Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
Well smurf, don't say, we told you so.
The really funny part is, it has only just started, wait untill they start a 15GW solar farm on sacred land. Lol
Bob and the boys, stopped onshore processing of LNG at James Price Point near Broome, it was going to cover 10 to 20 hectares. Cant wait to hear what they think about 5000hectares.
 
SirRumpole said:
Some may think it's a waste of time to discuss, but research on nuclear fusion continues.
Click to expand...
The holy grail, at this point apparently it uses more energy than it generates, but it will be great if it gets there. It is never a waste of time discussing new developments in energy generation. IMO

This kid is dedicating his future to nuclear research and development, he built a fusion reactor in his parents garage when he was 14 years old, or so the story goes.
He is a very interesting and engaging young man, he is now in his mid 20's.

 
Here is another Taylor Wilson clip, on where he thinks power generation will go, obviously there are some bright people working on it. The clip is a few years old, but it gives a bit of insight into his ideas.

 
All this Solar means we're all good for power during daylight hours.....how do we fill the gaps? I feel like we're going to be short on power between 5pm and 10pm.

Is this the end of the renewables boom?
Angela Macdonald-Smithand Mark Ludlow
Jul 30, 2019 — 12.00am
Soaring solar generation has meant that renewables provided 30 per cent of Australia's midday power supply most days last month, depressing wholesale power prices and piling pressure on coal-fired generators unable to ramp down their operations,

But the price impact of the massive influx of renewables into the National Electricity Market has also triggered warnings that the end of the investment boom in wind and solar could be approaching as the economics of some plants exposed to wholesale prices are undermined.

The new figures to be released on Wednesday by respected analysis firm Green Energy Markets found that total solar power generation doubled in June compared with two years previously. Power production from solar was large enough to drive renewable energy's share of the market up above 30 per cent in the middle of the day for 20 of the 30 days in June, for the first time ever in winter.

The share of renewables reached a peak of 39.2 per cent on June 30, helping drive wholesale prices down to zero for a five-minute period right across the NEM, understood to be unprecedented for the market for winter.

Average wholesale prices in Victoria and South Australia were down more than 60 per cent on that day compared to the same day in 2017, and more than 40 per cent lower in NSW and Queensland, according to Australian Energy Market Operator data.

zero or negative prices on the NEM to become a lot more common in the next 12 months across other states as well as South Australia.

"It will be very interesting to see what happens in spring with a few more projects online and when solar irradiance picks up while demand for electricity will be low," said Mr Edis, adding that new state renewable energy auctions would be needed to prevent a steep fall-off in investment. He said that the risk may not have been fully appreciated in a recent upbeat assessment of future investment in renewables by the Clean Energy Regulator.

The warning comes as Clean Energy Finance Corporation chief executive Ian Learmonth declared the taxpayer-funded body will look at emerging technologies, such as battery storage, because there was already enough wind and solar investments already in the market.

Mr Learmonth said the mandate of the CEFC, which is investing $10 billion into renewable projects, had changed because of the market dynamics.

"We are evolving with the market and it's happening rapidly," Mr Learmonth said in an interview with The Australian Financial Review.

"There is a conscious move to focus more on storage, pumped hydro and firming technology because we do acknowledge wind and solar are mature technologies and a lot of people out there who are banking on them, so there's less need for the CEFC to be involved."

Reverse auctions
The CEFC will announce on Tuesday it had committed $1.5 billion to new clean energy investments in the 2019 financial year, across 30 transactions with a total value of $6.3 billion.

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who has vowed to bring down wholesale power prices to $70 per megawatt hour, has expressed concerns about the rate of renewables projects coming into the market, especially in Victoria and Queensland which have set ambitious targets, and about the need for firming capacity.

State Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland have held "reverse auctions" in which taxpayers underwrite large-scale solar projects by buying the output under long-term contracts.

Project proponents rely on the power purchase agreements to get financing.

Coal-rich Queensland and Victoria are aiming to reach 50 per cent renewable by 2030.

Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said it was likely the influx of renewables would put pressure on existing coal-fired power plants, such as EnergyAustralia's Yallourn in Victoria.

He said there would also be a domino effect on the renewables roll-out in Victoria and Queensland, with cheaper renewable energy also putting pressure on older coal-fired power plants in NSW.

"Victoria and Queensland tend to go much more aggressive than NSW. One possibility is all the extra renewables in Victoria will make it harder for Yallourn, but it could export power into NSW.

"It's possible it could be black coal generators in NSW that get into trouble."

