Energy Security

[wayneL]

I think we are over a BBL, Sean.

 

[Sean K]

So, NSW are going to allow Origin to shut down the 2880-megawatt Eraring power plant in Aug 25 and Kean's plan is to replace it with a 700MW battery that may last 2 hours. Is it April 1st already?

What tech is going to come on in the next three years that will fill the gap of reliable base load 24/7?

The AEMO thinks NSW is going to be able to absorb this, but they provide no detail on how.

Perhaps if the battery tech gets more sophisticated and can hold more power for longer in the next couple of years it might be covered. But at the moment, if the wind isn't blowing at night, they should be aiming for up to 10 x 700MW batteries, at least.

Surely, the Feds have to step in here and provide a proper transition plan for the eastern seaboard grid. A couple more gas fired plants as an interim while the other tech catches up might fill the gap and still reduce emissions.

If Australia wasn't racing towards net zero so quickly (and arguably so unnecessarily) then a better transition plan could be put in place so we could maintain our energy security.

 

[wayneL]

So, NSW are going to allow Origin to shut down the 2880-megawatt Eraring power plant in Aug 25 and Kean's plan is to replace it with a 700MW battery that may last 2 hours. Is it April 1st already?

What tech is going to come on in the next three years that will fill the gap of reliable base load 24/7?

The AEMO thinks NSW is going to be able to absorb this, but they provide no detail on how.

Perhaps if the battery tech gets more sophisticated and can hold more power for longer in the next couple of years it might be covered. But at the moment, if the wind isn't blowing at night, they should be aiming for up to 10 x 700MW batteries, at least.

Surely, the Feds have to step in here and provide a proper transition plan for the eastern seaboard grid. A couple more gas fired plants as an interim while the other tech catches up might fill the gap and still reduce emissions.

If Australia wasn't racing towards net zero so quickly (and arguably so unnecessarily) then a better transition plan could be put in place so we could maintain our energy security.

I wonder what the emmisions will be from everyone's back up generators?

 

[sptrawler]

So, NSW are going to allow Origin to shut down the 2880-megawatt Eraring power plant in Aug 25 and Kean's plan is to replace it with a 700MW battery that may last 2 hours. Is it April 1st already?

What tech is going to come on in the next three years that will fill the gap of reliable base load 24/7?

The AEMO thinks NSW is going to be able to absorb this, but they provide no detail on how.

Perhaps if the battery tech gets more sophisticated and can hold more power for longer in the next couple of years it might be covered. But at the moment, if the wind isn't blowing at night, they should be aiming for up to 10 x 700MW batteries, at least.

Surely, the Feds have to step in here and provide a proper transition plan for the eastern seaboard grid. A couple more gas fired plants as an interim while the other tech catches up might fill the gap and still reduce emissions.

If Australia wasn't racing towards net zero so quickly (and arguably so unnecessarily) then a better transition plan could be put in place so we could maintain our energy security.

Very true @Sean K we have been discussing it a fair bit in the "future of power generation and storage" thread.
Like smurf says, it will take a crisis before the politics get taken out of it and the technical people are given control again, since privatisation too much State/Federal politics and not enough technical have been involved.

 

[Smurf1976]

Is it April 1st already?

No but that is in fact the shutdown date for the first unit at Liddell. No joking.

 

[Investoradam]

I'm not a big fan of Greg Sheridan, but I think he gets this one right on energy security and the risk the West is taking running towards renewables and Germany dumping nuclear before there's a suitable transition plan. Russia have the EU bent over and will be able to take Ukraine because of their reliance on Russian gas.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Green-tinged West shoots itself in the foot on energy
Greg Sheridan

The absurdity of the West’s position in its confrontation with Russia over Moscow’s aggression towards Ukraine lies in this wretched equation.

If Russia invades Ukraine the only response threatened by the West – led by US President Joe Biden – is crippling sanctions. Chief among those sanctions must be stopping Russia earning the money to fund its army through its energy exports. Yet Russia provides a third of Europe’s gas, and half of Germany’s gas imports.

