sheets, bars, foil etc. At this point that's mostly gone and what remains is using imported materials.

Therein lies a problem for Bell Bay Aluminium and others like it. With the supply chain broken, having a major gap at the 4th step, the only option for the smelters is to sell the majority of their production overseas. The ability to use it locally isn't zero, for example there's a plant producing aluminium powder in Tasmania right next to the Bell Bay smelter (indeed they take metal in molten form to save the energy cost of re-melting it) but that's a rare exception and it's only using a few % of the smelter's production.

So in principle I absolutely agree "buy Australian" but in practice we're at the point where actually using the materials we make is problematic due to supply chain gaps. Eg to use the aluminium, it first needs to be shipped overseas to be rolled. Same with many industries, the supply chain is broken.

Latest example I've become aware of is one of the ships on the Bass Strait run being sent to Singapore for maintenance. Reason? It's not that nobody in Australia could do the work. It's just that with the demise of Australian shipbuilding and most of the domestic shipping fleet, it seems we don't have a dry dock to do the work in. That being so, overseas it is.

There are exceptions, eg Whyalla can certainly produce railway tracks and structural beams in a usable form, but there's a lot of gaps in capability overall.

 

[Smurf1976]

Now we are over a barrel, the Government don't know how to run anything anymore and all the skills have moved to the private sector. Goverment is just full of talking heads, who call in consultants, to give them advice IMO.

It's even worse once it's considered the private sector has been winding down for years and a lot of those skilled people are no longer in the workforce with no replacements having been trained.

 

[sptrawler]

It's even worse once it's considered the private sector has been winding down for years and a lot of those skilled people are no longer in the workforce with no replacements having been trained.

That is so true, in the 1990's I had a heated debate with a Power Station manager about this very issue, of not taking on apprentices and training up quality tradesmen to achieve their potential, his response was the Govt isn't here to supply the private sector with tradespeople.
No now we get them from India and from what I've read are recognising their qualifications, it will be interesting to see how that works out.
At least the current situation will bring it to a head IMO

 

[qldfrog]

That is what happened, pre uncle Paul and globalisation.

We made our own trains, our own State ships, our own social housing, but it was cheaper to get everything made overseas and import our skilled labour.

Now we are over a barrel, the Government don't know how to run anything anymore and all the skills have moved to the private sector. Goverment is just full of talking heads, who call in consultants, to give them advice IMO.

It isn't going to be easy to stop this train wreck IMO, but the sooner it happens, the easier it will be to fix it. Lol

Even Ross Garnaut appears losing confidence and he was one of the driving forces, behind the rapid transition to renewables.
So now the call to add another cost to already ailing processes, to me it sounds like panic time has arrived.

From the Brisbane times.
Ross Garnaut called for a resurrection of the carbon tax to kickstart Australia's ailing green-energy transition. The

But why a tax if as we have been told for now decades that green energy is cheaper?
There is still no admission of the catastrophic mistakes made.
Based on the Left still total denial after 30y in France about immigration, which has collapsed the whole country completely and is so obvious and in your face, i would expect the same here about the renewable push.
In 20y, ALP leaders and the Greens will still blame big oil, big coal, Trump or even climate change.not their bypass of hard science and physics
And sadly, this is the worst.
We could recover otherwise: scrap net zero, NDIS, race specific welfare: one people one rule and with proper leaders, we would suffer but recover if done early.
That means opening new coal and gas power stations with new mines and gas fields dedicated, these maybe even state owned.
No subsidies for renewable..we have plenty enough of these 15y throwaway energy kits, the macdo of power supply.
Start getting some of imported latest nuclear stations built, and for God sake do not rely on Aussie skills we do not have..but start training.
Lastly, do not repeat gas folly: get uranium mining started and lock some for our domestic use
But fair chance, we will end up the Argentina of Asia, with China our master vs the US, unless we stick to the West and then we would become the Venezuela or Cuba of Asia.
Both countries had it all, yet managed to screw it with a bang mostly on ideology.
So are we...
We can not throw money on consequences without fixing the causes

 

[sptrawler]

