Energy Security

[Sean K]

Maybe it won't be an immediate problem, but the trend is worrying.

gWh out, how much in ?

1500G from where? Maybe there's some windmills that aren't turned on yet?

 

[Sean K]

1500G from where? Maybe there's some windmills that aren't turned on yet?

@SirRumpole I checked Wiki and perhaps the Bayswater upgrade is going to cover it.

In December 2018, a proposed upgrade to the Bayswater Power Station was approved to be completed around the same time as the proposed closure of Liddell. Both are owned by AGL Energy and consume coal from the same mine. The upgrade approval did not impose tighter air emission controls, however AGL claimed that the closure of Liddell would result in a net improvement in air quality.

After Liddell's closure, the site is planned to house a big battery of at least 150 MW.

The first turbine was closed in April 2022, with the other three turbines planned to close on 28 April 2023. Since April 2022, Liddell has typically been generating 750 MW per day.

So, only 750Mw to replace perhaps, if the Bayswater upgrade doesn't cover it. Or, 5 of those big batteries.

 

[qldfrog]

Maybe it won't be an immediate problem, but the trend is worrying.

gWh out, how much in ?

Nah we can close a smelter or dragline and put a windmill and it will be ok

 

[qldfrog]

Australia's energy transition will cost 'trillions' and still needs a gas safety net: study

A landmark report modelling Australia's pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050 finds the country's biggest power grid will need to triple in size within eight years.

www.abc.net.au

Or what about checking first that CO2 emissions are actually causing any major warming world ?
why an increase of CO2 is a consequence not a cause..causality seems to be a misunderstood theme in that story/scam
we can still change historic data sorry correct them to match the story as BOM and others do.
Real issue is overall energy consumption of the world and my view..based on bloody facts is that it does not really matter if it is gas nuclear or coal.
Solar and wind do not add to the balance of earth energy..as long as we do not burn more other types of fossil or embedded energy to get the output.
For example EVs are usually not even neutral vs similar ice..so not sure batteries are really useful in that fight for lower embedded energy usage vs gas plants.
Smooth the curve yes but as we saw with Covid

 

[SirRumpole]

Australia's energy transition will cost 'trillions' and still needs a gas safety net: study

A landmark report modelling Australia's pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050 finds the country's biggest power grid will need to triple in size within eight years.

www.abc.net.au

Or what about checking first that CO2 emissions are actually causing any major warming world ?
why an increase of CO2 is a consequence not a cause..causality seems to be a misunderstood theme in that story/scam
we can still change historic data sorry correct them to match the story as BOM and others do.
Real issue is overall energy consumption of the world and my view..based on bloody facts is that it does not really matter if it is gas nuclear or coal.
Solar and wind do not add to the balance of earth energy..as long as we do not burn more other types of fossil or embedded energy to get the output.
For example EVs are usually not even neutral vs similar ice..so not sure batteries are really useful in that fight for lower embedded energy usage vs gas plants.
Smooth the curve yes but as we saw with Covid

That's a pretty good report in my non expert view (informed by others here much smarter that I ) and indicates the problem we face if we let people like the Greens have the final word in electric network design.

We need both gas and hydro and they oppose both.

In the words of this forum's resident Oracle, they are clueless.

 

[Sean K]

Australia's energy transition will cost 'trillions' and still needs a gas safety net: study

A landmark report modelling Australia's pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050 finds the country's biggest power grid will need to triple in size within eight years.

www.abc.net.au

Or what about checking first that CO2 emissions are actually causing any major warming world ?
why an increase of CO2 is a consequence not a cause..causality seems to be a misunderstood theme in that story/scam
we can still change historic data sorry correct them to match the story as BOM and others do.
Real issue is overall energy consumption of the world and my view..based on bloody facts is that it does not really matter if it is gas nuclear or coal.
Solar and wind do not add to the balance of earth energy..as long as we do not burn more other types of fossil or embedded energy to get the output.
For example EVs are usually not even neutral vs similar ice..so not sure batteries are really useful in that fight for lower embedded energy usage vs gas plants.
Smooth the curve yes but as we saw with Covid

I'm sure it's taken into account, but how much is Australia's population due to grow in the next 30 years? Up to 50m? Is that factored into demand? It's a bit like our water security. Let's double the population but not build any more dam capacity...good thinking.

