The future of energy generation and storage

[rederob]

I am not on Facebook, never will be.

Just like you seem never able to present an argument.

It could be a discussion.

With whom?
Here are some innovative options:

• Introduce the concept of climate holidays, but only to energy intensive industry sectors
  • within these sectors incorporate a worker payment structure that allows for up to 5 days additional unplanned paid work days off. These days would be mandated by the regulator on advance warning from BOM such that load shedding would never be necessary because known demand was removed from the system.
  • the affected industry sectors would be compensated for by a specific reduction in their tax rate.
  • the tax take could be re-adjusted by allowing the regulator to marginally increase electricity charges, and a set percentage of the total income from retailers could then be quarantined as it is now for the Medicare levy.
  • given that the last few percent of supply to meet peak demand is a disproportionate cost, billions of dollars worth of capacity could be avoided.
• Ensure all new EVs after a particular date are capable of bi-directional energy flow so that vehicles act as a national energy bank
  • ensure metering arrangements compensate owners on an as necessary basis
  • use the software embedded into load shedding by suburb to equally reward EV owners over time
• Ensure all new EVs after a particular date incorporate available AI in their software to control the timing of battery charging
  • incorporate a pricing regime which greatly rewards owners tapping into forecast low demand cycles
• Change building codes for detatched houses (and elsewhere as required):
  • in anticipation of an EV future, mandate technology enabling EVs to power a home (or other building) instead of relying on Tesla-type power walls
  • alternatively mandate technology enabling EVs to be able to act as a national energy bank

 

[basilio]

A discussion with whom ? Everyone who contributes constructively.
There is no "one solution" to this thread topic. It starts with the premise that we need to reform our current energy systems because
1) Many are coming to the end of their life
2) New technologies offer far most cost effective and environmentally effective opportunities
3) We absolutely must reduce our GG emissions ASAP if we to have a ghost in hell of a chance of reducing the effects of CC.

I don't believe anyone is arguing against the premise. So what we are doing is discussing/ kicking around the options we have and hopefully creating a community awareness that we must take up new opportunities and not be stuck with systems that are failing and if replaced in kind will fail us in an even more spectacular way.
_______________________________________________________________

Some really interesting ideas in Rederobs suggestions. IMO they do point to a need for clear regulatory oversight and national plan that sees a big picture for use use and attempts to integrate them effectively.

 

[Smurf1976]

Introduce the concept of climate holidays, but only to energy intensive industry sectors

I'm aware of one agreement between an electricity generation company and a major user which uses that concept in a sort-of way.

It's based on electricity supply / demand not specifically weather although obviously the two are linked.

Basically the industry gets cheap power at a rate that's internationally competitive versus major rivals but loses supply under some circumstances. As part of the deal the electricity generator insisted that all workers remain on full pay during any shutdown and excluded labour costs in all calculations regarding the cost and value of production and so on. Whether the staff remain at work or are sent home is up to the company but they're on full pay regardless so that removes any concerns from unions etc.

The arrangement has only been used once thus far. It's an emergency thing not intended to be regular but it's there.

One difficulty in the SA and Vic context is, of course, that if you're going to switch industry off for a while then you need to have industry in the first place. Pretty easy in Qld, WA or Tas but not so easy in Vic or especially SA.

 

[rederob]

A discussion with whom ? Everyone who contributes constructively.
There is no "one solution" to this thread topic. It starts with the premise that we need to reform our current energy systems because
1) Many are coming to the end of their life
2) New technologies offer far most cost effective and environmentally effective opportunities
3) We absolutely must reduce our GG emissions ASAP if we to have a ghost in hell of a chance of reducing the effects of CC.

I don't believe anyone is arguing against the premise. So what we are doing is discussing/ kicking around the options we have and hopefully creating a community awareness that we must take up new opportunities and not be stuck with systems that are failing and if replaced in kind will fail us in an even more spectacular way.
_______________________________________________________________

Some really interesting ideas in Rederobs suggestions. IMO they do point to a need for clear regulatory oversight and national plan that sees a big picture for use use and attempts to integrate them effectively.

