This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
To clarify:

All generation in Vic is at maximum and so is all generation in SA except the government's diesel-fired gas turbines which are idle.

Supply from Tas > Vic and NSW > Vic is at maximum. In both cases the limit is transmission capacity.

116 MW of load has been turned off in Vic. That's voluntary agreements with industry etc, not blackouts as such, but I'll say that's being a tad pedantic really since it's still something that would be running normally but isn't now.

It has a lot in common with the old story of someone about to be sacked asking the boss if they'll accept a resignation instead. It changes the technicality of the outcome and looks a lot better on paper but from a practical perspective it's the same end result that they're no longer employed / load is being shed.
 

Not wanting to be pedantic, but Northern Power Stations 450MW, would be quite helpful.

The really funny part is, these issues are only just beginning. I believe things will get a lot worse, before they get better.
I think any large industry considering building anything in the Eastern States, will want a guarantee of supply, and or compensation clause built into any power purchase agreement.
Interesting times ahead. IMO
 
sptrawler said:
Something obviously isn't connecting here.
Click to expand...
True.
Facts are not important to you.
Fact = we have capacity to meet typical summer demands because we can count that capacity and there is enough.
Fact = we cannot meet demand with capacity because the biggest suppliers are presently offline.
Fact = renewables are not offline and are operating within expectations.
 

Facts might be important to you, but reality seems to escape you.
Fact= renewables, by the bar graph you posted early supply very little of the load in Victoria.
Fact = you are having outages because of lack of generation and summer demands aren't typical, isn't it getting hotter?
Fact= Boiler tubes blow, due to age and erosion, they are not getting younger.
Fact = we cannot meet demand because aging plant isn't being replaced, and isn't likely to
be in the near future.
Reality, another 2000MW getting shut down by AGL apparently.
 
I'll pass on the politics and simply provide another update (last one for a while).

282 MW of load is being shed at present "voluntarily" across Vic and SA. This is increasing.

AEMO estimates 78 MW of "involuntary" load shedding across the two states starting fairly soon. In layman's terms that's blackouts.

Current supply by source (pretty much all running flat out).

Victoria:
Coal = 3551 MW
Gas = 2219 MW
Hydro = 2141
Tasmania = 478 MW
Wind 368 MW
Large scale solar = 196 MW
NSW = 132 MW
Batteries = 14 MW
Plus estimated 259 MW from rooftop solar which is reflected as lower demand.

SA:
Gas = 2465 MW
Oil (diesel) = 305 MW
Wind = 246 MW
Large solar = 119 MW
Batteries = 36 MW
Plus estimated 179 MW from rooftop solar which is reflected as lower demand.

Transfer between the two states is presently 31 MW from SA to Vic but that's somewhat irrelevant given that both have problems. Changing that volume or direction just moves the problem it can't fix it.
 

WOW, is that a FACT.
 
I think you underestimate the fanatism of the globalists.
They prefer a blackout today with a few deads in Australia than a few 0.01c increases due to australian role in gw, moreover for one life in Australia you could have 10 or so in the middle of africa or other galoping demographic area
.all life being equals and nations being a dirty word, it makes perfect logic for them to blow up all coal power stations in Australia today, irrespective of any local consequences.it is for the better good...of the planet
Couple that mindset with a few Abbott style coal maniacs on the other side, we are going into a wall.
Remember Turnbull snowy scheme version 2, a great idea in my opinion, not much heard about that since the coup?
it is ok, i have a generator...just wonder how long it will be before having one is forbidden
Rant over, pretty cool and sunny today in China.better than being in Adelaide today
Stay safe
 
Smurf1976 said:
Choosing to not have a plan is itself a plan of sorts given that it's a conscious choice to have moved to that situation (since we did have plans in the past).
Click to expand...
The problem with that statement is the States want a plan and the feds cannot provide it. Moreover, the plan was available to the feds in 2017 but it failed their ideology.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understood it the regulatory framework cannot impose commercial arrangements on suppliers. That's pretty much why AGL has told the feds to f#ck off when it comes to Liddell.
I get it that energy supply is critical, and that's why it's imperative that the feds put in place policies that will allow investment. But they refuse.
 
If the States wanted a plan they shouldn't have sold their Elco's in the first place.

Competition between States to try and attract business and industry was the only thing keeping power prices down.

These are (were) the the public's assets and I don't recall any party taking their sale to an election, they just sold them afterwards.

The biggest political stuff up in the country's history imo.
 
rederob said:
I get it that energy supply is critical, and that's why it's imperative that the feds put in place policies that will allow investment. But they refuse.
Click to expand...

