Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Interesting article on the Northern Territories problems.

reneweconomy.com.au

Renewable target scrapped as CLP goes all in on ageing gas plant, and is warned of blackout risks

New CLP government scraps Labor’s 50 pct renewables target, but its focus on gas may leave it exposed to the blackouts it warns from the switch to solar.
reneweconomy.com.au reneweconomy.com.au
Click to expand...
I have in mind a much more elaborate solution...... :)

This would be partly an electricity project, partly in the category of giving Aboriginal people from the area meaningful work during construction and longer term opportunity via formal qualifications of national value.

To be built in stages as follows.

Stage 1 is to build a single circuit 132kV transmission line between the existing East Kimberley Power System (EKPS) in WA and the NT's Darwin Katherine Power System (DKPS).

With reference to the map, this requires a new transmission line between the EKPS, physically connecting somewhere between Kununurra and the shore of Lake Argyle to the south where the existing hydro station is located, running to at the other end the existing gas turbine power station and 132kV substation at Katherine in the NT.

1743069630206.png

Red = existing 132kV transmission. Brown = existing 66kV transmission.

Operationally this enables the existing hydro to be repurposed. In short it'd be turned off during daytime, and run heavily overnight to supply about 20% of the overall system demand. Daytime power would be from solar, located anywhere on the system (eg could be anywhere from Darwin to Kununurra itself) noting this does not require batteries, it's just direct and thus cheap use of the solar.

Physically this line would be built as a single circuit 132kV line between the EKPS and Victoria River (the river roughly half way between Kununurra and Katherine). Between Victoria River and Katherine would be built on towers designed for 2 x 220kV circuits, initially strung with one circuit only and operated at 132kV.

Stage 2 being to construct a dam and hydro power station on the Victoria River. This being a large storage scheme, it'll hold 4.5 years' worth of river flow so it's effectively drought proof. Generating capacity will initially be 30MW, installed as a single reversible pump turbine though initially without any use of the pumping function.

Combined with stage 1, this raises the hydro contribution to 40% of system overnight load.

Stage 3 is to construct a second dam lower on the Victoria River with transmission back to the upper dam site. Installed at this location will be a 35MW conventional (no pumping) hydro turbine. Note that this lower reservoir holds just over 3 years' of river flow by itself, not including water held in the upper reservoir discharging into it, so would be reliable.

Stages 1, 2 and 3 combined will provide over 60% of overnight system load.

Stage 4 is to duplicate the generating capacity at the stage 2 power station. Noting that with the lower reservoir this is now a pumped storage scheme, being pumped during daytime when otherwise surplus solar power is available.

Since it provides a daytime pumping load, it substantially increases the ability to install solar economically, that is with full utilisation, and by doing so results in solar still supplying a very high portion of daytime load on higher than average demand and/or overcast days. Noting that with the transmission network in place, the solar would be located at whatever is the best site in terms of weather patterns.

So this arrangement gives full solar during daytime and 80%+ hydro overnight. The remaining 20% supplied from existing thermal plant located in Darwin which will provide spinning reserve to mitigate the risk of a transmission fault on the single Darwin - Katherine line.

Existing thermal plant will also continue to provide peak power (eg evenings) when required as well as backup for transmission outages.

Stage 5 is to duplicate Darwin - Katherine transmission (new towers built for 220kV), further increase generating capacity at the upper power station, and do away with thermal generation at Darwin. Timing to suit either future load growth or end of life of existing plant.

Stage 5 could be split into sub-stages to suit the considerably differing ages and remaining life of existing plant. Eg put the line in, add another hydro turbine, in due course add a 4th, 5th etc turbine when required.

Energy storage capacity of the pumped scheme is nominally 569GWh so that's more than adequate to facilitate any realistic level of generating plant being installed. It's long term fit for purpose infrastructure capable of expansion simply by installing additional pump turbine generators, hence the future proofing by building the transmission towers to suit 220kV use in order to facilitate that higher capacity.

