The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Interesting thing happened today, friends over the road asked me to come and have a look at their solar inverter, it had tripped.
I had a look and it is U/S fault code up, relays fried.
I told them they will have to get in touch with ABB, the supplier and see if they will fix and or replace it.
It is a 3.6 Kw 7 years old unit, and only had a 5 year warranty, so I don't hold out much hope.
They said if it costs $1000 to replace it, which I think is ball park, they wont bother.
That is the other side of this renewable coin, what if most people don't fix or replace, stuffed systems?

 

[Smurf1976]

That is the other side of this renewable coin, what if most people don't fix or replace, stuffed systems?

There are certainly differences in the technical competence and enthusiasm of the large scale generation operators but even the absolute will at least know if their plant is running or not.

The same unfortunately can't be said for generation owned by households or small businesses and I've no doubt that there will be some that don't work in practice. How many is anyone's guess but anecdotal evidence suggests it's a few % not just one or two random ones.

 

[Value Collector]

Then their power bills will rise, and they will pay well over $1000 over the next 12 months.

I think a sudden increase in power bills will be a remedy for most people.

 

[Smurf1976]

Those in SA may have spotted a full page article in the Advertiser today regarding SA Power Networks' proposal for Time Of Use (TOU) pricing. To their credit, they've done a surprisingly good job of explaining it.

In short the idea is a simple approach based on the notion that it's either a peak time, an off-peak time, or a time when lack of load is actually a problem. So that translates to one peak price and two off-peak prices one cheaper than the other.

Peak = 6am - 10am and 3pm - 1am

Off-peak = 1am - 6am

Really cheap off-peak rate because lack of load is actually becoming a problem = 10am - 3pm.

The concept of TOU pricing isn't new but it is so far as households in SA are concerned and the simple "it's peak or it's not" approach, with no "shoulder" period between the two, is also not common in places where TOU is used. Most have a more complex approach.

Apart from the detail of the actual times which have been changed to suit local conditions, the SAPN proposal is essentially the same as Tariff 93 in Tasmania which was intentionally designed to be a simple as possible for consumers so as to increase acceptance.

As many in Tas have worked out, this works extremely well as a means of maximising use of your own solar power since the cheapest off-peak rate becomes the automatic backup during the part of the day when the sun shines strongest. That makes it very straightforward to use simple timers to control water heaters etc, without spending $1000+ on a box of fancy electronics to try and match load to the solar system's output.

The underlying logic here is that to the extent consumers are are willing to go along with it, changing behaviour is a lot cheaper than building more sub-stations, upgrading distribution lines and adding whatever method of storage (hydro, batteries). In doing so this then becomes a cheap workaround to multiple problems:

*Solar and wind generation going to waste in the middle of the day due to network voltage control limitations and lack of load. In the case of small scale generation, that is rooftop solar, nobody actually knows the true extent of the losses but the one certainty is that it's not zero since numerous occurrences have been confirmed. Higher load, encouraged by the lowest prices, is a potential solution here.

*System instability during the middle of the day as a problem next decade as solar continues to increase relative to load or, worse still, exceeds it.

*Network and generation peak demand early in the evening. Moving load to either the middle of the day or the middle of the night will, to the extent consumers do so, reduce the evening peak.

So a potential workaround for multiple issues.

Now just have to see if it gets past the regulators......

 

[basilio]

One of the usual pieces of disinformation sprouted about renewable energy is its cost and statements that subsidizing solar/wind power is somehow unfair.

Richard Denniss does an excellent job of dissecting the double standards behind this argument as he goes through the history and current practices around Government subsidies.
Here's why Australia needs to keep subsidising renewables
Richard Denniss

The idea that ‘the markets’ make all the big decisions about our society has eaten away our democracy

@RDNS_TAI
Wed 20 Mar 2019 01.43 GMT Last modified on Wed 20 Mar 2019 02.19 GMT


Comments
106

Subsidies that encourage people to install solar and batteries on their homes speed up the rate at which renewables squeeze the coal-fired power stations out of business. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP
Conservatives love subsidies because they know that they work. It’s why they spend $11bn subsidising private schools and $6bn subsidising private health insurance. It’s why they’re so keen to subsidise new coal mines and coal-fired power stations. And of course, it’s the reason that they are so obsessed with renewable energy subsidies — they know just how effective they would be.

There are those who think mining more coal is a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then there are those who don’t. I’m definitely one of the latter. And for those who want to see Australia’s emissions fall, there is no doubt that we need more subsidies for renewables.

Renewables need urgent investment to ease Australia's transmission bottlenecks, experts warn
Read more
These days, the rightwing commentators who once asserted “climate change isn’t real” typically prefer to argue that measures to tackle climate change are either ineffective, or too expensive. One of their favourite arguments is that if renewables are now cheaper than coal, then why should Australia subsidise renewables at all? It’s a good question, but there are plenty of good answers.

