Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
This is exactly what we are talking about when we say, the renewables push is getting way ahead of itself, the 150MW solar salt storage generation plant in S.A is not going ahead.
So that puts the renewable future and large capacity solar generation behind the eight ball, it is a shame because it would have been cutting edge, but it blows big holes in coal replacement. IMO

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...nt-will-not-go-ahead-in-port-augusta/10973948

It created a lot of headlines and gave a lot of people a lot of hope, but it is still in its infancy and getting funding will always be problematic. Just ask Carnegie clean energy.
150MW with 13hrs of storage on a good day, for nearly $1b , is always going to have trouble getting finance. IMO
 
sptrawler said:
150MW with 13hrs of storage on a good day, for nearly $1b , is always going to have trouble getting finance. IMO
Click to expand...
As a technical and environmental concept I like it and as you say, losing it does poke a hole in plans to replace coal.

As an economic concept though, well solar PV (solar panels) + wind turbines combined with pumped hydro and some batteries seems to be a cheaper way forward. In the SA context, pumped hydro is the bit that's missing thus far although there are certainly suitable sites where it could be developed. :2twocents
 
http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/81216-energy-sector-seeks-calm-over-grid-intervention.html

Right now, it is being reported that there are daily interventions to keep the grid running smoothly, with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) taking control as necessary.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what's happening.

Engineers having re-gained some influence once those in charge realised the lights really were going out beats any alternative though. Just don't expect those on the economics / finance side to be too happy about it all. :2twocents
 
question:
if we replaced the coal with gas does that reduce the co2 emissions by any worthwhile amount?
better, worse, sameish
 
HelloU said:
question:
if we replaced the coal with gas does that reduce the co2 emissions by any worthwhile amount?
better, worse, sameish
Click to expand...
Less CO2 more SO4, waste of the best most versatile fuel we have available.
They will wake up when they have depleted the gas reserves.
But hey that's life, what was the song, you don't realise what you've got till it's gone. Lol
As long as the vocal sector is appeased, then it is all worthwhile, no matter what the outcome.
 
sptrawler said:
Less CO2 more SO4, waste of the best most versatile fuel we have available.
They will wake up when they have depleted the gas reserves.
But hey that's life, what was the song, you don't realise what you've got till it's gone. Lol
As long as the vocal sector is appeased, then it is all worthwhile, no matter what the outcome.
Click to expand...
thanks
prolly should have just looked it up (like i just did and it took 2 seconds)
and i see co2 for gas is slightly more than half of the co2 for coal (per energy equivalent output).
(i never appreciated that previously)
 
Smurf installs solar power at home. :xyxthumbs

The very next day was heavily overcast with the lowest solar insolation of any day in almost 6 months (official BOM data). Knew that would happen...... :laugh:

Tech specs for those interested:

Panels = 14 x 365W (can't fit any more on the roof in unshaded areas)

Inverter = SolarEdge 5.0kW hybrid inverter

Battery = LG RESU10h (9.3 kWh usable capacity) :2twocents
 
Nice. So that's 5.11 kW on the roof and the inverter hasn't been overclocked. Am I right there with the numbers?

Also did you install power optimisers? One of the PV solar systems I have is a battery-ready SolarEdge with 19 x 345w Q Cel panels with optimisers due to some shading issues. Nevertheless, the output is broadly similar to the SMA inverter with the other 19 x 345w Q Cels (Yeah, 38 panels and only little roof space left!)

Haven't been able to monitor production for the last few days as I've installed a new modem in preparation for the NBN and haven't yet worked out how to re-connect to the data from the inverter. Doesn't matter much I suppose as all the sums for the bottom line of money are done by the smart meter.
 
No surprise. Contacted the crew which installed the PV systems. To change the password for the SolarEdge requires the front panel to be removed. I'm not going to mess around with that. For the SMA inverter they may have to contact SMA for updated details. Obviously there will be a charge. A small price to stop me possibly electrocuting myself and even smaller in the context of the cost of the systems.

I had a look and in March when both systems became fully operational the amount of energy recorded as being received by the retailer was 1,488 kWh. That was about 90% of the reported combined production of the systems.

