Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Maybe more incentives for consumers to install Powerwall systems instead of feeding excess into the grid.
Click to expand...
Like I said once before, I tend to think it will become a requirement of the building codes, eventually.
Similar to the insulation energy efficiency class requirement now, all builders will have to include solar and batteries, in the price of new build houses.
It still leaves a huge problem in the distribution system, controlling volts, new pole top transformers with auto tap changes will end up being required IMO.
But with regard the 'bigger picture', household solar and batteries is a pimple on an elephants arse, when taken in context to the size of the problem.

What did Finkle say, we need about 200GW of renewables, when you consider smurph said a while back the total load on the Eastern States grid was 30 GW, that tells you how much is going to be required.
200GW is a mind boggling amount of solar and wind generation.
With gas, steam driven generation you only need enough to run the system, with a bit extra for standby, because you just fire it up when you want it, 100% is ready to go at the turn of a switch when it is driven by fossil fuel.
With renewables, you have to have enough to operate the system, then extra to allow for unreliable generation due to weather/ time of day or night, then more to be able to make some form of stored energy.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
What did Finkle say, we need about 200GW of renewables, when you consider smurph said a while back the total load on the Eastern States grid was 30 GW, that tells you how much is going to be required.
.
Click to expand...
200GW is a mind boggling amount of solar and wind generation.
To put it a bit more into context, the total rated output of all the installed rooftop solar systems that have been put in as at January 2018, is 7GW.
That is every one at rated output, which they never achieve, so you could probably say on a good day when the sun is at its zenith 5GW. That is from 2 million houses.
There are about 10million houses in Australia, not all will be suitable for solar, due to location, design, environment etc
So if you say 8 million are suitable, if they all had solar on them, it is 28GW for about some part of the day. As most will be on the East Coast, but some central and others on the West Coast.

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/aussie-rooftop-solar-installations-2-million/
 
Last edited:
Tisme said:
Well feedin is regulated by an approval process in conjunction with AS4777. So distributors would be to blame if they can't govern their own excess limits.
Click to expand...
Technical reality pays no attention to anything of a regulatory, political or economic nature as the powers that be are now discovering the hard way.

In terms of solutions, multiple things are required if the aim is to do it economically and reliably:

Load shifting brought about by pricing differentials, network switched loads and adjustment of timer switching systems.

In simple layman’s terms that means running water heaters 10am - 3pm instead of during the peaks or at night and it means encouraging consumers to run dishwashers, clothes dryers, pool filters etc and charge anything with batteries duringnthe middle of the day.

We also need batteries at the local level either in homes or at substations.

The big one though is pumped hydro. That’s the third thing that will make or break the entire transition really.

Nothing else comes close with the combination of scale, cost, durability and technical efficiency. Everything else has at least one major shortcoming.

At present there are 3 pumped storage schemes in Australia:

Tumut 3 (Snowy) is a part pumped storage system and part conventional hydro station. Capacity is 1800 MW generation / 600 MW pumping.

Wivenhoe (Qld near Brisbane) has a capacity of 500 MW.

Shoalhaven (NSW) has a capacity of 240 MW.

There are various modest proposals in SA at present plus the Kidston project in Qld. The big ones though are:

“Snowy 2.0” (Snowy Hydro, 2000 MW as a single project).

“Battery of the Nation” (Hydro Tasmania, multiple projects planned to be 2500 MW but could be built smaller or larger if needed by adding or removing components).

Both of the above involve significant transmission being built as well as the actual pumped storage scheme. That aspect does give some initial advantage to projects like the 300 MW one located about 15 Km from the Adelaide CBD but they are limited in scale so ultimately the big ones are needed.

From an economic perspective, Hydro Tas can almost certainly do the actual storage bit considerably cheaper than Snowy can but the cost of transmission across Bass Strait means there’s not a huge difference overall.

Both will be built is my expectation, the question being about timing more than anything else.
 
SirRumpole said:
Alan Finkle speaks on future developments in the power industry.

Some good news for H2 enthusiasts.

https://theconversation.com/the-sci...t-creating-our-low-carbon-future-today-104774
Click to expand...

i think you will a softening of the conversation against coal, as the reality of the task ahead sinks in, then the screaming heads will realise they aren't being realistic and accept that it will be a slow transition at best.
The only sure fire way of fast tracking to clean emission energy, is nuclear and no one wants that.
 
I honestly don't get what the world is doing ...the Paris Climate is now just an unreachable aspiration. We're now talking about trying to contain temperature rises somewhere within the next 100 years; its absolutely stupid to keep talking about limiting us to a 2C degree rise; for one, fossil fuels are too entrenched and still needed where counties need to build cities and infrastructure. And two, no one really knows what happens if we reach that goal anyway. Coal will be well and truly entrenched well past 2050.