 

[SirRumpole]

In the words of this forum's resident Oracle, they are clueless.

<Sarcasm> . Not referring to Smurf who really is an Oracle on this subject.

 

[wayneL]

I'm sure it's taken into account, but how much is Australia's population due to grow in the next 30 years? Up to 50m? Is that factored into demand? It's a bit like our water security. Let's double the population but not build any more dam capacity...good thinking.

Perth!!!!!!

When we first immigrated in 1972 population of Perth was around 600000. Now it's about 2 million with, apart from the desal plants(which cause emissions), no upgrade of our water storage capacity.

 

[IFocus]

From the Water Corp site highlights the problems with storage stream flow measurements below

 

[sptrawler]

Perth!!!!!!

When we first immigrated in 1972 population of Perth was around 600000. Now it's about 2 million with, apart from the desal plants(which cause emissions), no upgrade of our water storage capacity.

From the Water Corp site highlights the problems with storage stream flow measurements below

View attachment 155969

The very reason that the W.A Govt is building the third desalination plant in Alkimos, to supplement the Kwinana and Binningup plants.
The water authority is also looking to mitigate the power consumption with 400 MW of renewables.
From memory the Kwinana plant was an 80MW load.
There was an option to pipe water from the Ord River down, but that wasn't feasible without LNG pumping and the decision to not process the gas at James Price Point near Broome, probably put paid to the idea.
The good thing is, at least Perth uses its desal plants, Sydney built one that cost $2b in 2007 and has had floods ever since, I think it has been used once in anger since it was built.
It would seem to me that NSW would be far better serviced by combining dams with pumped hydro facilities, than energy intensive desalination plants, their rainfall seems to be increasing as opposed to the expected droughts, that were predicted by the experts.

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov....d-desalination-plant-planned-for-Alkimos.aspx

 

[IFocus]

There was an option to pipe water from the Ord River down, but that wasn't feasible without LNG pumping and the decision to not process the gas at James

Nah cost to pump it down way higher than decel plant numbers never added up

 

[sptrawler]

Nah cost to pump it down way higher than decel plant numbers never added up

Actually it did, but only if it cold be pumped by gas pumps.

 

[IFocus]

Actually it did, but only if it cold be pumped by gas pumps.

1st time I have heard of that

Report here but its old and Water Corp not much better but this bit surprised me


"Water availability is limited

We also need to consider the amount of water available for use from the Kimberley. While there is a perception that large amounts of excess water are available in the north-west region, its wet and dry cycle of water abundance and scarcity means that it remains a water-limited environment. Rainfall in the north is generally prolonged and widespread during the wet season and river flows are significant during this time. During the dry season, however, some rivers cease to flow and the hot climatic conditions lead to very high evaporation rates that far exceed mean annual rainfall. Annual inflows to Lake Argyle are also highly variable.

In addition, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation who manages water resources across the State has informed us that much of the water in Lake Argyle is already allocated for use within the region. The demand for hydro-electric power in the Kimberley region to supply industry and towns is growing, the Ord River Irrigation Area is currently expanding, and water is released from the dam into the lower Ord River to maintain the environment. Lake Argyle’s large storage capacity provides a buffer against dry years thereby maintaining the security of the supply for allocated uses."

 

[sptrawler]

1st time I have heard of that

Report here but its old and Water Corp not much better but this bit surprised me


"Water availability is limited

We also need to consider the amount of water available for use from the Kimberley. While there is a perception that large amounts of excess water are available in the north-west region, its wet and dry cycle of water abundance and scarcity means that it remains a water-limited environment. Rainfall in the north is generally prolonged and widespread during the wet season and river flows are significant during this time. During the dry season, however, some rivers cease to flow and the hot climatic conditions lead to very high evaporation rates that far exceed mean annual rainfall. Annual inflows to Lake Argyle are also highly variable.

In addition, the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation who manages water resources across the State has informed us that much of the water in Lake Argyle is already allocated for use within the region. The demand for hydro-electric power in the Kimberley region to supply industry and towns is growing, the Ord River Irrigation Area is currently expanding, and water is released from the dam into the lower Ord River to maintain the environment. Lake Argyle’s large storage capacity provides a buffer against dry years thereby maintaining the security of the supply for allocated uses."