And how they operate individually in the early morning I found was intriguing.

For example, at around 7 am the SMA on the Eastern end of this house could be producing 1.5kW and the energy produced was 500wh whereas the SolarEdge on the Western end may be 800w but has produced 1.2 kWh. In the afternoon the situation appears to reverse. Roof is facing North-East.
 
Looking at the big picture on the future of energy generation.
There are practical, cost effective ways and means to re engineer all of the worlds energy supplies to renewable energy and reach zero emissions before 2050.
I wonder how quickly we will examine and begin such a journey ? And if, as they suggest, it would pay for itself through energy savings alone Why wouldn't we do it ?

The world could transition entirely to cheap, safe renewable energy before 2050: Finnish study
12 April 2019 Yle News 0 Comments climate change, emissions, energy, global warming, Renewables
FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail
PrintFriendly
favicon.png

panneaux-solaires-8-e1555098865419.jpg

A study from the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and the Energy Watch Group (EWG) from Germany says a global transition to the exclusive use of renewable energy is possible before 2050. (iStock)
A global transition to the exclusive use of renewable energy sources is not only possible but also cheaper and safer than reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, according to a new study from the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and the Energy Watch Group (EWG) from Germany.

The study claims that the rapid development of renewable energy sources and energy storage technology will likely make it possible for the entire planet to reduce its CO2 emissions to zero even earlier than the current 2050 deadline.

The report is the first of its kind to suggest a cost-effective, all-inclusive, global roadmap to keep average global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. It is also the first planet-wide climate change resistance plan that suggests not using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) techniques to mechanically remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

According to the model, in 2050 some 69 percent of the world’s energy would come from solar panels, 18 percent from wind power, 3 percent from hydropower systems and 6 percent from bioenergy.

Fossil fuels and nuclear power would not be needed at all. Cars, planes and ships would run on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels produced from hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

“Only way”
wind-turbine.jpg

The report is the first of its kind to suggest a cost-effective, all-inclusive, global roadmap to keep average global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. (Nancy Russell/CBC)
The study indicates that its sweeping plans for all sectors – energy production, heating, traffic, water systems, and others – could be funded by the savings accrued from giving up fossil fuels entirely.

The team of researchers said that the energy revolution is a matter of political will, not of technology or financing.

“The study was set up with the belief that rapid and effective climate protection is the only way to save a planet worth living on for generations to come,” the research paper’s foreword reads, authored by EQG’s Hans-Josef Fell.

“This project was set up to show how techno-economic facts open the door for a much faster and more rigorous shift to renewable energy sources in order to trigger an even more dynamic technology development worldwide, and in addition a chance for all world regions to gain energy independence and benefit from the associated prospects of peace and conflict resolution.”

LUT and EWG promised in their study that the massive amounts of information the model is based on would be used to draw up guidelines for renewable energy transition for every country in the world.

“The study shows that all countries can and should speed up the fulfilment of the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said Christian Breyer from LUT, who headed the 14-person research effort.

The team’s model used a simulation of the world’s energy production and consumption on an hourly level, in five-year phases, between 2015-2050. Such data has never been gathered before.

The team dedicated the study to Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and the global #FridaysForFuture movement she has inspired in which students stage a climate strike every Friday instead of attending school. In March more than a million people marched for better climate change prevention measures around the world.
http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/04/12/renewable-energy-global-study-transition-100/
 
basilio said:
There are practical, cost effective ways and means to re engineer all of the world's energy supplies to renewable energy and reach zero emissions before 2050.
I wonder how quickly we will examine and begin such a journey ? And if, as they suggest, it would pay for itself through energy savings alone Why wouldn't we do it ?
Click to expand...
Bas, a few years ago I was all for more intervention.
Today the free market is voting with its pockets.
All the electrical energy producers in Australia know that building coal plants will leave them with expensive stranded assets.
For that matter, the nuclear option makes even less sense while renewables are cheaper by the day.
The present transitional impediment is battery storage costs. Curiously it's not a big expense in the greater scheme of things. However, to recoup battery costs we need to be in a situation where intermittency and peak demand are not met by other means, such as wasteful pumped hydro.
What I see happening is a continuation of large scale renewables to a point where they overcompensate for daily baseload, and then are producing excess power during the evenings. I see that excess energy going into storage. More importantly, as EV take up increases, overnight charging from what began as excess energy, begins to make sense.
 