'All the risk is with the taxpayer'
Mr Wood said the renewables crunch would really hit home within the next five years, especially when Snowy 2.0 comes on-line.

He said government intervention at both a state level (through renewable energy targets) and at a federal level (Snowy 2.0, underwriting generation) would come home to roost.

"What's more concerning is the government is involving itself so much more frequently in the market and all the risk is with the taxpayer," he said.

And companies such as Alinta, Origin Energy and AGL are finding harder to compete because they are not competing by the same rules."

A recent Industry Super Association report on the electricity sector warned of the risk of "stranded assets" if the penetration of renewables topped 50 per cent.

"It is possible that beyond about 50 per cent of electricity, some solar and wind may become stranded assets. This would begin to raise serious questions about the trajectory of the energy system," the report said.

"If carbon capture and storage is not developed the eventual transition away from coal is almost certain."

The ISA report recommended keeping nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage projects on the table to help secure reliable energy supply over the next few decades.

Meanwhile Mr Taylor told Parliament on Monday that he intended to introduce the "big stick" energy legislation later this year, bringing forced asset divestments for integrated energy suppliers back onto the table.
Click to expand...
 
Junior said:
All this Solar means we're all good for power during daylight hours.....how do we fill the gaps? I feel like we're going to be short on power between 5pm and 10pm.
Click to expand...
If the solar is used to charge batteries or pump water up hill (or some other means of storage eg compressed air, running trains loaded with weights up mountains, etc) then we can use solar energy 24/7 but the key is actualy building those things.

Thus far the big problem is that we're closing things which can operate at any time of the day or night (eg coal but also others) but not actually replacing it with the pumped hydro or batteries etc. That then creates the situation as you describe - all good when it's sunny but a problem when it's not.

That diminishing ability to supply when it's not sunny or windy is what's causing so much angst among those aware of the technical aspects of the situation. It's not about an ideological opposition to wind and solar or that anyone loves coal, just that there's a very real technical problem if supply and demand don't match in real time and the ability to ensure this is being eroded since we're really only building one half of the new system - we're putting up the wind and solar farms and closing existing coal-fired generation a lot faster than we're putting in pumped hydro, batteries or other means of storage. :2twocents
 
SirRumpole said:
Gas & diesel too.
Click to expand...
It would be fair to say that everyone is going to be watching to see how AGL operate their new facility at Barker Inlet (SA).

This consists of 12 internal combustion engines, 17.5 MW each, and they're capable of operating on either gas with diesel as the pilot fuel for ignition or on straight diesel. Efficiency is stated as about 44%, which is better than steam plant or open cycle gas turbines but inferior to combined cycle gas, and they're capable of starting up and getting to full load within a few minutes and likewise ramping back down again quickly.

Cost - AGL would know how they're going in practice but the plan is $295 million. Construction is well underway but not yet complete.

It's not experimental as such, the technology is all off the shelf and AGL have simply bought the equipment they haven't invented anything, but it'll be the only such facility in the National Electricity Market (much smaller ones exist at mines etc) so there's some general interest in terms of how it will be operated in practice which comes down largely to financial considerations.

Location is about 15km north-west of the Adelaide CBD (next to Torrens Island B power station also owned by AGL).
 
At last there seems to be a glimmer of common sense prevailing.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...r-battle-with-government-20190802-p52d6b.html

From the article:
AGL has delayed the closure of the Liddell power plant following a protracted dispute with the federal government over the lifespan of the ageing coal-fired facility.

The plant in NSW's Hunter Valley was scheduled to end operations in 2022, taking 1680 megawatts out of the grid. AGL has come under intense pressure over the plan, with the government warning the company to renovate the plant or sell it to ensure ongoing energy reliability.
Also:
Earlier this year, Mr Taylor said the company had to either delay the closure, sell it to another energy provider or develop an alternative to secure adequate supply of reliable power.

A new "Retailer Reliability Obligation" came into effect from July 1, compelling energy providers to meet demand for "despatchable, 24/7 power" and outlining penalties for any breaches.


The company is continuing to work on a $1.36 billion plan to replace the power supply lost with the Liddell closure.

The three-phase plan includes an upgrade of the nearby Bayswater power plant, building 1600 megawatts of renewable generation capacity and 250 megawatts of battery storage over five years .
 
sptrawler said:
At last there seems to be a glimmer of common sense prevailing
Click to expand...
There's a bit going on behind the scenes and has been for a while...... ;)

What's announced publicly:

AGL will continue to operate three (of four) units at Liddell (NSW) until April 2023 with the first one closing in 2022. This follows an engineering assessment of the plant.