Next option:
Strategic microgrid funding:

• Given a quantifiable shortfall in supply during last week's heatwave, develop a shared cost model for, say, 100,000 homes to install battery banks which fall within agreed microgridded suburbs. Maybe Smurf can give a smarter number on the how many homes would be needed, based on the below assumptions.

• The purpose of the model is to allow AEMO to avoid load shedding

• • This model shares battery purchase costs evenly between the Commonwealth and home owners, while the States pick up the tab on microgrid infrastructure.
  • Participating homes must agree to be able to contribute no less than 20KWh and in turn the Commonwealth will reimburse a maximum of $10k each. Thus the program would cost the Commonwealth up to $1bn. I have no idea how much it would cost the States.
  • I estimate that a 20KWh battery bank could cost the home owner about $16k in a competitive market, with costs progressively lowering. I estimate the subsidised cost pays back in about 5 years, while gel batteries have approximately 10 years working life. Others with a practical knowledge can improve my rubbery figures.
  • The microgrids could either island or contribute power to the megagrid, as determined by AEMO.
  • Unlike Snowy 2.0, this model is energy accretive.
  • On the above assumptions (and assuming 100,000 homes is enough), then this would cost the federal government about 20% of Snowy 2.0's cost.
  • The model is clearly not an immediate fix as it will take time to develop an implementation framework and then find enough workers to install 100,000 20KWh+ batteries. There might be enough capacity within 2 years to prevent another 2019 summer load shedding event.
• A possible side benefit of the model is that its scale could lead to substantial reductions in residential home battery costs. If that were the case, home solar & storage could become the norm and of itself over time prove to be a key ingredient in balancing the system as more commercial renewables are added to the mix.

 

[basilio]

I had another thought for a partial solution. (I don't see an single silver bullet here). Across all the big cities are industrial parks , shopping centre, schools with thousands of acres of flat roof space and capable of being oriented in any direction. They all use power as well.

Why not encourage and enable these roofs to have solar panels and incorporate a good sized battery bank between a certain number to enable storage capacity as well ? With a guaranteed number of customers costs could very quickly become more competitive. It would certainly require some policy work but from my understanding the financial figures are very favorable for the tenants.

Minimal energy transport losses. Scaleable. Decent enough individual projects to get economies of scale. Great employment opportunity. Potential good investment opportunity. Great way to stimulate local solar and battery industries. Great opportunity to develop a process that can be exported as well.

Nothing wrong with settling up microgrids and battery banks but I suggest the use of industrial sized warehouses and industrial/commercial energy might make more sense.

 

[rederob]

Revised and reprinted here with author's permission:
I agree that the eastern seaboard needs to add capacity.
In summary, the problem is the owners of the generators don't want them. The reason being they have to put their units on and take them off to make way for for the renewables.
They don't want to do it because with a steam turbine, you have to cool the turbine down over a few hours at reduced load, to take it off line, otherwise you cant get it again because of the different expansion rates between the lighter spinning rotor and the heavy outer case.
Then in the morning you have to fire the boiler for 1 to 2 hours, to get the steam temps and pressures right, so that when you put steam to the turbine, the shaft doesn't shink or expand too quickly. If the differential expansion goes out of spec you have to trip the turbine and start again, Power systems don't like that. With the clearances you are only talking 1-2mm on 30 rows of blades spinning on a 50 ton shaft at 3000RPM, one touch and there is $50m worth of damage.
So getting back to the issue, I don't believe we have enough time to install adequate renewable energy and storage to replace the coal generators and, in any case, the owners would rather get rid of them because they are a pain in the ar$e.
But at this point in time we need them, so as I said earlier, if we want green replacement right now, it is either gas or nuclear. If we want to reduce emissions now and there is't enough gas. The Government will have to build a 5GW station 10 x 500MW units, and close down some of the crap stations.
The Government will have to step in because private operators won't want to; they cannot afford to invest in stranded assets.
This will give the Government a steering hand in coal plant closures and keep the grid secure while renewables are installed.
I see it taking up to 30 years - we physically cannot install the amount of gear required much quicker. Recall that the mining boom caused a labour shortage, so this will make that look like a play in the sand pit.
It is hard to try and explain the enormity of the problem, I am all for renewables, they are great.
But there is a long road ahead, business and the public will demand secure power supplies, while we travel that road.
Anyway hope that gives a bit more insight.