rederob said:
Bas, a few years ago I was all for more intervention.
Today the free market is voting with its pockets.
All the electrical energy producers in Australia know that building coal plants will leave them with expensive stranded assets.
For that matter, the nuclear option makes even less sense while renewables are cheaper by the day.
The present transitional impediment is battery storage costs. Curiously it's not a big expense in the greater scheme of things. However, to recoup battery costs we need to be in a situation where intermittency and peak demand are not met by other means, such as wasteful pumped hydro.
What I see happening is a continuation of large scale renewables to a point where they overcompensate for daily baseload, and then are producing excess power during the evenings. I see that excess energy going into storage. More importantly, as EV take up increases, overnight charging from what began as excess energy, begins to make sense.
Click to expand...

The point of the research was to show how the world could, with decent planning and policies , move to total decarbonisation in energy in 30 years. It is not a process for government control but rather policy settings and encouragement of processes beyond the maximisation of profits.

Yes the market is now moving rapidly to lock in profits from renewables. And that will go a certain distance. But achieving total changeover to no carbon fuels won't happen unless the direction is set by governments.
 
Comparing batteries versus pumped hydro as a means of storage:

Hornsdale Power Reserve (aka the Teslsa "big battery" in SA):
Peak Power: 100 MW
Energy stored: 0.129 GWh
Cost: $90 million

Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro:
Peak Power: 2000 MW
Energy stored: 350 GWh
Cost: $5.1 billion (estimated)

For peak power, Snowy 2.0 estimated cost is 2.8 times as much as the Hornsdale Power Reserve cost. If the only criteria were peak power, Snowy 2.0 could instead be built using batteries for about $1.8 billion rather than the estimated $5.1 billion.

For bulk energy storage, Hornsdale Power Reserve cost is 48 times the estimated cost of Snowy 2.0. To build the equivalent energy storage to Snowy 2.0 using batteries would cost around $245 billion versus the estimated $5.1 billion for Snowy 2.0.

Batteries have a definite role as a source of short term peak power. That is, for daily cyclic application.

For bulk energy storage however at that price they're just not an option at the present time. Even with a 90% cost reduction they'd still be hugely expensive given the relatively short lifespan.

Relevant listed companies (among others):

Origin Energy is proposing a 160 or 240 MW expansion of their existing Shoalhaven pumped hydro scheme in NSW, the choice of which option to go with is under investigation.

AGL is proposing a modest but significant battery installation in NSW and is also looking seriously at pumped hydro on a scale similar to Origin's. AGL is also actively investing in new gas-fired generation in SA, and proposes to do so in NSW, and LNG import facilities in Victoria.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Comparing batteries versus pumped hydro as a means of storage:
Click to expand...
Accepting your sums, the issue is that to get each 350 GWh of pumped storage you need to expend more than that amount of energy.
In fact Snowy know they will only be able to use, on an annual basis, a small fraction of the theoretical capacity of the dam were the dam to be available for ongoing daily generation.
 
Yeah, there was a doco on Catalyst about it a few years ago which got me interested in developments of this nature.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro:
Peak Power: 2000 MW
Energy stored: 350 GWh
Cost: $5.1 billion (estimated)
Click to expand...
Snowy2.0 has had a ling gestation.
Here's some early calculations and commentary.
So 10 years ago the cost was estimated at well over $6b.
Back then the author said "Pumped hydro will not reduce the CO2 emissions intensity. It actually increases it because the efficiency of the pumped storage system is about 75% to 80%. So we need to burn say 5 tonnes of coal for pumping and then we get the energy equivalent of only 4 tonnes of coal when we generate from the pumped hydro. Gas generators would not be used for pumping because gas is far too expensive."
The big difference now is that wind and solar could top up the storage dam at a lesser cost than coal, and without additional CO2. The problem is, however, that there is no present excess wind capacity to top up a prospective Snowy2.0.
However, if wind/solar were to be be built principally for topping up Snowy2.0, at present demand we would not need Snowy2.0 as a "battery." There are more cost effective battery options which could be added to the NEM on an incremental basis..
 
rederob said:
Here's some early calculations and commentary.
Click to expand...
Taking a neutral perspective, the big question is what is the ultimate goal?

