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
Interesting stuff Bas, big changes coming.
 
sptrawler said:
Yep, i'll head back into the cave and watch with interest
Click to expand...
Do I get a look in the cave?

We'll get there in the Trabant from another thread.

Back on topic, this may sound eerily familiar.....

Tuesday 29 January 2019
Location = Victoria
Forecast generation available within the state = 6640 MW
Forecast maximum load = 7761 MW
Needed from SA, Tas, NSW = 1121 MW which is doable so long as nothing goes wrong but there's stuff all to spare.

Wednesday 30 January 2019
Location = Victoria
Forecast generation available within the state = 7172 MW
Forecast maximum load = 8459 MW
Needed from SA, Tas, NSW = 1287 MW which is pretty much the limit and there's no margin for even the slightest error in the forecasts or operational difficulties on the day.

Further to the above:

Load exceeds within state supply in NSW on 30 Jan so the ability to transfer NSW > Vic relies on supply from Qld > NSW and nothing failing in NSW itself.

Tasmania has a major problem with fires at present being fought by local professional firefighters + volunteers + crews from Vic, SA, NSW and NZ. Of particular relevance is multiple transmission lines affected by heavy smoke, which itself can cause lines to trip, and fire in very close proximity to those lines. It's not just a small fire and one or two lines, it's a widespread issue with a lot of stuff affected with the big difficulty being the uncertainty as to exactly what will trip and when. At the moment there's nothing to prevent maximum supply Tas to Vic but there's a definite risk there.
 
If they focus immigration from 3rd world countries at least they would be used to the infrastructure
 
Smurf when you consider it is still the holiday period, it could easily get worse next month. Is there any major plant due back
 
It does seem that there will be an increasing number of variations for producing energy. The lesser the need for storage by volume the better. The biggest eventual winner for Australia will be harnessing heat and sun and make the country expand rapidly at some point.
Areas of Australia are wasted scrub land. Maybe the population of Australia by 2300 will expand to 300 million people.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Yep, Snowy 2.0 is indeed additional peak capacity via a completely new pumped storage scheme (well, the reservoirs are existing but everything else is new). Include with it is additional transmission to NSW and to a lesser extent to Vic.
Click to expand...
Do you and SP take lessons from each other?
Snowy 2.0 will remove energy from the grid to pump water to its reservoirs so that it can supply the market as AEMO chooses.
As a battery Snowy 2.0 is very different from those attached to wind or solar because these source their energy directly from the wind/sun rather than steal from the grid.
Smurf1976 said:
The problem is that with the current way the industry works there's nobody really planning for EV's in an effective manner.
Click to expand...
The maths is not difficult.
The amount of energy required for our vehicle fleet simply needs to be calculated, as this is what will progressively feed from the grid to charge batteries as EV ownership increases.
The point is that the net addition is not built into existing calculations that I am aware so more load shedding will occur as a result.
sptrawler said:
Now your quoting wind to support your argument.
Click to expand...
That's a different argument I responded to, which I will address from your next quote.
So here's what solar PV arrays could do:
20 x 1 GW PV arrays = 20GW - which matches the UK number on wind capacity.
Or how about 2 x 1 GW PV arrays = 2GW - so we can get over load shedding next summer?


sptrawler said:
It will be interesting, when you consider that you need to install double the capacity of renewables, to cover on demand fossil fueled generation.
So back of the napkin, that's about, 46GW of renewables , that's 46,000MW OMG.
Click to expand...
First, I have never seen anywhere that renewables need to rate at twice the capacity of fossil fuels in the energy mix. Do you have a reference?
As I see it, you can only arrive at that number if you dodgy the maths.
Wind and solar plus storage potentially allow a lesser total capacity than the former fossil fuel equivalents. The simple reason is that excessive storage capacity could be available to smooth the peaks. Storage capacity is not yet cost effective, but the cost curve is continually reducing so it may well be a viable option in the next decade.
 
rederob said:
Snowy 2.0 will remove energy from the grid to pump water to its reservoirs so that it can supply the market as AEMO chooses.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the process is that current surplus grid energy would be used to pump the water. That would be off peak power from coal power stations or excess wind/solar power generation.

Smurf acknowledged this as well in his explanation

Hopefully they're (new pumped hydro units) not mostly going to be charged during the peaks. If they are, well then we're going to be in a world of pain in oh so many ways.

Any other knowledge ?
 
Alan Finke was being interviewed, and he said due to the variable nature and intermittent output of renewable energy, as opposed to the 24/7 nature of always available fossil fuel plant.
Twice as much renewable capacity will be required and three times the capacity in storage, I will try and locate the interview.
When he said it I thought that made sense, if you only have output during the day and when the wind is blowing, you would need a lot more capacity, one to service your current load and two to fill up your storage medium.
You will probably disagree with the logic, but it makes sense to me.
 