But Germany, in thrall to the excesses of Green enthusiasm, is abolishing not only its coal-fired energy but also its nuclear energy as well, making it hugely dependent on gas. Fracking is effectively banned in Britain, which is also moving to a ban on other gas exploration. Ditto other west European nations.

The greening democratic West is crippling its own energy production while in reality still relying overwhelmingly on fossil fuels. This has left much energy production, and therefore huge strategic leverage, to dictatorships which couldn’t care less about green issues, namely Russia, China and the regressive regimes of the Middle East.

One must remember Russia saw all this leftists liberalism and the atrocities that it only causes. Putin speaks openly about this.

the west is caught up in liberal leftisms & it’s toxic politics.

 

[Sean K]

One must remember Russia saw all this leftists liberalism and the atrocities that it only causes. Putin speaks openly about this.

the west is caught up in liberal leftisms & it’s toxic politics.

Yes, and China is doing it to the West as well through delaying their de-carbonisation so they can 'catch up' to the 'developed' world - even though they're arguably the biggest economy in the world right now. All we're doing is allowing them to get so powerful both economically and militarily that it's dramatically weakening our own strategic security position.

 

[wayneL]

Yes, and China is doing it to the West as well through delaying their de-carbonisation so they can 'catch up' to the 'developed' world - even though they're arguably the biggest economy in the world right now. All we're doing is allowing them to get so powerful both economically and militarily that it's dramatically weakening our own strategic security position.

This, so this ^^

I have been arguing this for the last 20 or 30 years.

In fact way back in the 80s my old man argued that we should all be learning Mandarin, due to our own stupidity.

 

[Sean K]

This, so this ^^

I have been arguing this for the last 20 or 30 years.

In fact way back in the 80s my old man argued that we should all be learning Mandarin, due to our own stupidity.

There was a time when we deliberately opened up to China with the theory being that once they got a taste for liberal democracies and capitalism they would naturally steer to the right and open up themselves. That did seem to be on track for a while, but then in the blink of an eye, they are more centralised and autocratic than ever.

 

[wayneL]

There was a time when we deliberately opened up to China with the theory being that once they got a taste for liberal democracies and capitalism they would naturally steer to the right and open up themselves. That did seem to be on track for a while, but then in the blink of an eye, they are more centralised and autocratic than ever.

And followed ideologically by our own governments... The CCP winning on several levels.

With so many, even a fair few ASFers cheering it on.

 

[Investoradam]

Yes, and China is doing it to the West as well through delaying their de-carbonisation so they can 'catch up' to the 'developed' world - even though they're arguably the biggest economy in the world right now. All we're doing is allowing them to get so powerful both economically and militarily that it's dramatically weakening our own strategic security position.

Nah dude.
Climate change is racist and only happens in white western countries

Chinese companies to build 700 coal plants in and outside China

Of all the new coal generation expected to go online over the next decade, Chinese companies will build nearly half of it.

www.mining.com

China’s plan to build more coal-fired plants deals blow to UK’s Cop26 ambitions

Renewed commitment to coal could scupper Britain’s aim to secure global phase-out pact at climate summit

amp.theguardian.com

 

[IFocus]

And followed ideologically by our own governments...

How so?

 

[IFocus]

So, NSW are going to allow Origin to shut down the 2880-megawatt Eraring power plant in Aug 25 and Kean's plan is to replace it with a 700MW battery that may last 2 hours. Is it April 1st already?

Isn't the issue the station is losing money?

Given government's want a market place for power, the federal government appears to have little or no future planning it would seem security has gone out the window.

 

[Sean K]

Isn't the issue the station is losing money?

Given government's want a market place for power, the federal government appears to have little or no future planning it would seem security has gone out the window.

Yes, and energy is a national security issue. The national government wants to build a gas plant to provide some sort of stop gap. But even that is being fought over by the green-left. For our national energy security in the short to mid term - 2025-2040, we probably need to build about six of them along the east coast to provide the 24/7 power to homes and industry while zero carbon solutions are realised, whether that's batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, or something that's yet to be discovered or engineered.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, and energy is a national security issue. The national government wants to build a gas plant to provide some sort of stop gap. But even that is being fought over by the green-left. For our national energy security in the short to mid term - 2025-2040, we probably need to build about six of them along the east coast to provide the 24/7 power to homes and industry while zero carbon solutions are realised, whether that's batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, or something that's yet to be discovered or engineered.