SP clearly shows the trials and tribulations of FF generators - who wants them when even they do not .

 

[sptrawler]

SP clearly shows the trials and tribulations of FF generators - who wants them when even they do not .

To qualify that, it was just my opinion, and we know what that is worth, as much as it cost.
But it is a big problem, it is a bit like owning a fart in an elevator.

 

[rederob]

Nothing wrong with settling up microgrids and battery banks but I suggest the use of industrial sized warehouses and industrial/commercial energy might make more sense.

Political expediency is more palatable when the outcome is essentially the same, especially given governments are paying for the solution.
Would you rather have 200,000 voters liking what you did for them or a few thousand employers?

 

[Smurf1976]

Batteries - I'll be able to put a more precise figure on it when I get prices for one I'm considering buying but as an order of magnitude, around $1000 per kWh fully installed is close to the mark for residential systems using what are for practical purposes lithium electric vehicle batteries made user friendly for home use. Eg Tesla Powerwall 2 or LG RESU.

On other matters, there was a comment about steam turbine ramp rates and the problems with intermittent renewables and so on.

Main comment I'll add is that nuclear is just another way of boiling water. It's still a steam turbine power station and one that's even less flexible in operation and less thermally efficient than coal. It is thus not a solution to any technical limit on coal-fired plant. Economic or emissions issues perhaps but not technical limits since it's the same basic system simply with a different heat source.

Looking at what AGL are doing at Barker Inlet is much closer to it. Great big diesels basically. Primary fuel is natural gas but they're diesels as such and can run diesel as backup fuel. 210 MW for $295 million isn't bad (although that doesn't include gas supply and also doesn't include any new transmission).

Cold to full load at Barker Inlet should be about 5 minutes and the engines are 17.5 MW each. Efficiency should get up to about 44% under optimum conditions, a bit less in the real world.

 

[sptrawler]

U.

On other matters, there was a comment about steam turbine ramp rates and the problems with intermittent renewables and so on.

Main comment I'll add is that nuclear is just another way of boiling water. It's still a steam turbine power station and one that's even less flexible in operation and less thermally efficient than coal. It is thus not a solution to any technical limit on coal-fired plant. Economic or emissions issues perhaps but not technical limits since it's the same basic system simply with a different heat source.

That's very true and I agree with the problems cycling, however they can to a certain degree ,be classed as "green", when considering emissions.

Therefore in theory at least, it would reduce the haste with which the renewables would have to be installed. Also apparently there has been a lot of progress, in small nuclear reactors, basically skid mounts that can be trucked in.
https://www.nei.org/news/2018/nuscale-showcases-small-nuclear-reactor

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...lear-reactors-moment-of-reckoning#gs.O5aDzCoJ
As with any new technology, the sales brochure is sometimes better, than the product
I just thought, I wonder if they are navy derivatives ?(Sub, Ship)

Looking at what AGL are doing at Barker Inlet is much closer to it. Great big diesels basically. Primary fuel is natural gas but they're diesels as such and can run diesel as backup fuel. 210 MW for $295 million isn't bad (although that doesn't include gas supply and also doesn't include any new transmission).

Cold to full load at Barker Inlet should be about 5 minutes and the engines are 17.5 MW each.