In the 1980's before the hydro was suggested at Argyle, I drove a well connected person, on a show and tell of the projects around the Kimberley's.
I asked him about the viability of the Ernie Bridge suggestion about pumping water down to Perth, he knew the exact cost per kl of pumping water, as opposed to desal and said the only way it would be feasible would be if there was a gas supply and gas fired pumps were used, diesel was out of the question.
He even mentioned two desal plants were on the drawing board and they are now in service, the first was built at Kwinana in 2006.
I'm sure pumping the water and reticulating the W.A coast was the main reason behind Barnett's push for the James Price Point gas processing facility, which was knocked on the head in favour of offshore processing on the Shell Prelude.
Another nation building opportunity lost.
Meanwhile we truck LNG up to Broome to run the power station and the 30MW Argyle hydro that was built in 1996 sits idle, as the diamond mine has closed.
All just another short sighted federal decision, that left Australia with stranded short term assets, when we could be growing crops and irrigating through the Kimberly and Pilbara down through Carnarvon, Geraldton to Perth.
Instead we got a floating processing facility that has been a disaster and Broome with rampant social unrest due to lack of meaningful employment opportunities, we certainly know how to make dumb ar$e decisions. IMO
Maybe the best thing for Australia would be some country to take us over, they couldn't make a bigger mess of it than we are. ?

August 2022

Shell Prelude “White Elephant”

THE TIMES Shell strike extension to compound energy crisis Emily Gosden: Energy Editor Thursday, August 18 2022, 12.01 am, The Times Shell’s giant floating gas production plant off Australia is to …

royaldutchshellplc.com

Thursday, August 18 2022, 12.01 am, The Times

Shell’s giant floating gas production plant off Australia is to remain shut until at least early September after strike action was extended, compounding the global supply crunch.​

The energy company is likely to face costs of hundreds of millions of dollars from the shutdown of the Prelude floating liquefied natural gas facility as it may have to buy replacement cargoes in the market to supply its customers, analysts said.​

Prelude, the biggest floating object ever built, has been out of action since mid-July after workers went on strike in June in a dispute over pay. It is the latest in a long line of problems to affect the plant that is estimated to have cost $17 billion to build and has been labelled a “white elephant”…​

​

August 2020

'It just hasn't worked': Just 3 years old, the world's largest floating factory remains offline

Shell's massive floating LNG factory off the Kimberley coast has been in shutdown since February and analysts are divided on whether the multi-billion-dollar facility has a future.

www.abc.net.au

Shell's massive floating LNG factory off the Kimberley coast has been in shutdown since February and industry analysts are divided on whether the $12-17 billion facility has a future.

Key points:​

• Prelude is an LNG facility moored off Australia's north-west and is the largest floating object ever built
• It has produced limited LNG cargo in its first three years and has been shut down since February
• Industry analysts are divided on whether Prelude has a long-term future

Prelude FLNG is the largest floating object ever built and billed as the solution to getting gas out of Australia's most remote undersea gas fields.

With five times the steel of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and half a kilometre long, it certainly is big.

But as it sits idle 400 kilometres north of Broome, it risks becoming the world's biggest white elephant.

 

[Smurf1976]

So, only 750Mw to replace perhaps, if the Bayswater upgrade doesn't cover it. Or, 5 of those big batteries.

Power versus energy.

For those not familiar think of it in terms of power being equivalent to how fast you are traveling in a car and think of energy as being equivalent to how far you have travelled.

Speed x time = distance travelled. Likewise power x time = energy.

Now the original design specifications for Liddell were 2000 MW power, with an availability of 75%.

That is, each of the generating units should on average be available for use 75% of the time and not available 25% of the time. That may sound unreasonable to those not familiar, 3 months downtime each year, but if you've ever seen the sheer complexity and the number of parts involved, and the length of high pressure pipe that's subject to failures and so on, then you'll understand why so much downtime.

Bearing in mind this is 1960's technology and the engineers were erring on the side of caution there - if it works better than expected, if it's more reliable, then that's not a problem. Hence the conservatism.