They did a carbon tax, since then it has been impossible to get funding, to install coal fired generation.
The gas supply problem, limits gas fired installations and renewables cant cut it yet.
So the problem just gets bigger.
You posted up the bar graph, of fuel supplying generation, you should have a look at it.
 
sptrawler said:
my comments are in blue
Click to expand...
Facts might be important to you, but reality seems to escape you. Facts inform reality.
Fact= renewables, by the bar graph you posted early supply very little of the load in Victoria. Renewables are being added: but capacity from fossil fuel generators was meeting demand until it kept breaking down
Fact = you are having outages because of lack of generation false - large fossil fuel generators are offline - broken down and summer demands aren't typical, false - this was expected and AEMO told the federal and State Ministers over a month ago isn't it getting hotter yes - it's summer?
Fact= Boiler tubes blow, due to age and erosion, they are not getting younger. So what? This is a failure of policy makers to ensure industry has the backup necessary for peak demands. Moreover, all businesses plan for routine maintenance to occur when demand is at its low point.
Fact = we cannot meet demand because aging plant isn't being replaced, and isn't likely to
be in the near future it could and would be if industry had certainty in delivering a product to market. Currently there is a dog's breakfast and the feds will not clean it up.
Reality, another 2000MW getting shut down by AGL apparently. Again, it's a commercial decision. You want to blame someone for a company making a decisions that wont send them broke !

This really is not hard.
There is a NEM.
There is no plan/policy that warrants commercial suppliers spending billions to solve a problem which is not of their making.
The federal government has been given a solution but refuses to act.
 
You obviously have some serious issues, best of luck mate.
 
sptrawler said:
Facts might be important to you, but reality seems to escape you.
Click to expand...
https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...wer-as-victoria-swelters-20190124-p50tat.html
From the article:
sptrawler said:
Fact= renewables, by the bar graph you posted early supply very little of the load in Victoria.
Click to expand...
Winds were also light in Victoria with wind farms operating at around 35 per cent capacity and producing about 6 per cent of the state's output in the mid-afternoon.


sptrawler said:
Fact = you are having outages because of lack of generation and summer demands aren't typical, isn't it getting hotter?
Click to expand...

Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio said Victorian summers were getting hotter and longer because of climate change and that this was putting more stress on the energy system.
"We know that we’ve got ageing brown coal generators here in Victoria and they are actually feeling the stress as we speak," Ms D'Ambrosio said

If they had sufficient excess capacity, it wouldn't be a problem, like if they stopped blowing up power stations that are still serviceable.

sptrawler said:
Fact= Boiler tubes blow, due to age and erosion, they are not getting younger.
Click to expand...

"Clearly as generators age, we are running them very hard and with the hot weather and the fact that the weather is getting hotter in Victoria, we’re running them more," Ms Zibelman said.
"And so there is an expectation that like any old machines - think of old cars - that over time if you run them harder you are going to see more operating conditions that have to be fixed."

sptrawler said:
Fact = we cannot meet demand because aging plant isn't being replaced, and isn't likely to
be in the near future.
Click to expand...
It is a delusional to think renewables can replace coal in the near term, and given the age of the generating plant, some will need replacing in the near future.

sptrawler said:
Reality, another 2000MW getting shut down by AGL apparently.
Click to expand...
Whether it is a commercial decision to close it, doesn't really change the reality, it will worsen an already precarious situation. Someone will have to build some seriously big plant and if it is gas fired, they will have to find the gas to run it.
If that can't be done, coal or nuclear will have to be considered, because wind and solar wont do it.
Also if private wont build it, Government will have to. IMO
Interesting the difference in perceptions, of the same issues. Your post #2891 and mine.
 
Last edited:
You have not said anything that we don't already know.
You seem to want to attribute blame.
The problem, as outlined by industry and the States, is that we have been in an energy policy vacuum for many years now and the federal government continues to not act.
Immediately the federal government delivers policy certainty then industry will act because profits can be made.
Unlike your ideas, neither coal nor nuclear will be in remote consideration by industry because they are not viable options.
CCGT will be the likely choice for dispatchable supply. However, this will be contingent on locking in a long term gas supply agreement and I don't know who presently has uncommitted capacity.
Your idea that it "is a delusional to think renewables can replace coal in the near term" only depends on what you define as near term. Here's what the Saudis are presently financing. Note that for a smaller solar farm project last fall, Saudi Arabia awarded a contract to a bidder offering costs per kilowatt-hour of 1.786 cents.
At Saudi's Kwh prices massive investment in solar with storage options via battery and pumped hydro will make sound commercial sense.
 
rederob said:
You have not said anything that we don't already know.
You seem to want to attribute blame.
Click to expand...
Not at all, I was just pointing out, that my information came from the article.
Your information, came from your interpretation.
You certainly seem to take anything, that doesn't agree with your interpretation, as a personal affront.
We are just giving our opinions, they are worth what they cost, neither of us has the answers or the ear of anyone that does. IMO
CCGT's are good 54% efficient, but as you say they need the gas to run them.
HEGT's are ok too 40%+ efficiency, but again gas is an issue.
The only viable renewable of size ATM is windfarms, the molten salt is still fairly untested technology.
Also I would guess it uses gas when the sun isn't shining, and for achieving steam conditions, pre RTS of the turbine to control differential expansions.
 
I'll aim to steer clear of the politics and just state what has happened and some observations.

*A total of about 630 MW of load was ultimately shed across Vic and SA. Of this, about 365 MW was shed voluntarily (industry etc) and the remaining 266 MW was done by force (blackouts).