But why a tax if as we have been told for now decades that green energy is cheaper?
There is still no admission of the catastrophic mistakes made.
Based on the Left still total denial after 30y in France about immigration, which has collapsed the whole country completely and is so obvious and in your face, i would expect the same here about the renewable push.
In 20y, ALP leaders and the Greens will still blame big oil, big coal, Trump or even climate change.not their bypass of hard science and physics
And sadly, this is the worst.
We could recover otherwise: scrap net zero, NDIS, race specific welfare: one people one rule and with proper leaders, we would suffer but recover if done early.
That means opening new coal and gas power stations with new mines and gas fields dedicated, these maybe even state owned.
No subsidies for renewable..we have plenty enough of these 15y throwaway energy kits, the macdo of power supply.
Start getting some of imported latest nuclear stations built, and for God sake do not rely on Aussie skills we do not have..but start training.
Lastly, do not repeat gas folly: get uranium mining started and lock some for our domestic use
But fair chance, we will end up the Argentina of Asia, with China our master vs the US, unless we stick to the West and then we would become the Venezuela or Cuba of Asia.
Both countries had it all, yet managed to screw it with a bang mostly on ideology.
So are we...
We can not throw money on consequences without fixing the causes

Renewables aren't cheaper, because they won't at this point in time be able to economically replace fossil fuels in some instances.
As I said very early in this thread, it will end up being a combination of energy sources, renewables are great in some instances, not so good in others.

The problem at the moment is the blind charge ahead, without stopping to take stock of the fallout and unintended consequences, that has been because when targets were set, they put the horse before the cart.
Now they are heading flat out into a train wreck IMO.

If they pull it off, kudos, but I personally think the cost to the country will far, far outweigh any perceived benefit that is achieved if indeed there is any benefit.
We are getting ourselves so far in front of the technical curve, that anything could happen, as was shown in Spain and Portugal this is all still in the development stage. Who knows?

Interesting times, as I've said before, I think there will be a major breakthrough in clean energy in the near future, we may well be left well behind with a completely obsolete and outdated low energy density technology.
Now that would leave a lot of stranded and ecologically embarrassing equipment, that we have paid China a MOTZA of money for.

As @SirRumpole said, why not keep base load coal until enough renewables and storage (hydro) has been installed, then shut it down.
Well we can't because they have legislated targets, that they can't meet without shutting down the coal, that's the horse before the cart problem and also means they can't actually build another coal station. Meanwhile gas is an issue. OMG

Same as i believe they are going to charge industry an emissions penalty charge in 2030, before there is a suitable cost effective replacement, again the horse before the cart or in this case shooting oneself in the foot.
But the loonie chorus sings on.

 

[Smurf1976]

bypass of hard science and physics

TP as they call it.

Technical Problem - a reference to anything involving hard sciences that's put to the side and assumed to be easily solvable.

That's actually how these people think yes. Physics is in their view a sideline issue of no particular interest. What matters is process, ideology and ensuring the right words are on the page.

The problem isn't lack of education but rather it's miseducation. I've met plenty of people with zero understanding of the subject but the right attitude and all that's necessary to explain it to them is to say don't worry about what the technical terms mean, just focus on the numbers. From there it's pretty straightforward to show them a chart of load over 24 hours, explain that it goes considerably higher when it's hot or cold (a point just about everyone readily comprehends), and stress the point that generation must match load in real time since the network does not store electricity. Once people understand that, they readily grasp that having sufficient generating capacity is crucial and that having a bit to spare is a wise. From there it's a question of detail on the physics side along with factors such as cost, environment, any other uses of the infrastructure (eg the classic example of a hydro scheme that also stores or diverts water for other uses) and so on that determines the best way to do it.

The only people who can't get their mind around the basics are those who insist there must be some other answer. Those who insist that either the market will come up with a better solution and that being so nobody ought specify one, or that some other specific solution is the only correct one.

It's the equivalent of knowing the place you want to go is 10km away and considering how to get there. Once the location has been determined, the question at that point is about transport and a rational person would be considering driving a car, using public transport or if they're keen for some exercise they might choose to walk, fully aware walking is the slowest means but they may see some benefit in the exercise and just having a look around. Several options, pick the most suitable having regard to all relevant factors. Versus the fools who'll insist either there's no way of knowing the location of the place you want to go, so we can't be prescriptive about that, or who insist that it's actually in some other location which is completely false.

Trouble is, it's the latter group calling the shots in society - those who insist there's no answer to the question but that one will appear if we just have the right policies along with those who make up some answer that clearly isn't the right one.

Now realise it's not just electricity where this is being done, it's just about everything. Hence the mess we're in on all sorts of issues.

 

[farmerge]

TP as they call it.

Technical Problem - a reference to anything involving hard sciences that's put to the side and assumed to be easily solvable.

That's actually how these people think yes. Physics is in their view a sideline issue of no particular interest. What matters is process, ideology and ensuring the right words are on the page.