"Yet carbon emissions began growing again last year after a three-year plateau as fossil-fuel emissions hit an all-time high. Emissions have quadrupled since 1960, and globally the last four years have been the warmest four on record, according to an international report released in August"- Latest UN climate report.

This, after spending $280B on renewables last year alone.

There was an article on huffington post the other day suggesting that the only way to reach climate targets in 20 years was to go nuclear. Will never happen in Australia...I get that...but Id like to see nuclear championed more. This makes sense in highly urbanised areas - energy demand is set to soar in the coming years according to the IEA's World Energy Outlook. I just cant see major urban cities trying to rely 100% on renewables with storage.

Here's a good example of nuclear efficiency under load...

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article219511690.html
 
I don't think there is enough area on Earth, to fit enough renewables, to replace the generation that is already in service.
Whether people like it or not, once the pissing contest between the greens and the realists is over, nuclear unfortunately will be the only answer. IMO
The problem is between now and when that becomes obvious, a lot of money and heartache has to happen.
Even a Country like Australia, which has vast empty spaces and plenty of sunshine, will struggle. That is with a relatively small energy consumption, check out how much power the USA and China use. Lol
 
An example of the technical difficulty with intermittent renewables was seen in SA a short time ago.

Between 12:10 and 12:15 local time the total statewide demand for centrally generated electricity, that is power produced at power stations, went up 13%.

That’s 13% in five minutes, a truly staggering rate of increase.

Cause? Clouds came across Adelaide and as a result solar output from house roofs fell jn a heap.

There were some other abrupt jumps as the clouds rolled jn and by 13:25 local time demand for centrally generatd power was 48% higher than it was just 75 minutes earlier.

Those figures are for the whole of SA and include consumption in industry and in towns quite some distance from Adelaide with different weather timing.

If you measured it just in the suburbs of Adelaide then the increase would be truly staggering. I don’t have that data but it would be well over 100%.

Suffice to say that some equipment copes with this just fine but there are other things for which it’s a real struggle. And that’s with ~35% of homes in Adelaide having solar, the results will become even more dramatic as that fugure increases.

That’s not to say it can’t be done, just that there’s a lot more to it than simply installing solar panels and wind generators. They’re the easy bit.
 
There can be all sorts of conversations about the optimal, cost effective way to migrate to a renewable energy future. If this was 2005 or 1995 it would be a relative soda. One could take a longer term approach and wind down fossils fuels in an orderly way while replacing them with clean renewable energy.

But it is too late for that approach in 2018. We need to move immediately to renewable energy to drastically reduce the Greenhouse Gases that are creating runaway global warming. The most recent report from the IPCC points out that time is well and truly up. If we want to (somehow..) keep global warming to 1.5C we have to achieve world wide zero GG emissions by 2050. This is a truly heroic task and trying to do this "cost effectively" now is just imposssible.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching”transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to bebalanced by removing CO2 from the air.
“Limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would
require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co- Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/session48/pr_181008_P48_spm_en.pdf

Could this be achieved and at what cost ? Theoritically... yes. How? There is a rough estimate in Greg Jerichos article. Not cheap but doable. And when one looks at the consequences of not reining in global warming actually quite a bargain.
Australia's climate idiocracy must end – and there's no time to waste
Greg Jericho
The Liberal party’s biggest con was the idea that reducing emissions could be done without pain and at little cost

@GrogsGamut
Sun 14 Oct 2018 08.00 AEDT Last modified on Sun 14 Oct 2018 10.10 AEDT

Shares
1196

Comments
728

Michael McCormack, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg, who bragged that ‘emissions on a per capita and GDP basis have come down to their lowest level in 28 years’. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
This week came the news from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that we are screwed. I wish I could be more optimistic. I wish I could hold out some hope that things are about to improve. But I look at actions by governments around the world, and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, and I find the ability to retain a positive outlook smothered in the face of feckless indifference and wilful ignorance.

The IPCC report is not actually, as some would have you think, a prophecy of doom – it is a call for action. Rather than talking of what will happen if the planet warms by 2C above industrial levels, its focus is on how much lower the risks are if we limit it to 1.5C.

And the good news is this can actually be done.

The bad news is we need to do it by 2030 and it is going to cost, on average, about US$2.4tn every year until 2035 – equivalent to 2.5% of the world GDP.

For Australia, that translates to around $46bn – the same amount the government spends on the aged pension. Even if we argue that as we only contribute about 1% of total global emissions we should only contribute 1% of the US$2.4tn cost, we are chipping in $33bn a year in Australian dollars – or equivalent to the combined amount spent this year on the NDIS, Newstart and the childcare subsidy.