AGL has revised the planned closure dates for the four Torrens Island A units (SA) to two in September 2020 and one each in September 2021 and 2022. This will need approval from the SA state government on account of pollution given that it represents a change from the planning approvals granted in respect of the adjacent Barker Inlet power station, noting in particular that actually achieving simultaneous high output from the whole lot will require significant use of oil.

That said, I'd be highly surprised if permission wasn't granted given that it's more about compliance with permits than an actual environmental problem as such - it's not as though there's smoke belching out of the place and I doubt that government wants to cop the blame for the lights going out.

The "official" return to service for Loy Yang A2 (AGL) and for Mortlake (Origin) remains December 2019 but I'll offer my opinion that there aren't too many who are particularly confident since it's a rather ambitious target. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's an ambitious target given the scale of work required so there's a lot of doubts around and a thinking that the odds are at least one will be later in practice. Time will tell. :2twocents
 
sptrawler said:
Well smurf, don't say, we told you so.
The really funny part is, it has only just started, wait untill they start a 15GW solar farm on sacred land. Lol
Bob and the boys, stopped onshore processing of LNG at James Price Point near Broome, it was going to cover 10 to 20 hectares. Cant wait to hear what they think about 5000hectares.
Click to expand...

To highlight the issue, I mentioned in a previous post.
Here is an article of native title being tested retrospectively, with regard mining at Gove, so one would hope all these people installing these solar farms are doing their homework. It could become a very expensive excercise, paying compensation for dreaming.:rolleyes:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-to-launch-compensation-mining-claim/11381034
 
Odd that the Coalition's inquiry into nuclear power generation announced last week got no traction here!
Anyway, if it was a good idea, the USA would now be building them across their nation, and they are not. Moreover, some recent builds have gone belly up.
Nuclear is only viable with multi billion dollar funding assistance from state players as the lead time for private sector operators to generate profits means carrying debt for far too long, and the risks are too great.
Nuclear would solve a baseload issue, however, doing the sums on the declining cost of battery backup suggests that it would never be able to compete with wind/solar/battery. Moreover, wind/solar/battery is scalable to locality whereas nuclear requires maximum market volumes in order to recover costs.
 
rederob said:
Odd that the Coalition's inquiry into nuclear power generation announced last week got no traction here!
Anyway, if it was a good idea, the USA would now be building them across their nation, and they are not. Moreover, some recent builds have gone belly up.
Nuclear is only viable with multi billion dollar funding assistance from state players as the lead time for private sector operators to generate profits means carrying debt for far too long, and the risks are too great.
Nuclear would solve a baseload issue, however, doing the sums on the declining cost of battery backup suggests that it would never be able to compete with wind/solar/battery. Moreover, wind/solar/battery is scalable to locality whereas nuclear requires maximum market volumes in order to recover costs.
Click to expand...
From my perspective, I think at this point in time it is a wait and see, I have nothing to add to the debate untill there is a more defined way over the obvious issues.
At least they are going to extend the life, of the current generation, over one more summer so that gives some time for a solution to found.
 
Nothing will come of the nuclear enquiry.

It's just to satisfy a few of the Coalition's mates in the business or their own people with possibly a vested interest.

Labor and the Greens will never back it, so nuclear is *always* going to be a dead duck in this country unless there are dramatic technological advances like fusion.
 
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...y-emergency-oil-supplies-20190801-p52cti.html

Realising we've got a problem with not complying with international agreements = good

Trying to change the rules so that we comply without really doing anything = cheating

Counting oil on the other side of the world or still at sea on foreign owned ships as part of Australia's reserves = remind me why, exactly, we are paying the clowns who come up with this rubbish? :mad:
 
Last edited:
rederob said:
Odd that the Coalition's inquiry into nuclear power generation announced last week got no traction here!
Click to expand...
What we need is energy that's cheap, reliable, environmentally acceptable and preferably independent of other nations for its ongoing operation.

Nuclear is reasonably reliable that's true.

It fails dismally on the "cheap" bit however and arguably fails on the other two points as well depending on how it's approached. As such it doesn't seem a realistic solution to the problem at least not using conventional fission reactors.

Meanwhile in WA, another one's set to bite the dust. A combination of economically priced gas, rising coal costs as the best has already been used and intermittent renewables are pulling the rug from under coal-fired generation with Muja C set to close one unit in 2022 and the other in 2024, leaving the two D station units as the only operating plant at Muja.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/wes...f-collie-coal-generators-20190805-p52e4e.html
 

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