The first is that we need to keep subsidising renewables because we don’t have nearly enough of them and we are in a race against physics. The fact is, new build renewables with storage are now cheaper than new build coal, but that won’t cause existing coal-fired power stations to shut down, which is the only way to make emissions fall. Subsidies that encourage people to install solar and batteries on their homes however speed up the rate at which renewables squeeze the coal-fired power stations out of business.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ustralia-needs-to-keep-subsidising-renewables

 

[sptrawler]

In W.A the Collie locals are getting restless.

https://thewest.com.au/news/south-w...n-you-cant-live-without-us-yet-ng-b881128154z

 

[Smurf1976]

In W.A the Collie locals are getting restless

They're not the only ones:

https://thewest.com.au/business/ren...o-bring-down-perths-power-grid-ng-b881140226z

One good thing about the big blackout in SA is it has prompted an evaluation of system stability risks in other states which otherwise probably wouldn't have occurred until it was too late.

 

[sptrawler]

Like we said smurph, everything is getting ahead of itself, time to take a breath and formulate a technical plan not a political or emotional one.

 

[SirRumpole]

Price gouging by power companies ?

I find that hard to believe.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...customers-hazelwood-electricity-bill/10910948

 

[Smurf1976]

Price gouging by power companies ?

I find that hard to believe.

I will simply say that the result in practice is the one I and others predicted indeed I said so on this forum at the time.

That's most certainly not trying to put me up on a pedestal but rather, it's expressing a frustration that there's an army of people in government, universities and elsewhere who have precisely zero practical experience in anything electrical but who are taken far too seriously with their theories which keep failing.

If the public wants this to work reliably and efficiently then there's a pretty straightforward solution. Stick to science, engineering and practical stuff and keep the ideological theories well away.

 

[Smurf1976]

Some statistical information that may be of interest in the context of various discussions about energy, climate change and also relevant to some ASX listed companies in the gas and other energy industries.

Figures compiled by Smurf from official Australian Government data.

All commercial energy, including small scale production (eg household solar systems) is included. Small scale production is estimated, everything else is as measured.

Electricity generation by fuel source for calendar year 2018. All figures rounded to nearest 1% except those below 1% (rounded to nearest 0.1%) and those below 0.1% (rounded to nearest 0.01%).

NSW
Coal = 79%
Hydro = 7%
Solar = 5%
Wind = 4%
Natural Gas = 3%
Biomass = 2%
Oil = 0.6%

Queensland
Coal = 75%
Natural Gas = 15%
Solar = 5%
Biomass = 2%
Oil = 1%
Hydro = 1%
Wind = 0.2%

Victoria
Coal = 76%
Wind = 10%
Natural Gas = 6%
Solar = 4%
hydro = 2%
Biomass = 1%
Oil = 0.3%

WA
Natural Gas = 60%
Coal = 25%
Oil = 6%
Wind = 4%
Solar = 3%
Hydro = 0.5%
Biomass = 0.4%

SA
Natural Gas = 48%
Wind = 40%
Solar = 10%
Oil = 1%
Biomass = 0.6%
Hydro = 0.04%

Tasmania
Hydro = 84%
Wind = 9%
Natural Gas = 5%
Solar = 1%
Oil = 0.3%
Biomass = 0.2%

NT
Natural Gas = 69%
Oil = 27%
Solar = 4%
Biomass = 0.2%

Australia
Coal = 60%
Natural Gas = 19%
Hydro = 7%
Wind = 6%
Solar = 5%
Oil = 2%
Biomass = 1%

Leading state by resource
Coal = NSW is the largest user of coal-fired generation, accounting for 37% of the national total.
Natural Gas = WA is the largest user of gas for electricity at 49% of the national total.
Hydro = Tasmania is the largest user of hydro-electricity at 59% of the national total.
Wind = SA is the largest user of wind energy at 35% of the national total.
Solar = Queensland is the largest user of solar electricity at 31% of the national total.
Oil = WA is the largest user of oil-fired electricity generation at 48% of the national total.
Biomass = Queensland is the largest user of biomass for electricity at 42% of the national total.

 

[Smurf1976]

Now the data for all energy consumption. That is energy for all purposes including but not limited to electricity generation.