We converted the diesels at Carnarvon, to run on LNG back in the 1980's, basically added a second fuel rail and rack, started on diesel then changed over to LNG.
It worked well.

 

[basilio]

Political expediency is more palatable when the outcome is essentially the same, especially given governments are paying for the solution.
Would you rather have 200,000 voters liking what you did for them or a few thousand employers?

I think I would have a different perspective on the options.

First I think people or businesses should carry a proportion of the financial cost. If this is going to result in a reduced energy cost to the user/owner the really they should invest some of their own cash

Secondly I'm more focused on the energy outcomes and resources required to achieve those results. I think it would be far more efficient to use labour, large batteries and big solar panel arrays on a big warehouse rooftops rather than smaller fiddly house lots. Just makes practical sense.

I can see lots of technical issues with the 100,000 houses program RR. From a political and practical point of view I'd rather have a substantially smaller number of projects to keep on top of and if they were involving factories and warehouses rather than homes with Women, Children and fluffy pets... . Yeah not so much capacity for drama.

SP made a valid point in noting the huge task of repowering the nation. I'd pose the question as " How can we achieve this outcome in the most practical way" Asking that question would take me to the larger projects rather than the smaller ones unless the smaller ones were done with peoples own resources.

That doesn't mean we ignore households. One of the big opportunities/necessities will be encouraging/supporting/whatever households and industry to be more energy efficient. If we made 5-10% efficiency gains that would amount to a hell of a lot of juice.

We already have example of this approach in Victoria. A consortium of businesses , councils and universities has signed up to buy the power from a proposed wind farm. Bang. There's another 80MW of wind power being established. And they are going to get very good value as well.

Crowlands wind farm underway, as ground breaking bulk-buy scheme bears fruit

Sophie Vorrath 23 March 2018 2 Comments
share

View of Pacific Hydro’s 35-turbine Challicum Hills Wind Farm, Victoria. Source: Wikimedia Commons
Construction has begun on an 80MW wind farm near Ararat in regional Victoria, marking the fruition of a ground-breaking Melbourne-based bulk buy renewables project developed by a consortium of 14 of leading local universities, cultural institutions, corporations and Councils.

The consortium, known as the Melbourne Renewable Energy Project, alongside project developer Pacific Hydro, said on Friday that ground had been broken at the Crowlands wind farm site, starting with the construction of access roads and bridges.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/crowlan...d-breaking-bulk-buy-scheme-bears-fruit-73088/

 

[rederob]

To qualify that, it was just my opinion, and we know what that is worth, as much as it cost.
But it is a big problem, it is a bit like owning a fart in an elevator.

So true. Any idea who removed this sign from the lifts at a WA Power Station a few years ago?

Back on topic, here's a solar snapshot from 10 years ago.
While at end-September 2018, there were over 1.95 million PV installations in Australia, with a combined capacity of over 10GW. This site shows the exponential growth of solar. An extra 3 GW was added over the past year.
Meanwhile commercial projects like this are popping up regularly - this one adding 170MW, plus battery tba.
There's a big gap that will need filling in the capacity market as more of the FF generators come to the end of their working lives. Solar alone is unlikely to fill it, although as prices continue to fall, commercial proposals become increasingly viable.
Falling solar pv prices lead to some interesting situations.
First, homeowners exiting lucrative feed rates may consider adding a little more capacity to their old systems to both compensate for degradation and optimise savings. Depending on circumstances, even without subsidies the payback can be as soon as 5 years. Selling houses that don't get thousands of dollars in electricity bills is a bonus.
Secondly, even without subsidies you can nowadays install a solar system for less than most did many years ago when locking in their high FITs.

 

[basilio]

That's very true and I agree with the problems cycling, however they can to a certain degree ,be classed as "green", when considering emissions.

Therefore in theory at least, it would reduce the haste with which the renewables would have to be installed. Also apparently there has been a lot of progress, in small nuclear reactors, basically skid mounts that can be trucked in.