Most analysis of energy options over the past 50 years, that being as long as there has been any real contention about the issue in Australia, from an "environmental" perspective have always implicitly assumed that fossil fuels, primarily coal, would remain the predominant source of generation indefinitely.

That assumption was embedded in the debate about Newport D power station in the 1970's. Coal was going to be the future, anything else including Newport D was a sideline.

It was also the underlying assumption of all anti-nuclear argument here and overseas. Indeed one anti-nuclear catchphrase at the time widely used in the USA was simply "why not coal?".

From the 1990's to today there has been a lot of argument favouring the direct use of gas in homes and businesses for space heating and in particular water heating. That ended up going as far as one state government (Victoria) making it all but compulsory to do so and two others (WA, SA) gave a push in that direction. Again, the underlying assumption was "coal forever" so far as electricity generation is concerned.

Now with Snowy 2.0, or indeed any pumped hydro, the same argument once again applies. Assuming coal remains the predominant source of generation indefinitely then two things are true. One is that it would increase emissions compared to a new coal-fired power station and the other is that there's no actual need.

On that I will make two observations, one of which is fact and one of which is opinion. Note that I am referring to the combined NSW, ACT, Vic and SA region in this context. That is, the National Electricity Market excluding Queensland and Tasmania due to the different circumstances in those two states and the constrained interconnector capacity Qld - NSW and Tas - Vic.

The first, factual, one is that if coal is to remain the mainstay of generation then we need to build more capacity to replace that which is wearing out. Liddell is 48 years old and not in good shape, Yallourn W 1 & 2 are 46 years old and so on. All except two coal-fired generating units in NSW, which have a combined capacity of just under 10% of the state's peak demand, are likely to be shut by the mid-2030's with significant closures during the 2020's.

Meanwhile Victoria already lacks sufficient generating capacity to reliably maintain supply - this summer's load shedding certainly won't be the last such incident if nothing changes and it was pure good luck with the weather that such a high level of supply just happened to be available from SA at the time, otherwise it would have been far worse. No guarantees that there's a cold change in Adelaide next time it gets hot in Melbourne of course.

Whilst wind and solar are adding energy as many have pointed out, they are not adding much in terms of useful firm capacity. In the context of a predominantly fossil fuel based system they reduce the quantity of coal (or other fuel) consumed and associated emissions and they reduce the electricity generated by coal-fired power stations but they do not meaningfully reduce the installed generating capacity needed.

The simple reason there is that demand peaks late in the afternoon / early evening when solar output falls steeply and wind generation is commonly low under the same conditions. At least it is at all present wind farms sites in SA, Vic and NSW.

As such, and in view of the impending closure of existing plant, there's a need to build something which operates as and when required. From a technical perspective it matters not whether that's coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydro or whatever so long as it generates regardless of the short term weather.

The second point, which is my opinion only, is that the CO2 and climate change issue is probably real and that, whether or not it is real, the international community seems to be moving firmly in the direction of reducing emissions.

I have zero qualifications concerning climate but having read plenty on the subject over the past 30 years that's my conclusion. No doubt there will be some political posturing and so on involved but the issue as such does seem to be real. Regardless, it seems that action is going to be taken.

That being so, it seems very plausible to me that the underlying assumption that coal remains the predominant, and marginal, source of generation is incorrect. An alternative future where coal-fired generation progressively declines to literally zero by the late 2040's seems at least plausible. Critically, it is the assumed future and business plan to which all major owners of current coal-fired generation are actually working - all existing coal plant in the NEM is planned to be closed within the next 30 years and most of it considerably sooner.

If that's so, if coal is going to zero, well there's not much point committing to new coal-fired plant now and then having to build batteries or pumped hydro to replace the relatively new plant a few years later. May as well just do it once, build the pumped hydro now, and live with any short term costs either economic or emissions.