To put this in perspective it's about 5% of the load at the time or about 10% of average load. So it's not a disaster but it would be fair to say it was a significant event given that it did ultimately involve involuntary cuts (blackouts).

*All available coal, gas, hydro, diesel, battery, wind and solar generating plant in Vic and SA was fully utilised with an additional 478 MW from Tasmania and a varying amount, generally in the vicinity of 200 MW, from NSW.

*Overall generation in Vic and SA worked better than could reasonably be expected with a total of 1002 MW of plant not running. That is an imperfect result but anyone who has spent much time around power stations wouldn't consider an overall outage rate of 8.5% as being particularly bad, especially not when it is considered that virtually all of that involved thermal (fuel burning) plant more than 30 years old.

*The modeled "firm" wind generation between the two states is 210 MW and this is what is assumed to always be available (that is, it doesn't go to zero). Actual wind generation between the two states varied as it always does but it was consistently above this figure during the load shedding and most of the time was at least double that amount.

*Batteries in both states also worked as intended but in practice the discharging commenced significantly earlier than necessary, when the alternative option existed to increase generation from conventional sources (particularly diesel) with the result that in both states the batteries went flat during the period of load shedding, loss of that supply adding to the problem.

So far as the politics is concerned, I'll simply note that over the past day or so there were plenty of "experts" assuring the public via the media that all was well. This Smurf however told you there was a problem. Not because I'm a genius, I ain't no genius, but perhaps because I'm not seeking to be elected to anything and have no reason to not call it as it is.

Yes the breakdowns at Loy Yang and Yallourn could be labelled as the "cause" but then nobody who has spent time around this stuff would not be expecting something to break somewhere, the only question being the details.

A finger could be pointed at discharging the batteries prematurely. They wouldn't have avoided all problems but could have reduced it if only used when absolutely necessary. Blame the "market" way of doing things for that occurrence - they were discharged to make a profit for the operators. That said and to be fair, there would have been grounds for forcing more sensible operation if the looming problem had been more readily acknowledged.

Ultimately though it all comes down to their being insufficient capacity in the system to cope with a normal level of plant outages occurring when it gets hot.
 
Looking at tomorrow:

NSW forecast maximum demand = 12681 MW at 17:00 market time
NSW forecast supply from within the state = 12414 MW

Vic forecast maximum demand = 9251 MW at 14:30 market time
Vic forecast supply within the state = 8124 MW

AEMO is currently forecasting forced load shedding (blackouts) in Victoria during the period 12:00 to 15:00 market time (so that's 13:00 to 16:00 Vic local time).

Supply Qld > NSW fixes the NSW issue so long as nothing goes wrong.

For Victoria, whilst AEMO is officially forecasting blackouts I'm not convinced that it's unavoidable noting the very much lower demand in SA enables a strong supply SA > Vic and the time differential with the NSW peak enables supply from NSW up to the limit of transmission. Add in maximum supply from Tas and between them that should fill the gap. Tomorrow we'll find out.

One thing I do omit in posts on this subject is the financials but there are many implications.

Electricity futures are one. That a number of listed companies are involved in the industry is another. That a number of listed companies have electricity as a major cost is another.

Amidst all of this also a mention specifically of Torrens Island "A" power station in SA. 52 years old and the oldest steam plant in the system but all four units were pushed right up to their original (1967) rated output today of 120 MW each and the plant has worked flawlessly. A credit to everyone from the original designers to current operations and maintenance staff.
 
Last edited:

I read so many different stories about what the Saudis are doing witht their energy policy.
I think this is reasonably accurate (nov 2018) from the different articles ive read (basically they'll diversify):

Generating capacity is over 60 GWe. Demand is growing by 8-10% per year and peak demand is expected to be 70 GWe by 2020 and 120 GWe by 2032, driven partly by desalination increase. However, in October 2015 the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) said: “The annual increase in domestic demand for energy ranges now between 6% and 8%. Forecasts indicate that the Kingdom will have to increase its generated power by 80 GWe by 2040." Saudi Arabia is unique in the region in having 60 Hz grid frequency, which severely limits the potential for grid interconnections – it has no electricity import or export.

The Ministry of Water & Electricity (MOWE) is broadly responsible for power and desalination in the country.

It had plans to install 24 GWe of renewable electricity capacity by 2020, and 50 GWe by 2032 or 2040, and was looking at the prospects of exporting up to 10 GWe of this to Italy or Spain during winter when much generating capacity is under-utilised (cooling accounts for over half the capacity in summer). The 50 GWe in 2032 (later: 2040) was to comprise 25 GWe CSP, 16 GWe solar PV, 4 GWe geothermal and waste (together supplying 150-190 TWh, 23-30% of power), complementing 18 GWe nuclear (supplying 131 TWh/yr, 20% of power), and supplemented by 60.5 GWe hydrocarbon capacity which would be little used (c10 GWe) for half the year. The nuclear target date has now been put back to 2040. In 2016 renewables targets were scaled back from 50% to 10% of electricity (by 2040) as plans shifted more to gas, so that it would increase its share from 50% to 70%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
852
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
628
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
721
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
530
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...