Hydro has been around for decades , the engineering is well known, all that is needed is the political will to stand up to the Greenies and provide the finance because it's likely that the private sector won't be interested given the long lead in time.

 

[Sean K]

Hydro has been around for decades , the engineering is well known, all that is needed is the political will to stand up to the Greenies and provide the finance because it's likely that the private sector won't be interested given the long lead in time.

We have failed dramatically in harnessing the potential of the northern rivers during the wet season. A long term strategic blunder.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hydro has been around for decades , the engineering is well known, all that is needed is the political will to stand up to the Greenies and provide the finance

Hydro is a thing which is very much site specific both with the details of how to build it and the impact of doing so.

On one hand my personal view is very firmly that sending a species extinct or permanently destroying something unique in order to generate electricity is a terribly bad idea. There are some places which for that reason really shouldn't be considered for hydro development.

But if we're talking about generic land that's of no unusual value or a situation where the impact is reasonably undoable well then it's a very different story. Renewable, dispatchable energy arguably has much greater value than that bit of land - and the amount society has devoted to agriculture, roads, towns and cities and so on vastly exceeds anything needed for hydro.

So it depends on the location. What's there and what would be the impact on it of development.

Holding a blanket "dam the lot" or "no dams" position as many do is most unhelpful in my view, neither really makes sense. It depends on the detail of any particular project.

 

[SirRumpole]

Hydro is a thing which is very much site specific both with the details of how to build it and the impact of doing so.

On one hand my personal view is very firmly that sending a species extinct or permanently destroying something unique in order to generate electricity is a terribly bad idea. There are some places which for that reason really shouldn't be considered for hydro development.

But if we're talking about generic land that's of no unusual value or a situation where the impact is reasonably undoable well then it's a very different story. Renewable, dispatchable energy arguably has much greater value than that bit of land - and the amount society has devoted to agriculture, roads, towns and cities and so on vastly exceeds anything needed for hydro.

So it depends on the location. What's there and what would be the impact on it of development.

Holding a blanket "dam the lot" or "no dams" position as many do is most unhelpful in my view, neither really makes sense. It depends on the detail of any particular project.

Indeed so, I wasn't suggesting put it in anywhere.

Other benefits that don't seem to get discussed are water supply for agriculture, towns, fish farming and recreation, although I realise that those benefits are sometimes competing.

 

[IFocus]

Yes, and energy is a national security issue. The national government wants to build a gas plant to provide some sort of stop gap. But even that is being fought over by the green-left. For our national energy security in the short to mid term - 2025-2040, we probably need to build about six of them along the east coast to provide the 24/7 power to homes and industry while zero carbon solutions are realised, whether that's batteries, hydrogen, nuclear, or something that's yet to be discovered or engineered.

I thought the issue was lack of planning along with the Federal Governments policy technology will be the answer (what ever that means)

Batteries (electrical) are not for storage purposes perse (Smurf correct me if wrong) but for fault conditions / maintain stability of networks etc which leaves gas as the only stop gap measure but then there's the supply and prohibitive cost issues particularly on the East Coast.

Whole thing just looks a mess.

 

[Sean K]

Hydro is a thing which is very much site specific both with the details of how to build it and the impact of doing so.

On one hand my personal view is very firmly that sending a species extinct or permanently destroying something unique in order to generate electricity is a terribly bad idea. There are some places which for that reason really shouldn't be considered for hydro development.

But if we're talking about generic land that's of no unusual value or a situation where the impact is reasonably undoable well then it's a very different story. Renewable, dispatchable energy arguably has much greater value than that bit of land - and the amount society has devoted to agriculture, roads, towns and cities and so on vastly exceeds anything needed for hydro.

So it depends on the location. What's there and what would be the impact on it of development.

Holding a blanket "dam the lot" or "no dams" position as many do is most unhelpful in my view, neither really makes sense. It depends on the detail of any particular project.

Absolutely, and there would have to be a cost benefit to any hydro development. What is CO2 emission free energy and limitless water down to the Murray Darling basin worth.