The life cycle of all this stuff is relatively long. The decision to develop Yallourn W was made in 1966 and it's still fully operational today (announced closure is in 2032). Bayswater and Eraring commitment was late 1970's and both will be generating through to the mid-2030's. Etc, it's all fairly long term stuff.

I haven't mentioned gas for the simple reason that, on the context of south-east Australia, there's quite a scarcity of the stuff and we are of course already effectively committed to ongoing use in homes and business through to at least 2050 indeed the infrastructure is still being expanded. That in itself isn't a great idea if we do end up with 100% renewable electricity or close to it, but that's another story.

In SA the Cooper Basin production is slowly trending down and has been for years. It used to supply all of SA, NSW and the ACT but SA itself now uses more than it produces and that's due to production decline not rising consumption. NSW, ACT and Tas are all totally reliant on supply from interstate.

And of course the big one, Victoria which presently supplies it's own consumption, 100% of Tasmania's and a fair bit of that for NSW/ACT and SA. All good until the expected production nosedive about 5 years from now turns Victoria itself into a net importer of gas. Importing from ??? Importing from overseas realistically hence the now 4 LNG import terminal proposals - one each in NSW and SA and two in Vic.

All that being so, the choice for new dispatchable generation capacity really comes down to:

Open cycle plant fueled by imported LNG or diesel. This carries the risk of fuel prices, physical supply from overseas and the value of the AUD given that pricing is in foreign currency.

Coal. Could be done but in practice would be a government project and carries the risk that the international community forces cuts in emissions within the next ~50 years.

Nuclear. As with coal would be a government project in practice almost certainly. Big hassle would be getting it done quickly enough - construction alone would use up most of the available time so would need a "wartime" approach where planning proceses are suspended and construction just gets going ASAP using an "off the shelf" design purchased from France, UK, USA, China or wherever. Chance of it actually happening = virtually zero.

Pumped hydro built upon an assumption that new wind and solar is later built to do the pumping. It carries the risk that the future does turn out to be coal or that battery prices plunge. That said, in the event that the "problem" is cheaper batteries, the pumped hydro remains useful as such just unnecessarily expensive.

So there's no no-risk option but personally I'd take pumped hydro (or batteries) and a gamble that wind and solar will be built over a gamble on international oil/gas prices or that the CO2 issue turns out to be false. Nuclear I just can't see happening in the required time so I don't take it seriously for that reason.

For reference, announced closures of existing plant over the next 15 years:

Torrens Island A (SA, gas, AGL), 480 MW closing progressively 2019 - 21

Liddell (NSW, coal, AGL) - 1680 MW in 2022

Vales Point (NSW, coal, Sunset Power International) - 1320 MW in 2029

Yallourn W (Vic, coal, Energy Australia) - 1480 MW in 2032 (but a lot of speculation that could go earlier given the age of units 1 & 2).

Closely followed by Bayswater (NSW, coal, AGL) - 2640 MW and Eraring (NSW, coal, Origin Energy) - 2800 MW in the mid-2030's with both companies having announced plans to that effect.

Whilst everything I've written here is "off the top of my head", if you were to read a stack of AEMO reports and those of generating companies and gas companies then ultimately the information is all publicly available. None of it's secret in any way, including the closure dates I've mentioned - they're the dates given by the relevant companies and being used by AEMO and others (including rival generating companies) for planning.

At a recent workshop run by AEMO there was agreement among multiple generating companies and others (networks etc) that one thing needing to be considered is that these dates could well be earlier but are unlikely to be later. That is, if something has a technical life through to 2032 then that's a "hard" limit but it doesn't preclude earlier closure due to financial concerns or if a major incident were to occur (eg fire etc). AEMO are going to try and model some more realistic scenarios taking this into account.

Another complexity is fuel prices and any emissions price. For one random example, if AGL are going to become a major gas supplier (importer) in Victoria as seems reasonably likely then what price will Energy Australia be paying for AGL's gas which EA will then use to compete directly against AGL in the electricity market? That's not suggesting any wrongdoing by either company, for the record Alinta already buys 100% of their coal from AGL's mine literally just across the road, but it does get a but murky in trying to work out the costs and what decisions that will prompt. :2twocents
 

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