The economics wouldn't be all that great but if we consider the broader national development aspects, it may also facilitate some irrigated agriculture for example, and the Indigenous training and opportunity aspects, as well as the gas saving, then it could plausibly stack up overall. Bearing in mind the hydro and transmission are inherently very long lived assets, they're good for a century at least.

The staged construction is intentional firstly to get maximum life out of existing assets but it also enables construction with a local workforce over time rather than a "boom, bust" approach of doing it all at once.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is by no means a "dam the lot" approach. There's quite a bit more hydro potential in the NT but it's really not necessary to develop it since the above combined with solar can do the job in full. This is after all really quite small stuff compared to the eastern states or south-west WA.
 
Last edited:
Decisions, decisions.


FRANKFURT, March 5 (Reuters) - Germany's nuclear engineering lobby on Wednesday said up to half a dozen nuclear power stations could in theory be reopened despite closing in 2023 as a result of Berlin's decision to exit nuclear power, as the next government looks to secure cheaper energy.
Germany's conservatives, winners of the February election, said resuming nuclear power generation was an option to tackle high power prices and rising dependency on electricity imports, most notably from nuclear-reliant France.

The operators of the nuclear plants said, however, their closure was final.
Members of the nuclear technology lobby group include subsidiaries of Westinghouse and Framatome as well as part-German owned nuclear engineering services company Nukem (RWEG.DE), opens new tab(EONGn.DE), opens new tab.
"The recommissioning of up to six nuclear power plants is technically possible...The quicker the decision is made, the less money it costs and the sooner the baseload-securing, climate-friendly plants can rejoin the grid," the KernD group said in a statement.

Investment of between 1 and 3 billion euros ($1.07-3.21 billion) per station could pay for recommissioning, it added.
The statement came a day after the German parties hoping to form the country's next government agreed to create a 500 billion euro infrastructure fund and overhaul borrowing rules in a tectonic spending shift to revamp the military and revive growth in Europe's largest economy.
KernD said the operational costs of existing nuclear assets to be reopened would be competitive and the plants worked independently of the weather. Renewable power output was reduced for weeks last year due to adverse weather.

Germany also aims to phase out coal burning in coming years.

As of 2024, Germany has 48 coal power plants.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

  • Total Coal Power Plants: Germany has a total of 48 coal power plants.
  • Phase-out Target: Germany aims to phase out coal power by the end of the decade.
 
sptrawler said:
Decisions, decisions.


FRANKFURT, March 5 (Reuters) - Germany's nuclear engineering lobby on Wednesday said up to half a dozen nuclear power stations could in theory be reopened despite closing in 2023 as a result of Berlin's decision to exit nuclear power, as the next government looks to secure cheaper energy.
Germany's conservatives, winners of the February election, said resuming nuclear power generation was an option to tackle high power prices and rising dependency on electricity imports, most notably from nuclear-reliant France.

The operators of the nuclear plants said, however, their closure was final.
Members of the nuclear technology lobby group include subsidiaries of Westinghouse and Framatome as well as part-German owned nuclear engineering services company Nukem (RWEG.DE), opens new tab(EONGn.DE), opens new tab.
"The recommissioning of up to six nuclear power plants is technically possible...The quicker the decision is made, the less money it costs and the sooner the baseload-securing, climate-friendly plants can rejoin the grid," the KernD group said in a statement.

Investment of between 1 and 3 billion euros ($1.07-3.21 billion) per station could pay for recommissioning, it added.
The statement came a day after the German parties hoping to form the country's next government agreed to create a 500 billion euro infrastructure fund and overhaul borrowing rules in a tectonic spending shift to revamp the military and revive growth in Europe's largest economy.
KernD said the operational costs of existing nuclear assets to be reopened would be competitive and the plants worked independently of the weather. Renewable power output was reduced for weeks last year due to adverse weather.