We converted the diesels at Carnarvon, to run on LNG back in the 1980's, basically added a second fuel rail and rack, started on diesel then changed over to LNG.
It worked well.

Could these units be converted to run on hydrogen ? There is much talk about creating a hydrogen economy and one of the pressing needs from an environmental POV is eliminating more GG emissions.
How doable would this be ?

 

[sptrawler]

First, homeowners exiting lucrative feed rates may consider adding a little more capacity to their old systems to both compensate for degradation and optimise savings. Depending on circumstances, even without subsidies the payback can be as soon as 5 years. Selling houses that don't get thousands of dollars in electricity bills is a bonus.
Secondly, even without subsidies you can nowadays install a solar system for less than most did many years ago when locking in their high FITs.

This in itself is about to highlight the next problem, there is going to be a hell of a lot of waste solar panels, I've got 8 in my patio as we speak.
A friend of mine who is waste recycling technician(garbo), says they will become a bigger problem than mattresses.
Apparently mattresses are a real problem.

 

[sptrawler]

Could these units be converted to run on hydrogen ? There is much talk about creating a hydrogen economy and one of the pressing needs from an environmental POV is eliminating more GG emissions.
How doable would this be ?

In theory, hydrogen can run anything LNG or petrol can run, eg gas turbine, kitchen cooktop, petrol engine, jet engine, diesel engine, steam boiler.

I haven't read up a lot on these SMR's but as smurf said, nuclear works as a gas or coal fired station does, where it superheats the water in a boiler then runs the steam through a turbine.
So only the fuel differs, in theory, however in practice there is subtle differences.

For example a brown coal 200MW boiler in the Latrobe valley, would be a lot bigger than a 200MW gas fired boiler, the reason being the coal requires a longer residence time in the furnace area to burn. Where as gas burns very quickly, therefore you don't require as big a furnace.
So getting back to the small modular nuclear reactor, it would depend on how it converts the heat to work. What I mean is, where the heat from the nuclear fuel is converted to steam, may be too small to facilitate the heat transfer from a gas flame.
Nuclear as far as I know is radiant heat, where gas uses convection heat, there is a huge difference. It is an interesting question Bas, I will look into it.
Smurf might know more about them, I only read up on them, while looking for the info on the amount of renewables required.

 

[basilio]

I was more interested in the diesel generators being converted to run on hydrogen. Or the gas turbines . Perhaps there is a way to produce enough hydrogen at a competitive price and end up with a system that doesn't produce any GG .

If that was the case I think there would be strong interest in keeping gas turbines and changing the fuel.
A nuclear reactor is not going to run on anything except nuclear fuel I believe.

 

[sptrawler]

I was more interested in the diesel generators being converted to run on hydrogen. Or the gas turbines . Perhaps there is a way to produce enough hydrogen at a competitive price and end up with a system that doesn't produce any GG .

If that was the case I think there would be strong interest in keeping gas turbines and changing the fuel.
A nuclear reactor is not going to run on anything except nuclear fuel I believe.

Diesels and gas turbines can run on hydrogen.
Hydrogen is going to be the fuel of the future, but it is a long way off. IMO
I did a bit of reading on SMR's, and to me they look more suitable as alternatives, where renewables aren't effective.

 

[Value Collector]

Whatever it takes.

Power companies were owned by the States for decades and no one complained about prices or lack of supply.

Now that they are privatised the energy sector is a disaster.

When you can build unlimited amounts of coal fired power stations, subsidized by cheap government loans and slush funds, without any protests or fear of being made obselete by a carbon tax 3 years into a 30 year investment, it would be pretty easy to maintain prices.

 

[Smurf1976]

When you can build unlimited amounts of coal fired power stations, subsidized by cheap government loans and slush funds

I'm not sure about other states but in some at least it was the reverse.