Bearing in mind there's 4 generating units, that is 4 complete sets of everything which operate independently. So 4 x 500 MW and take any one of them offline and the rest keep running. The only real common aspects are the stacks (chimneys) of which there's 1 stack per two units, and some sharing of conveyors but they do have some redundancy. Noting that a stack is a very unlikely cause of a problem so no real risk there.

Over time, given it's essentially worn out, capacity of the generating units has been de-rated to reduce what had become an excessively high incidence of failure.

The first reduction a few years ago was to 460MW per machine as the upper limit, later reduced to 420MW which remains the limit to the end. In practice however, in real world usage they're running at 320MW each which has avoided problems in recent times.

One of the units was closed just over 12 months ago, so in practice it's a 3 unit station at present with an upper limit of 1260MW and a normal running output of 960MW. So it's basically half shut and has been for a year now.

Here's a chart of Liddell's output for April 2023 up to the present moment:

Black line is total station output and from the 5th onwards it's sitting pretty constantly at 960MW with minor variation. What you see on the 5th is a normal, orderly startup (and the last ever in practice) of unit 2 following an outage. Individual unit outputs being the line at the bottom, generally sitting at 320MW each apart from that return to service and ramp up.

So it's been running at a stable output, but well down from original capacity, as above.

So what's it all mean?

In its present form, Liddell can meet about 8% of NSW peak demand. To the extent that poses a problem, and it could, it's one that's really only an issue during particularly hot or cold weather since, when it's mild, demand doesn't reach anywhere near the peak.

What's more significant however is the energy output and this is a detail widely overlooked by those (media, politicians etc) commenting on the issue.

Liddell is a capacity constrained generation source, not an energy constrained source. In simple terms that means the constraint on its output is the generating capacity of the machines not the ability to run them. That is, there's plenty of coal and water so provided it's not broken or undergoing maintenance then it can run constantly at full capacity if required.

The opposite of that, an energy constrained generation source, simply means the plant cannot be operated constantly due to lack of sufficient fuel, water or other inputs. That isn't necessarily a design flaw but simply making best use of a resource. For example hydro facilities are commonly built with more generating capacity than the available water simply because the intent is to operate them intermittently, storing the incoming river flow in the reservoir when they're not running. Underlying reason = it's a lot easier technically, and also cheaper, to stop and start hydro plant than to stop and start coal plant hence that design approach.

There are exceptions to that. For example Tasmania and the south island of New Zealand both do have baseload hydro operations simply because they've got enough of it to use hydro as the basis of the whole system with anything else being supplementary. Most places don't have that luxury.

NSW however does have quite a few "gotchas" in the system, a relatively large portion of energy constrained plant, and this is where any failure is likely to arise from. Excluding intermittent sources and looking only at those which are centrally dispatched, NSW generating plant as follows with categorisation as follows:

Not energy constrained:
Bayswater (coal) = 2740 MW
Eraring (coal) = 2880 MW
Liddell (coal) = 1260 MW
Vales Point B (coal) = 1320 MW
TOTAL not energy constrained excluding Liddell = 6940 MW

Possibly energy constrained:
Smithfield (gas) = 126 MW
Tallawarra A (gas) = 425 MW
Tallawarra B (under construction, gas) = 318 MW
Uranquinty (gas) = 692 MW
TOTAL possibly energy constrained = 1551 MW

Energy constrained:
Guthega (hydro) = 68 MW
Tumut 1 & 2 (hydro) = 674 MW
Tumut 3 (hydro / pumped storage hybrid) = 1800 MW
Jounama (hydro) = 14 MW
Shoalhaven (pumped storage) = 240 MW
Blowering (hydro) = 80 MW
Hume (hydro) = 58 MW
Colongra (gas) = 724 MW
Kurri Kurri (under construction, gas) = 660 MW
Eraring gas turbine (diesel) = 40 MW
Mt Piper (coal) = 1430 MW
Wallgrove (battery) = 50 MW
TOTAL energy constrained = 5838 MW

So 41% of the NSW dispatchable generation fleet is definitely energy-constrained and 51.5% is either definitely or possibly energy constrained. That's where any serious problem will arise. With running out of fuel (of whatever form, including water or battery charge) rather than simply running out of generating capacity.