Figures rounded to the nearest 1%

NSW
Oil = 43%
Coal = 41%
Natural Gas = 9%
Renewables = 6%

Queensland
Oil = 37%
Coal = 35%
Natural Gas = 20%
Renewables = 8%

Victoria
Coal = 41%
Oil = 35%
Natural Gas = 20%
Renewables = 4%

WA
Natural Gas = 50%
Oil = 35%
Coal = 13%
Renewables = 2%

SA
Natural Gas = 43%
Oil = 37%
Renewables = 11%
Coal = 9%

Tasmania
Renewables = 40%
Oil = 36%
Natural Gas = 12%
Coal = 12%

NT
Natural Gas = 58%
Oil = 41%
Renewables = 1%

Australia (Total)
Oil = 38%
Coal = 32%
Natural Gas = 25%
Renewables = 6%

 

[moXJO]

Now the data for all energy consumption. That is energy for all purposes including but not limited to electricity generation.

Figures rounded to the nearest 1%

NSW
Oil = 43%
Coal = 41%
Natural Gas = 9%
Renewables = 6%

Queensland
Oil = 37%
Coal = 35%
Natural Gas = 20%
Renewables = 8%

Victoria
Coal = 41%
Oil = 35%
Natural Gas = 20%
Renewables = 4%

WA
Natural Gas = 50%
Oil = 35%
Coal = 13%
Renewables = 2%

SA
Natural Gas = 43%
Oil = 37%
Renewables = 11%
Coal = 9%

Tasmania
Renewables = 40%
Oil = 36%
Natural Gas = 12%
Coal = 12%

NT
Natural Gas = 58%
Oil = 41%
Renewables = 1%

Australia (Total)
Oil = 38%
Coal = 32%
Natural Gas = 25%
Renewables = 6%

Wow... renewables are lower than I thought.

 

[Junior]

Australia
Coal = 60%
Natural Gas = 19%
Hydro = 7%
Wind = 6%
Solar = 5%
Oil = 2%
Biomass = 1%

Hi Smurf, thank you for putting this together, very interesting. Based on projects currently being constructed or in planing over the next couple of years, what's your very rough estimate of how these figures will change for calendar years 2019 and 2020? In terms of whether the Renewable %% will jump up in any meaningful way, or not.

 

[basilio]

I accept Smurfs report on electricty and energy generation. I'm also surprised at the seeming low amount of renewable energy.

There is another story which slices and dices the figures in a different way.

Renewables produced more energy than brown coal and gas over summer
Report finds rise in solar and wind generation almost eclipsed capacity lost when Hazelwood power station closed

Lisa Cox

Thu 28 Mar 2019 21.43 GMT Last modified on Thu 28 Mar 2019 23.21 GMT

Shares
1,172


The Hazelwood power station in 2018. Almost all of the generation capacity lost in Hazelwood’s closure has been replaced by renewables. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Growth in wind and solar energy over the past two years has almost entirely replaced the lost output from the Hazelwood power station during summer, a new report says.

The latest Green Energy Markets report says renewable energy produced 128% more megawatt hours of electricity than gas and 23% more than brown coal over the 2018-19 summer in the national electricity market states.

It also shows that output from solar energy alone exceeded that from brown coal and gas when averaged across the 9am-5pm period.

Demand for electricity hits a peak between 11.30am and 5.30pm in the summer months.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...re-energy-than-brown-coal-and-gas-over-summer

 

[Zaxon]

This is recent data, showing that some renewables are outright cheaper than coal.

 

[Smurf1976]

As a bit of background, my reason for posting the above data was due to my post in one of the stock threads (Leigh Creek Energy) where I stated the size of the gas market so as to put the company's recently announced reserves into perspective.

Looking at what I'd posted, my thought was that further explanation of the broader issue was required since it's not intuitive. Someone just reading that post would likely be somewhat doubtful that SA really does use almost as much gas as NSW or that the NT uses about 4 times as much as Tasmania. Those aren't intuitive, considering the population of NSW versus SA or that everyone knows Tas is far colder than the NT.

So I thought I'd just post a lot of data in an easily understandable form and that would prompt some thinking.

I say that with the notion that if I were to ask a hundred random people then I suspect most would be somewhat surprised to find that there is any coal used in SA or Tas at all. Likewise many would be surprised that Vic uses as much gas as NSW, SA and Tas combined. Also many wouldn't associate oil as a resource used to generate electricity.

So what I've done is taken official Australian Government statistics and very slightly simplified them. By that I mean I just grouped all types of coal together and called it "coal" since that's what it is. And if it came from oil (petrol, diesel etc) the I've just called it "oil" to keep it simple. Beyond that minor simplification however I've simply posted government data. Should you wish to see the raw data, it's in the spreadsheets at www.energy.gov.au which is an Australian Government site.

With regard to renewables being lower than most were expecting, the simple answer there is that the direct use of liquid and gas fuels by end users (homes, industry, etc) is greater than the use of electricity and firewood. That's a constraint on the share of renewables since most renewables produce electricity or are in the form of wood, with minor exceptions they're not generally in the form of liquids or gases.