The Victorian and SA governments were both propped up by cheap SECV and ETSA funds over the years never the reverse. That's why the utilities ended up in quite a bit of debt - the state government in Victoria especially held a gun to the head and demanded huge dividends for which money was borrowed to pay. By the early 1990's the debt in Vic was crippling and that was the end of it.

NSW government got up to similar antics even before that and their subsequent panic and over-reaction, following by another stuff up by a later state government, has quite a bit to do with where we are today.

Labor governments in all cases for the record except the latter debacle in NSW which was Liberal.

 

[Smurf1976]

There is no "one solution" to this thread topic. It starts with the premise that we need to reform our current energy systems because

There's really four aspects to the overall dilemma:

1. Need to meet the technical (electrical) requirements. Fail that and the lights really will go out, no question about it.

2. Financial cost both in terms of the actual costs and the price charged to consumers.

3. Use of natural resources. 50Hz AC power does not exist anywhere in nature, it is a completely man-made thing, and in order produce it requires that some source of primary energy be used. Some of the available sources of primary energy are plentiful and with minimal consequences to their use but others are physically limited, or entail broader implications such as importing from unstable or unfriendly sources, and a valid question exists as to whether or not is is sensible to use these resources to generate electricity? That is particularly so in the case of relatively limited non-renewable resources which have important uses for other purposes.

4. Environment. The mainstream environmental movement is often associated with trees and whales but it's a matter of historical fact that in the Australian context the movement had already tackled issues relating to hydro-electric schemes versus the wilderness, pollution and the use of limited resources at gas-fired power stations and the generic concept of building a nuclear power station several years before the movement focused on anything relating to trees.

The above are in no real order but ultimately they're all critical factors in the modern era noting that point 4 is subject to international agreements and to a minor extent so is point 3.

Tied up in those are many sub-issues and complexities. Eg point 3 potentially brings in matters of national security and strategic issues. Point 4 involves many issues not just the well known CO2 one.

Which brings me to a point. I've heard many argue to the effect that Australia had an energy policy under a previous government, that being the carbon tax.

My response is simply that no, a carbon tax or an ETS is not an energy policy. It is one aspect of an environmental policy which involves energy but it is not an energy policy. It does nothing in respect of any technical matter. It does nothing in respect of the use of natural resources or supply security. It does nothing about environmental issues other than CO2. It's an energy policy in the same way that a ban on showing M rated programs on TV before a certain time is a media policy. It's not - its just one minor component of a policy but it sure isn't all that's required or even half of it.

So far as I'm aware we've really only had one serious attempt which could really be described as an actual energy policy in Australia's history and that was introduced during the Fraser government. Don't remember it? Well that's probably because half the current population wasn't born yet but for anyone not aware Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister 1975 - 83 (Liberal). CO2 didn't get a mention in that but to be fair it wasn't widely considered as an issue at the time, the focus being on not squandering limited resources, reducing other forms of air pollution, security of supply and some concern about other environmental issues such as wilderness.

My focus is primarily on the technical side but I most certainly acknowledge the other issues including the environmental and natural resource ones.

Of particular relevance technically is also the financial side. No matter what we do the reality is that some capacity in the system will earn far more money than other capacity and there are very valid reasons for that. It is also true that at various times over its lifespan an individual generating unit will range from highly profitable to a drain on finances.

From a technical perspective I don't particularly care how it comes about but one way or another we do urgently need to come up with a way that keeps that "unprofitable" plant in the system. Removing it being the specific, exact cause of the problems we now have. Unprofitable for the owner but not unprofitable for the overall system and most certainly necessary.

I'll leave that one to finance people but ultimately it needs to happen and could be considered a non-negotiable. If the model of competing companies and a market can't deliver that, because nobody's putting their hand up to hold the bits that produce stuff all revenue, well then we need to change the market. Simple as that and if the game's killing you then changing the rules is indeed the rational thing to do. It's not as though countless other industries and investors haven't had the rules changed at some point.