Some of this does need some explanation, since you're probably wondering why I've listed coal plant as energy constrained. Going through them:

Bayswater, Eraring, Liddell and Vales Point B are all unconstrained coal plants under normal circumstances. Coal supply problems have occurred in the past, notably at Eraring, but under normal circumstances they've got all the coal and water they need to simply operate.

Smithfield, Tallawarra A, Tallawarra B and Uranquinty aren't subject to any specific gas supply constraint although their operation does depend on NSW as a whole having adequate gas available and that's at risk. There's some doubt as to the ability to operate these facilities extensively, noting that apart from Tallawarra B none of the others have the ability to use any alternative fuel other than gas.

For the hydro stations:

Guthega has an extremely limited water storage capacity, it stores a mere 0.53% of its annual water use so two days' worth basically, since it has never been fully developed upstream. If it's not raining then its ability to operate is very rapidly constrained to whatever water comes down the river.

Tumut 1 & 2 draw on a very large water storage, Lake Eucumbene, and are in series. Water runs in order through Tumut 1 > Tumut 2 > Tumut 3 > Jounama > Blowering. Long term output, annual, from Tumut 1 & 2 is limited to an average of about 190 MW but in the short term they can and from time to time do run constantly due to that large upstream storage.

Tumut 3 is the big one in every sense of the word. It's the largest hydro station by far at 1800 MW but it's also the largest risk of running dry. Reason being it discharges water about 10 times as quickly as the upstream Tumut 2 releases water. So that makes it extremely possible to drain out the Talbingo Reservoir into which T2 discharges and from which T3 draws water.

Under normal circumstances it works simply because Tumut 3 is run for peak loads and also incorporates some pumping capability to put its own discharged water back into Talbingo Reservoir for re-use. So long as it's only run for the peaks, and can pump during the off-peak, then it works. But in a shortage situation, if the required hours of generation increase and the available hours of pumping decrease, then it's a pretty rapid descent toward draining out the relatively limited Talbingo Reservoir which only holds 36 hours' worth of water at maximum output (based on T2 at maximum discharge into Talbingo, and T3 at maximum draw from it).

Tumut 3's design being one brought about by politics at the time. Long story but it was done instead of fully developing water storage above Guthega and building 3 other power stations in the Snowy scheme. Instead of doing that, it was decided to greatly enlarge Tumut 3 and add pumped storage to it on the basis that it would work using the surplus capacity of coal-fired generation to pump the water back up overnight. Doing so was cheaper and avoided an environmental conflict at the time associated with building the other storages and power stations. Downside = it comes with the risk as above both with T3 itself and with the lack of water stored at Guthega (it also reduced the amount of water stored for the Murray 1 & 2 stations which are electrically in Victoria).

Jounama is immediately below Tumut 3 and simply re-uses typical discharge from T3. It's output depends on Tumut 3's.

Blowering and Hume are power stations as such but they're not operated based on the need for electricity but rather, the need for irrigation water. Blowering simply re-regulates discharge from the Tumut side of the Snowy scheme and stores a full year's worth of water. Hume does the same for discharge from the southern end, the Murray stations, of the Snowy scheme. Operation is driven by farming requirements not electricity requirements - that they do generate is just a bonus. With an added complexity that Hume can be connected electrically to either NSW or Victoria and is physically on the border. So they're not really dependable as a generation source, they're in a similar category to wind and solar in that they're intermittent due to that mode of operation. I guess if push came to shove, the relevant Minister might make a decision to let the water out....

Wallgrove Battery and Shoalhaven pumped hydro are self-explanatory. They are storage systems for peak power, requiring external recharging. They serve a purpose but can and will be drained out if not charged.

So why have I listed Colongra, Kurri Kurri, Eraring gas turbine and Mt Piper as energy constrained? Don't we have enough gas and coal? Well it's complex.....

Starting with Mt Piper well quite simply no, it really hasn't had enough coal, that's been an ongoing problem for years now. 2013-14 was the last year it actually ran to its unconstrained capacity and since then it's been hit and miss with fuel supply. For the short term it can run to capacity so long as there's coal in the stockpile but on an annual basis not really.