Looking at electricity as a % of energy supplied to consumers by state:

WA = 15%
NT = 17%
Vic = 17%
Qld = 19%
SA = 20%
NSW = 23%
Tas = 39%

The simple explanation there is that transport accounts for 39.5% of all energy use nationally with over 98% of that supplied by oil. Apart from suburban trains and a few freight lines, electricity isn't in that market to any meaningful extent at the present time. Electric vehicles might be common at some future time but at present they account for a very minor portion of the transport task.

Then consider things like furnaces and boilers in industry (gas, oil, coal), gas cookers and hot water systems, central heating and so on all of which use lots of energy which isn't at present coming from electricity and you start to understand why electricity as a % of the total is far less than you were expecting. Agriculture is another one that uses quite a bit of energy but very little in the form of electricity (it's mostly diesel).

So that's how we have (for example) just over 50% of the electricity in SA coming from renewable sources but only 11% of total energy from that source. It all adds up once you realise that electricity is only 20% of the energy used by end users in SA and a bit of firewood and trivial amounts of ethanol added to petrol (E10 fuel is a niche thing in SA - it exists but most servos don't sell it) accounts for the remainder of the renewables.

Whilst my intent here is to avoid politics and stick to facts, I'll make the observation that if we're going to use a greater share of renewables then there's a limit to how far that can go just replacing other means of generating electricity. We also need to shift more of the energy use to electricity - electric vehicles instead of petrol, fast trains instead of planes between cities (aviation accounts for 19.7% of transport energy use) and so on.

Some of the barriers there are technical, battery powered planes aren't an idea that's ready yet, but some are economic. For example, about half of all the coal used in Tasmania is used at one industrial facility to fire the kilns. That's not generating electricity or even boiling water, it's just coal straight in and burned to produce high grade heat and that's it. The cost of that is around $15 per megawatt hour and there's no way any form of electricity (or gas or oil) comes anywhere near to being competitive hence the coal. And since most of that product is shipped out of the state, they can't simply raise the price unless either their competitors likewise raise production costs or we go down the route of tariffs etc which is a whole debate in itself.

As I said, I've aimed to just stick to facts here not politics - too much politics is the trouble with all this in the first place.

 

[Smurf1976]

Total wind + solar power generation in SA exceeds total electricity consumption in SA at the moment.

Just posted for the record that it does happen. There’s still some gas-fired plant running for reasons of system stability and the overall surplus is going to Victoria.

Now about that electric car I don’t have. Now would be a great time to charge it.....

 

[rederob]

Whilst my intent here is to avoid politics and stick to facts, I'll make the observation that if we're going to use a greater share of renewables then there's a limit to how far that can go just replacing other means of generating electricity.

There's a commercial reality that it cannot be done quickly, and also be profitable.
But the physical reality is that Australia has sun and wind available to have massive excess energy capacity in the future.
The technology to harness that via hydrogen is available, and maybe in future there will be something else even more efficient.
Putting renewables into the present electricity network such the dispatchable power is not problematic, however, is a very different kettle of fish.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another way to look at this issue with how to increase the market share of renewables is instead of asking the question as to how we power things, revers that and ask the question of what we actually do with fossil fuels? That's a related but slightly different way of looking at it.

Oil
Transport uses = 69% of consumption
Manufacturing = 10%
Mining = 9%
Agriculture = 5%
Electricity generation = 2%
Other = 2% (lubricants, chemicals etc)
Commercial = 2% (businesses other than factories, mines, farms etc)
Construction = 0.9%
Residential = 0.6% (mostly LPG)

Coal
Electricity generation = 89%
Manufacturing = 11%
Mining = 0.2%
Other = 0.005 % (BBQ's, tourist trips on steam trains, etc)

Natural Gas
Electricity generation = 37%
Manufacturing = 26%
Mining = 20%
Residential = 11%
Commercial = 4%
Transport = 1%
Other = 0.6% (includes use within the gas industry itself)
Construction = 0.2%
Agriculture = 0.07%

Combined coal, oil and gas direct use (where the fuel is actually burned)
Electricity generation = 40%
Transport = 28%
Manufacturing = 14%
Mining = 9%
Residential = 3%
Agriculture = 2%
Commercial = 2%
Misc others = 0.9%
Construction = 0.4%

I've intentionally just posted the data here without comment. I'll let the data speak for itself noting the highly political nature of all this.

I will add though that the last set of figures, that which combines all three fossil fuels, is the one which best illustrates the overall situation.

Note that the % figures are all for energy supplied. That is, they are not CO2, cost or anything else although obviously those things are related.