Germany also aims to phase out coal burning in coming years.

As of 2024, Germany has 48 coal power plants.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

  • Total Coal Power Plants: Germany has a total of 48 coal power plants.
  • Phase-out Target: Germany aims to phase out coal power by the end of the decade.
Click to expand...
Another effort and in 15y, the following headlines will follow:
"up to 40 coal power stations could in theory be reopened despite closing in the 2020s"
With a cost of only 100 billions to recommission, this could allow Germany to end the rolling blackouts which have been plaguing its cities in the increasing colder winters....ROL
 
qldfrog said:
Another effort and in 15y, the following headlines will follow:
"up to 40 coal power stations could in theory be reopened despite closing in the 2020s"
With a cost of only 100 billions to recommission, this could allow Germany to end the rolling blackouts which have been plaguing its cities in the increasing colder winters....ROL
Click to expand...
The actual quote will probably be, Germany has asked China if they can borrow 100billion, to reopen power stations.
As they don't have the money, because they have spent it all buying solar panels, wind generators and batteries from China and they need replacing. 😂
 
sptrawler said:
The actual quote will probably be, Germany has asked China if they can borrow 100billion, to reopen power stations.
As they don't have the money, because they have spent it all buying solar panels, wind generators and batteries from China and they need replacing. 😂
Click to expand...
And currently blowing budget to carry on the war.
Germany is a good example on how energy is able to make or break a country.
 
qldfrog said:
And currently blowing budget to carry on the war.
Germany is a good example on how energy is able to make or break a country.
Click to expand...
Yes it certainly gives they impression that it is all or nothing mentality, the next couple of years will be interesting, trying to grow the manufacturing base while struggling with energy available to do it, will be a challenge.
The problem for the EU IMO, is the fact they don't work as a cohesive co op, each section runs its own agenda, like Germany shutting down their nuclear but using France's, but France needs to put in more and Germany isn't stumping up money for them but needs them to drive manufacturing.
Meanwhile both france and Germany use Norway's hydro, which drives up the cost for Norway, it just seems very disjointed and fragmented IMO. There doesn't seem to be a cohesive central plan and that will be a problem IMO, when members pull in different directions. :2twocents
 
qldfrog said:
So unbiased😂
Click to expand...
I thought the graph was great, it gave a terrific visual indication of where base load fits into the picture, it is very consistant along the base of the graph.

In the Texas graph, the base load is covered by nuclear and fossil fuel, whereas the peaking is more suited to the renewables and storage, just plain common sense really.
To try and make the yellow and dark green part of the graph large enough to remove all the other colours and replace them with mainly purple will be very difficult IMO
 
sptrawler said:
I thought the graph was great, it gave a terrific visual indication of where base load fits into the picture, it is very consistant along the base of the graph.

In the Texas graph, the base load is covered by nuclear and fossil fuel, whereas the peaking is more suited to the renewables and storage, just plain common sense really.
To try and make the yellow and dark green part of the graph large enough to remove all the other colours and replace them with mainly purple will be very difficult IMO
Click to expand...
Please note it is spring time low usage period which is why planned maintenance is on:
Low demand , max solar wind output.
I would guess a 20th of august or 20th of January would be radically different..we bet?
 
qldfrog said:
Please note it is spring time low usage period which is why planned maintenance is on:
Low demand , max solar wind output.
I would guess a 20th of august or 20th of January would be radically different..we bet?
Click to expand...
That's what I was alluding to, even though it is an optimum day for renewables output, with maximum solar and wind, there is still a huge amount of gas,coal and nuclear displayed on the graph.

To get rid of that blue, brown and light green, will take more than twice as much of the wind and solar than already is displayed in that chart, plus storage and storage charging capacity.