Eraring gas turbine is easily explained. Nothing physically limits it but the NSW government won't allow it to operate more than 200 hours a year due to air pollution. It's a regulatory limit, nothing other than that.

Now for Colongra there's more detail. In short it has a limited connection to the main gas system and operation of the power station simply drains out the gas pipeline. It's good for a bit over 5 hours a day and that's it. Anything beyond that requires burning diesel fuel. Trouble is, for constant operation on a 24 hours / day basis the required volume of diesel fuel is about 3.5 million litres per day, all of which needs to be delivered to site by road tankers of the same sort which deliver fuel to service stations. I don't think anyone's ever put an exact figure on how much fuel could actually be supplied in practice but suffice to say it seems pretty unlikely that 3.5 million litres per day could actually be delivered and that being so, the tank would run dry in due course.

Kurri Kurri has a bit more gas but overall same constraint as Colongra at the technical level. Plus the added problem of being capped by legislation to 876 hours a year burning gas + 175 hours a year on diesel.

So if we put all that together then what it means is that to the extent production from wind + solar + Bayswater + Eraring + Liddell + Vales Point B + the actual operation of Blowering and Hume falls short of total consumption, that requires the gap to be filled by an assortment of facilities all of which have actual or at least potential constraints on their operation. Hydro with limited water, coal plant with limited coal, gas turbines with limited gas, diesel with a capped number of operating hours and storage systems which have to be recharged.

To the extent there's any risk to NSW electricity supply, that risk is of draining out those energy constrained facilities. Ending up with no water left in the dams, no gas pressure left in the pipes and so on. They simply can't run constantly, their operating hours are limited, and that point is overlooked by most who focus on peak power.

That's not saying a failure will occur, but I could certainly present a plausible scenario where it would happen. It's not out of the question, mathematically it's possible. Closing Liddell doesn't guarantee that outcome, but it does increase the chances. It's akin to knocking a few more supports out from under the building or taking a few more rivets out of the aircraft wing - it's weaker now but that doesn't guarantee it actually fails.

 

[Smurf1976]

The demand for hydro-electric power in the Kimberley region

Another way to fully utilise the water is simply to build a 132kV transmission line from Kununurra (WA) to Katherine (NT) thus forming a single interconnected power system extending, via existing lines, through to Darwin.

The Ord hydro station could then be operated intermittently, providing storage and peak generation to operate in conjunction with solar energy (to be built) thus replacing a decent portion of the gas used in the NT system at present and avoiding the need to invest in new gas turbines which are presently planned.

In a technical sense it's dead easy. Economics are questionable but the technical is straightforward - it's a transmission line like any other.

 

[Smurf1976]

For completeness I should add that there's also the Hunter Economic Zone (HEZ) station in NSW.

28 MW using multiple diesel engines.

It's never been run for more than peak loads in the past but given the small scale, realistically it wouldn't be too hard to get hold of enough diesel fuel so it should be available. It's left off most lists though simply due to its small scale.

Does have a nice big exhaust muffler outside that far exceeds anything anyone puts on a car though. See Google image.....

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Pretty sure you won't see anyone with a loud vehicle exhaust beat that one.

 

[qldfrog]

Company Builds Facility That Lifts and Lowers 24-Ton Bricks to Store Energy

Switzerland-based startup Energy Vault has broken ground on two huge gravity battery facilities in Texas and just north of Shanghai, China, CNET reports.

futurism.com

Ideally hydro pump systems are the best but in the absence of both elevation and reliable water, this might be the way to go:
And just out the box thinking: maybe use some of our big disused open mine out to swing load up and down a few 24t blocks going down a 100m or more can be realistic.
Obviously, it is mechanical and there is a lot of wear, friction,etc..and not forgetting cost $ and energy to setup
but will we have the choice if the CO2 crazies rule for much longer?

 

[Sean K]

We're really shooting ourselves in the foot with this energy transition. It's going to be a miracle if we actually get to 24/7 reliable power once the last few coal plants shut down.

 

[SirRumpole]

We're really shooting ourselves in the foot with this energy transition. It's going to be a miracle if we actually get to 24/7 reliable power once the last few coal plants shut down.

View attachment 156566

In that case maybe the Fed/State govt's should take over the coal stations and keep them running or pay AGL or whoever to do that.