I will instead show what is possible:
For simplicity lets say an isolated coastal town needs a maximum of 10000Kw to meet demand on the hottest day of a year.
Assume a studied mix of wind and solar (ie accounting for trends in prevailing winds and insolation), plus excessive storage.
Make the rated capacity of wind and solar 1.2 times peak = 12000Kw
Make battery storage cater for 2 days peak = 20000kw
Leading into peak the excess capacity completely fills the batteries.
Indeed, at most times during the year the batteries would only be marginally drawn down (depending on mix of wind & solar).
This coastal town could survive 2 days on batteries alone, yet capacity is only 20% higher than required to satisfy peak demand.
While this is for illustrative purposes only, you recalled Finkel saying 3 times storage would be needed. Maybe, but imho even 2 times seems excessive as during the hottest periods of the year insolation peaks, so even 3 days completely windless is possible in a doddle.

basilio said:
My understanding of the process is that current surplus grid energy would be used to pump the water. That would be off peak power from coal power stations or excess wind/solar power generation.
Click to expand...
Correct Bas.
That capacity is being removed from the grid and being stored for later. In other words it is capacity which has already been counted.
It therefore cannot be counted as a net addition, and that's what Smurf did.
Moreover, Smurf snuck in peaking capacity, and that's a whole new ball game.
 

There is confusion here. Up until now it has been recognised that the off peak capacity of our power supply are often underutilised and in fact wasted. Part of the solutions to managing our power supply is finding ways to smooth energy usage particularly if baseload power supply from coal fired stations cannot be readily turned off. In fact of course the national energy system as it stands is a process of sharing power around the country to use the swings and roundabouts approach.

Creating a giant new hydro battery to use this supply is part of the picture of dealing with increased demand. Yes it is not true new capacity in the sense that it is completely additional supply. But it should enable load shifts of coal and wind power and excess solar to increase the capacity to deal with higher peak demands.

Potential problems ? Certainly. As Smurf pointed out you better have full dams in peak period. And when electric cars come on line the demand for off peak power will increase. Lot's of changes have to be made
 
This article shows what a total renewable energy Australia would look like. The full paper goes into the nitty gritty.
It's doable, practical and encouraging. Certainly not cheap but the final result will be a cleaner, more reliable, more flexible and cheaper energy system.

Of course it is largely new stuff. If we were only considering practices and technology from 30-40-50 years ago little would make sense.

What would Australia look like powered by 100% renewable energy?
Nicky Ison
Our electricity system of the future could be powered by sun, wind and waves


.....There are now at least nine studies conducted during the decade that have analysed how Australia can move from an electricity system based on polluting coal and gas to one powered by the sun, wind and waves.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) – the body tasked with making sure we have energy when we need it – found there were “no fundamental limits to 100% renewables”, and that the current standards of the system’s security and reliability would be maintained.

These studies show different pathways towards 100% renewable energy, but what they all agree on is that it can be achieved.

So how would it work? If we get our policies and regulation right, the electricity system of the future could look something like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lia-look-like-powered-by-100-renewable-energy
 

Going from my personal experience in Perth, I have a 6.4KW solar system installed capacity.
On a bright sunny day, it can generate 5KW, due to inherent loses in PV panels and inverter efficiency.
On an overcast day it puts out about 2KW.
 

Good article Bas, 70% wind, I thought it would be the obvious choice for the bulk of the generation, it still provides inertia just requires droop characteristics fine tuning.
 
You are confusing energy and power.

Power = rate at which work is done. Analogy = speed of travel eg 100 km/h but this says nothing at all about the distance, only the speed.

Energy = quantity of work done. The area under the curve. Analogy = distance traveled eg 200 km but this says nothing about the speed, only the distance.

Installed capacity = the power rating of the generator(s) in question either at an individual level or across an entire system. That is, the maximum power output of the machines but this says nothing at all about how much energy is actually involved, it only tells you the maximum power of the machine. For example a backup generator that rarely runs or an identical one that runs 24/7 have the exact same installed capacity but vastly different energy outputs.

In the context of electricity grids another term is relevant, that being "firm capacity" or alternatively "dispatchable power". In simple terms that's the amount you can reliably depend on being available once you account for variability in the output of intermittent sources (eg wind, solar) and outages of other generating plant (coal, hydro, gas) due to maintenance or breakdown. This cannot be calculated accurately for an individual generator, since the answer will always be zero, and necessarily needs to take into account the entire system or at least all wind farms or all solar etc.

Putting this into practical example using real generating plant which actually exists or is being built:

In 2020-21 when current projects are completed Victoria's wind farms (based on AEMO data which is publicly available):

Installed capacity = 3085 MW

Firm capacity = 249.9 MW based on AEMO's calculations regarding wind speed variability etc.