Not cheap.

But keeping temperatures at 1.5C reduces the risk of, for example, all of the Great Barrier Reef dying (we’re still likely to lose 70% to 90%). Our farmers would certainly notice the difference as the reports suggests that biome shifts in Australia (which would see our arid, temperate and tropical regions shift) “would be avoided by constraining warming to 1.5C as compared with 2C”.

In a pure dollars sense, the report notes that “the economic damage in the United States from climate change” is around 1.2% of GDP per 1C increase.

So it is pretty clear that limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C is worth it. The problem is it is harder to achieve. It requires, for example, reducing emissions to zero by 2050 rather than 2075.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...diocracy-must-end-and-theres-no-time-to-waste


 
basilio said:
So it is pretty clear that limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C is worth it. The problem is it is harder to achieve. It requires, for example, reducing emissions to zero by 2050 rather than 2075.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...diocracy-must-end-and-theres-no-time-to-waste
Click to expand...

As well as our sunshine and wind, we also have uranium and thorium for reactors, and large tracts of desert to put them in in case something goes wrong.

Someone has to give nuclear serious consideration.
 
Our Chief Scientist Alan Finkel echoed the need to just get on with achieving zero net emissions ASAP. He had an interesting twist however with suggesting a focus on creating a new Hydrogen industry using renewable energy. Good story.

The science is clear: we have to start creating our low-carbon future today

...
It would be possible for the public to take from this week’s headlines an overwhelming sense of despair.

The message I take is that we do not have time for fatalism.


We have to look squarely at the goal of a zero-emissions planet, then work out how to get there while maximising our economic growth. It requires an orderly transition, and that transition will have to be managed over several decades.

That is why my review of the National Electricity Market called for a whole-of-economy emissions reduction strategy for 2050, to be in place by the end of 2020.

...My own focus in recent months has been on the potential for clean hydrogen, the newest entrant to the world’s energy markets.

Read more: How hydrogen power can help us cut emissions, boost exports, and even drive further between refills

In future, I expect hydrogen to be used as an alternative to fossil fuels to power long-distance travel for cars, trucks, trains and ships; for heating buildings; for electricity storage; and, in some countries, for electricity generation.

We have in Australia the abundant resources required to produce clean hydrogen for the global market at a competitive price, on either of the two viable pathways: splitting water using solar and wind electricity, or deriving hydrogen from natural gas and coal in combination with carbon capture and sequestration.

Building an export hydrogen industry will be a major undertaking. But it will also bring jobs and infrastructure development, largely in regional communities, for decades.
https://theconversation.com/the-sci...t-creating-our-low-carbon-future-today-104774

 
sptrawler said:
I obviously spoke too soon.

https://thewest.com.au/politics/fed...ear-power-if-economics-stack-up-ng-b88993214z
Click to expand...

Would nuclear power stations be a deterrent to attack ...... e.g. New Zealand decides to invade WA and impose really annoying accents on the population, Smurph could threaten to let the core go into meltdown and irradiate the 100 strong army of enemy soldiers? Or would that be bad form ... you know, unfair to the 99 women and 1 cisgender in that troop? :rolleyes:
 
8B5D8996-CF29-4854-856D-EAF9D39A92FF.jpeg
That's the second stupid thing he's said in two days.....if Australia can't do renewable then no one can....
 
It's a lot cheaper to build storage for wind and solar than nuclear, but still if someone comes up with an economic nuclear proposal why not consider it ?
 
CanOz said:
That's the second stupid thing he's said in two days.....
Click to expand...
The political “debate” over this issue is looking awfully like there’s a pre-determined outcome and the “debate” is just to make it look legitimate.

Whatever that pre-determined outcome is, it will involve dodgy dealings somewhere almost certainly.

We’ll know for sure if someone comes up with an “unsolicited proposal” or words to that effect.
 
SirRumpole said:
It's a lot cheaper to build storage for wind and solar than nuclear, but still if someone comes up with an economic nuclear proposal why not consider it ?
Click to expand...
I’m not opposed to nuclear in principle but suffice to say I have a lot of concerns as to what sort of “deals” may lead us to that point.
 
Smurf1976 said:
The political “debate” over this issue is looking awfully like there’s a pre-determined outcome and the “debate” is just to make it look legitimate.

Whatever that pre-determined outcome is, it will involve dodgy dealings somewhere almost certainly.

We’ll know for sure if someone comes up with an “unsolicited proposal” or words to that effect.
Click to expand...

"first I've heard of it", "no truth in the rumour", "no consensus" etc

Who benefits financially from building a nuclear reactor is the real quiz ...Wentworth?
 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
520
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top