There will be days that have a lot less wind and solar generation than the day shown in the graph, but the demand will still be there and the storage will still need to be charged, people just don't seem to be able to get their heads around the enormity of the issue IMO.
 
sptrawler said:
There will be days that have a lot less wind and solar generation than the day shown in the graph
Click to expand...
That's the bit most seem to really struggle with.

Not from Texas but closer to home this chart for WA (specifically the SWIS which for those unfamiliar is south-west WA including Perth) shows the problem clearly.

Total daily output from wind and solar. Resolution is daily and covers the past 12 months:

1743163355867.png


Pretty easy to make it work on the 10th of December but a lot harder on the 11th of June.

With the added problem that days of low output are not always but are commonly cool enough that some heating would be used meaning higher consumption. Also likely to be more people inside, more use of clothes dryers and so on too on those days.

That's what sends engineers running for the hills, literally so. Because with present technology hydro's the standout method when it comes to storing energy. The key is finding sites that are suitable for long enough duration storage in terms of discharge time and which can be developed economically - that's the hard bit, most of the theoretically possible sites are prohibitively expensive per unit of storage capacity. Same with batteries - technically huge ones can be built, trouble is the cost. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
That's the bit most seem to really struggle with.

Not from Texas but closer to home this chart for WA (specifically the SWIS which for those unfamiliar is south-west WA including Perth) shows the problem clearly.

Total daily output from wind and solar. Resolution is daily and covers the past 12 months:

View attachment 196325

Pretty easy to make it work on the 10th of December but a lot harder on the 11th of June.

With the added problem that days of low output are not always but are commonly cool enough that some heating would be used meaning higher consumption. Also likely to be more people inside, more use of clothes dryers and so on too on those days.

That's what sends engineers running for the hills, literally so. Because with present technology hydro's the standout method when it comes to storing energy. The key is finding sites that don't just work but which are economic to develop - that latter bit kills off most of them. :2twocents
Click to expand...
It's crazy stuff, I'm going to a catchup with ex workmates on Monday.
It will be interesting to get up to speed on the gossip, most of them are still working, so it is always interesting.

On a side note, I'm really pizzed because the shopping centre which had free EV charging, has started to charge for use.

I mean after two years of free charging I'm pizzed, where are the loonies when I need them, I'm green I'm keen. Lol
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
It's crazy stuff, I'm going to a catchup with ex workmates on Monday.
It will be interesting to get up to speed on the gossip, most of them are still working, so it is always interesting.

On a side note, I'm really pizzed because the shopping centre which had free EV charging, has started to charge for use.

I mean after two years of free charging I'm pizzed, where are the loonies when I need them, I'm green I'm keen. Lol
Click to expand...
Thats not the end of it. As EVs become more popular you will be slugged by governments to replace fuel excise.
 
sptrawler said:
On a side note, I'm really pizzed because the shopping centre which had free EV charging, has started to charge for use.
Click to expand...
Unrelated but you've just reminded me of a certain bus company that used to run their buses on heating oil.

Easily identified by the clouds of brown smoke belching out the exhaust when going up hill. :roflmao:
 
The ruler being run over more Aussie processes.

www.abc.net.au

Owner of ‘uneconomical’ Port Pirie and Hobart smelters calls for government help to stay afloat

The operator of smelters in South Australia and Tasmania is urging state and federal governments to provide "essential" financial support, after its facilities were described as "uncompetitive assets".
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

The owner of the Port Pirie and Hobart smelters has put its hand out for government assistance, casting doubt over the future of the major employers if taxpayer-funded help isn't forthcoming.

Nyrstar, which employs more than 1,300 people across its Tasmanian and South Australian operations, said it was talking to the federal and state governments about the "severity of the challenges it faces".

The company owns the Port Pirie lead smelter and Hobart zinc smelter.

The Port Pirie smelter processes and refines lead, silver, zinc fume, copper matte and by-products such as sulphuric acid, according to Nyrstar.

The Hobart smelter produces zinc and other by-products, including copper sulphate, cadmium, gypsum and sulphuric acid.