The problem isn't lack of education but rather it's miseducation. I've met plenty of people with zero understanding of the subject but the right attitude and all that's necessary to explain it to them is to say don't worry about what the technical terms mean, just focus on the numbers. From there it's pretty straightforward to show them a chart of load over 24 hours, explain that it goes considerably higher when it's hot or cold (a point just about everyone readily comprehends), and stress the point that generation must match load in real time since the network does not store electricity. Once people understand that, they readily grasp that having sufficient generating capacity is crucial and that having a bit to spare is a wise. From there it's a question of detail on the physics side along with factors such as cost, environment, any other uses of the infrastructure (eg the classic example of a hydro scheme that also stores or diverts water for other uses) and so on that determines the best way to do it.

The only people who can't get their mind around the basics are those who insist there must be some other answer. Those who insist that either the market will come up with a better solution and that being so nobody ought specify one, or that some other specific solution is the only correct one.

It's the equivalent of knowing the place you want to go is 10km away and considering how to get there. Once the location has been determined, the question at that point is about transport and a rational person would be considering driving a car, using public transport or if they're keen for some exercise they might choose to walk, fully aware walking is the slowest means but they may see some benefit in the exercise and just having a look around. Several options, pick the most suitable having regard to all relevant factors. Versus the fools who'll insist either there's no way of knowing the location of the place you want to go, so we can't be prescriptive about that, or who insist that it's actually in some other location which is completely false.

Trouble is, it's the latter group calling the shots in society - those who insist there's no answer to the question but that one will appear if we just have the right policies along with those who make up some answer that clearly isn't the right one.

Now realise it's not just electricity where this is being done, it's just about everything. Hence the mess we're in on all sorts of issues.

The biggest problem that I see is, we pay for the organ grinder and usually finish up with the performing monkey.

 

[orr]

The Fed's, Victorian's and Tasmanian's sign up to the Marinus Link in a combined 'State controlled ' command economy shake down (49% -33%- 17%) of ownership, (own now sell later) last Thursday!!!.... to pledge funding to this elemental threat to on going consumption of all things fossil.
And what do we hear here from our embedded observers ?..well their chirps change with temperature.

780mega/w capacity.
All that Battery of the Nation stuff .... must shiver the timbers of the fossil flunky's.

Bass Straight crossings are known to be treacherous.

But the payoff could make a small contribution to the costs of a vanity football stadium ... and distraction.

any one need the link?

 

[farmerge]

The Fed's, Victorian's and Tasmanian's sign up to the Marinus Link in a combined 'State controlled ' command economy shake down (49% -33%- 17%) of ownership, (own now sell later) last Thursday!!!.... to pledge funding to this elemental threat to on going consumption of all things fossil.
And what do we hear here from our embedded observers ?..well their chirps change with temperature.

780mega/w capacity.
All that Battery of the Nation stuff .... must shiver the timbers of the fossil flunky's.

Bass Straight crossings are known to be treacherous.

But the payoff could make a small contribution to the costs of a vanity football stadium ... and distraction.

any one need the link?

@orr Nah got the drift. wastage

 

[Smurf1976]

Marinus Link

As a concept it's exactly what we need so long as sufficient generation is built to go with it. I've made the case for it previously on this thread. If we're going to use renewable energy then it needs firming and with present technology the options for that in practice are hydro or gas turbines (or at a stretch steam or internal combustion).

It's exactly what's needed. Not enough by itself obviously, but a step in the right direction.

own now sell later

In theory private ownership can work as can government ownership - what matters is technical competency and intent.

 

[sptrawler]

As a concept it's exactly what we need so long as sufficient generation is built to go with it. I've made the case for it previously on this thread. If we're going to use renewable energy then it needs firming and with present technology the options for that in practice are hydro or gas turbines (or at a stretch steam or internal combustion).

It's exactly what's needed. Not enough by itself obviously, but a step in the right direction.



In theory private ownership can work as can government ownership - what matters is technical competency and intent.

The sad part is, they have reduced it to one cable IMO, the original two cable project allowed for some serious long duration storage to be developed.
Some would argue it is expensive, but when one considers how much the cost of Snowy 2.0 has blown out to, Marinus makes a lot more sense than more Snowy 2.0's

 

[SirRumpole]

In theory private ownership can work as can government ownership - what matters is technical competency and intent.

True, however there is always the profit margin to contend with and as electricity is at the bottom end of the production chain, price feeds in to everything else.

I would prefer the old system of States competing to reduce prices to attract business and investment, rather than big business trying to get the biggest return.

 

[qldfrog]

True, however there is always the profit margin to contend with and as electricity is at the bottom end of the production chain, price feeds in to everything else.

I would prefer the old system of States competing to reduce prices to attract business and investment, rather than big business trying to get the biggest return.

But do states compete? Look at your rego, your water which are still within gov controls?