Energy output = Not assessed by AEMO but a reasonable estimate would be around 9500 gigawatt hours or, for simplicity, an average of 1080 MW.

All three of those figures are relevant in practice but the one that matters most in terms of avoiding blackouts is the 249.9 MW, that being the firm capacity or in simple terms what we can count on. Anything above that may or may not be available at any given time. The energy output is relevant in terms of overall contribution and the operation of storage schemes whilst the peak output is of relevance primarily to transmission, system control and system strength.

For another example, Loy Yang B power station in Victoria (coal).

Installed capacity (hot weather rating) = 980 MW. Cold weather rating and station peak output is 1070 MW.

Firm capacity = you wouldn't assess it individually but if you did then the answer is literally zero as is the case with many others. In practice it counts for around 800 - 850 MW a part of a large integrated system.

Energy output = depends on how much you operate it but the answer is, over the long term, the limit is around 7500 gigawatt hours or for simplicity an average of about 855 MW.

For another example, Tumut 3, that's a conventional hydro + pumped storage scheme in NSW.

Installed capacity = 1800 MW.

Energy output = 582 gigawatt hours or for simplicity an average of 66 MW if operated solely as a conventional hydro scheme without pumping.

Operation as pumped storage is a net consumer of energy, but enables increased running hours of the 1800 MW of capacity. Do enough pumping and you could get the net energy down to zero or even negative but it is still a 1800 MW capacity power station and still contributes 1800 MW supply to the grid at peak times with all machines in service. Note that the pumping capacity at Tumut 3 is 600 MW not 1800 MW so it's a fairly slow process.

Back to Snowy 2.0

Building a 2000 MW power station most certainly does add generating capacity so long as it works and the storage isn't empty. It doesn't add energy*, it's a net consumer of that, but that's not a problem assuming more wind and solar will be built + there's at least some periods when thermal plant operates below capacity. It adds generating capacity, lack of which is the immediate problem.

*In a strict physics sense a coal or gas power station also adds no energy, it simply turns 20 - 55% of the energy in fuel into electricity and the rest into heat, but that's being a bit pedantic. For simplicity I'll take it that it adds electrical enery to the system since it does.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that Smurf. We needed that clarification.
I'm interested/fascinated/concerned about the analysis of the Victorian wind farms. You suggest that the nominal capacity of 3085 MW translates into a general energy output of 1080MW and a firm capacity of 250MW.
When the farms are constructed what figure is used to describe their output ?
 
sptrawler said:
Going from my personal experience in Perth, I have a 6.4KW solar system installed capacity.
On a bright sunny day, it can generate 5KW, due to inherent loses in PV panels and inverter efficiency.
On an overcast day it puts out about 2KW.
Click to expand...

What’s your feed in tariff and your investment projections on that system
I noticed on another thread your not getting solar hw but opting for electric?
 
Humid said:
What’s your feed in tariff and your investment projections on that system
I noticed on another thread your not getting solar hw but opting for electric?
Click to expand...
I had a 1.5KW system, with a feed in tarrif of 47cents, I removed and replaced it with a 5Kw system F.I.T 7cents.
The 47cent tarrif was finishing toward the end of this year, my 10 years would be up.
 

Most companies would state the installed capacity in anything said to the public since that's the most certain factually correct number whereas everything else depends on the wind and is thus variable. It's also the biggest number so makes the project sound the most impressive and so on.

All their internal financials and sales contracts (eg it's owned by xyz who is selling the output to Energy Australia under a 25 year contract etc) will be based on the forecast annual output generally with a clause that says it's an estimate in good faith done using proper modelling but that payment will be based on actual output in practice.

Those looking at the lower figure will only be those either operating other sorts of generating plant (coal, hydro, gas, batteries, whatever), AEMO or anyone else pondering the question of what to do when the wind speeds are well down on average.

A big difficulty in all of this is that the average person has no grasp of the different sets of numbers since that situation doesn't apply to most things in life. $1000 or 50 litres of petrol are things that people easily understand since there's only one figure to deal with.

In contrast with electricity if someone's told that there was a 500 MW shortfall of supply and that a 500 MW wind farm is being built then it's rather difficult to explain why that's not a direct fix for the problem but that it could still be a good idea as such. That there's multiple sets of numbers for the same thing and all of them are "right" in a different context leaves most people bewildered and fair enough.

That there's so much politics surrounding it all adds to that problem since any attempt to explain tends to be met with an assumption that some agenda is being pushed. Tell them that 3085 MW of wind only gives a firm output of about 250 MW and they assume you're pushing coal. In reality AEMO is neutral on that and I'm just quoting their figures but the extent of politics in it all does obscure the message I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
853
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
628
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
722
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
533
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...