Earlier this week, it was revealed plans for a $750 million green hydrogen facility at the Port Pirie smelter had been shelved.

The plans, which were announced in 2021, "never proceeded beyond feasibility", an SA government spokesperson said.
 
sptrawler said:
The ruler being run over more Aussie processes.

www.abc.net.au

Owner of ‘uneconomical’ Port Pirie and Hobart smelters calls for government help to stay afloat

The operator of smelters in South Australia and Tasmania is urging state and federal governments to provide "essential" financial support, after its facilities were described as "uncompetitive assets".
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

The owner of the Port Pirie and Hobart smelters has put its hand out for government assistance, casting doubt over the future of the major employers if taxpayer-funded help isn't forthcoming.

Nyrstar, which employs more than 1,300 people across its Tasmanian and South Australian operations, said it was talking to the federal and state governments about the "severity of the challenges it faces".

The company owns the Port Pirie lead smelter and Hobart zinc smelter.

The Port Pirie smelter processes and refines lead, silver, zinc fume, copper matte and by-products such as sulphuric acid, according to Nyrstar.

The Hobart smelter produces zinc and other by-products, including copper sulphate, cadmium, gypsum and sulphuric acid.

Earlier this week, it was revealed plans for a $750 million green hydrogen facility at the Port Pirie smelter had been shelved.

The plans, which were announced in 2021, "never proceeded beyond feasibility", an SA government spokesperson said.
Click to expand...
perfectly good reason for the federal government to just acquire them.
rather than giving money to an overseas owned entity, take some equity.
get a seat at the boardroom table and find out whats really going on.
The alternative is to close down these smelters shift production offshore.
Something else we will have to import.
Mick
 
sptrawler said:
The ruler being run over more Aussie processes.

www.abc.net.au

Owner of ‘uneconomical’ Port Pirie and Hobart smelters calls for government help to stay afloat

The operator of smelters in South Australia and Tasmania is urging state and federal governments to provide "essential" financial support, after its facilities were described as "uncompetitive assets".
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

The owner of the Port Pirie and Hobart smelters has put its hand out for government assistance, casting doubt over the future of the major employers if taxpayer-funded help isn't forthcoming.

Nyrstar, which employs more than 1,300 people across its Tasmanian and South Australian operations, said it was talking to the federal and state governments about the "severity of the challenges it faces".

The company owns the Port Pirie lead smelter and Hobart zinc smelter.

The Port Pirie smelter processes and refines lead, silver, zinc fume, copper matte and by-products such as sulphuric acid, according to Nyrstar.

The Hobart smelter produces zinc and other by-products, including copper sulphate, cadmium, gypsum and sulphuric acid.

Earlier this week, it was revealed plans for a $750 million green hydrogen facility at the Port Pirie smelter had been shelved.

The plans, which were announced in 2021, "never proceeded beyond feasibility", an SA government spokesperson said.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many projects have been shut down because they are not "internationally competitive" ?

We need to evaluate our own needs and assess the reliability of our supply lines and consider if national sovereignty is worth the price of subsiding such operations.

PS. Mick I wrote my answer before I saw yours. I agree with you entirely. :xyxthumbs
 
SirRumpole said:
I wonder how many projects have been shut down because they are not "internationally competitive" ?

We need to evaluate our own needs and assess the reliability of our supply lines and consider if national sovereignty is worth the price of subsiding such operations.
Click to expand...
And we all know these are a direct consequences of our energy price aka mismanagement and fairy land dreaming
 

Similar threads

Dona Ferentes
Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
984
moXJO
M
JohnDe
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
785
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
bigdog
Official Microsoft Office 2024 Professional Plus License Key $59 with lifetime free updates ends March 20
Replies
0
Views
320
bigdog
bigdog
Garpal Gumnut
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
838
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
mullokintyre
mullokintyre
Top