The future of energy generation and storage

[rederob]

I can't see how they are working out the amount required, the one in NW W.A is going to be 11GW and cover 7,000sq/km.
The Eastern States need a lot more than 11GW yet from your article, it will only cover an area of 900sq/km, something doesn't add up.

The theoretical total area of panels at maximum efficiency needed to power Australia was identified, rather than the "practical" size of any solar installations.

If renewables can effectively run the system 24/7 for 365 days of the year, then that is great and they will be the answer, time will tell.

The intermittency issues of wind and solar are well known, and the energy regulator needs to ensure that policies - like those now being adopted in the USA - which integrate capacity with battery storage, are essential to the success of renewable adaptation.
We continue to raise here the fact that government policy making has been sadly and glaringly lacking for a vary long time on energy policy matters. The "fix" is simple. The willingness seems to dissipate into the ether.

Hi Rob, I saw this on the internet this morning, just as a point of interest.
https://www.yasstribune.com.au/stor...up-raises-concerns-about-solar-farm-proposal/

I am not aware this project is going ahead. It is very poorly sited, and had as its main advantage simple and immediate access to the grid. I would have joined SSAG, as I lived in Canberra and know exactly where the site is having worked occasionally on a friend's farm in the area.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yet another report on the viability of nuclear power from the Australia Institute a progressive think tank.

I wonder if we will ever get a truly independent report on our future power needs. (maybe if Smurf writes it )

Ziggy Switowski reckoned we should have 25 nuclear reactors by 2050.

The big problem is that most reports, studies etc are done by someone with a vested interest in a specific outcome.

Aspiring gas importers unsurprisingly come up with solutions which involve using gas.

Mining companies come up with solutions which involve something being mined.

Transmission companies come up with solutions which involve a lot of transmission lines.

And so on.

Big problem is that nobody's looking at the whole picture and that hasn't really been done for a quarter century now hence the mess we're in.

At a personal level I've concluded that it will take a major crisis to bring any real action and I know I'm not the only one who's come to that conclusion. Government and much of the population have their heads so far in the sand it ain't funny.

No energy supply = no food or water for most of the population. And yet bizarrely we have lots of apparent concern about farms and water but not the diesel and electricity without which they fail to function.

Looking at the immediate future, Victoria's in a world of pain if the various major problems aren't fixed by the end of the year. With the major failures at Loy Yang A and Mortlake, the extended outage of two units at Somerton, ongoing issues at Yallourn and now a major transmission failure onshore in Victoria cutting all supply between Tasmania and Victoria, it's all rather shaky that's for sure.

 

[SirRumpole]

The big problem is that most reports, studies etc are done by someone with a vested interest in a specific outcome.

Aspiring gas importers unsurprisingly come up with solutions which involve using gas.

Mining companies come up with solutions which involve something being mined.

Transmission companies come up with solutions which involve a lot of transmission lines.

And so on.

Big problem is that nobody's looking at the whole picture and that hasn't really been done for a quarter century now hence the mess we're in.

At a personal level I've concluded that it will take a major crisis to bring any real action and I know I'm not the only one who's come to that conclusion. Government and much of the population have their heads so far in the sand it ain't funny.

No energy supply = no food or water for most of the population. And yet bizarrely we have lots of apparent concern about farms and water but not the diesel and electricity without which they fail to function.

Looking at the immediate future, Victoria's in a world of pain if the various major problems aren't fixed by the end of the year. With the major failures at Loy Yang A and Mortlake, the extended outage of two units at Somerton, ongoing issues at Yallourn and now a major transmission failure onshore in Victoria cutting all supply between Tasmania and Victoria, it's all rather shaky that's for sure.

You would have thought that the Finkle report was written by someone without a vested interest in anything, but as usual for political reasons his report is gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.

 

[rederob]

Yet another report on the viability of nuclear power from the Australia Institute a progressive think tank.

I wonder if we will ever get a truly independent report on our future power needs. (maybe if Smurf writes it )

Ziggy Switowski reckoned we should have 25 nuclear reactors by 2050.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...ower-is-not-the-answer-for-australia/11450850

Most Australians are clueless about what going nuclear would mean, because they only really think about the problem of waste storage.
The practical reality is that for us to go nuclear would put us at energy peril, because the nuclear processing cycle exists overseas and Australia does not have the technical skills, nor the "volumes" to make it a viable industry here.
In lay terms, it means we send uranium oxide (aka yellow cake - ie, the uranium concentrate powder obtained after leaching mined ore) overseas for enrichment and use as an end product, and once that's occurred we become a customer of those companies.
That makes little sense as we would relinquish our energy independence, while we are awash with coal, gas, and renewable energy potential.
There is this cute idea that "small" nuclear reactors could be placed all over the nation, or that thorium is the answer. These ideas prosper in cyberspace, and nowhere else.

 

[Smurf1976]

Most Australians are clueless about what going nuclear would mean, because they only really think about the problem of waste storage.

Nailed it.

There are places in the world where nuclear is arguably a sensible choice but quite simply Australia isn't one of them since the conditions which favour it are, broadly speaking, the opposite of the circumstances we have in Australia.

That said, the way things are going we'll end up with an "anything that works" approach regardless of how sensible it is.

 

[sptrawler]

Nailed it.

There are places in the world where nuclear is arguably a sensible choice but quite simply Australia isn't one of them since the conditions which favour it are, broadly speaking, the opposite of the circumstances we have in Australia.

That said, the way things are going we'll end up with an "anything that works" approach regardless of how sensible it is.

That is the whole issue IMO, the unbending demand that only renewables be installed, meanwhile existing base load gets older and fails more.
Eventually it all falls on its ar$e and as you say, anything that works will get the nod.

The way things are going over East, something big will have to be built in the next 5-10 years, what it is will depend on how dramatic the system failures become. IMO
If there are a few minor stem failures, we will muddle on.
If there are huge areas blacked out, for extended periods, on a regular basis.
Then there will be a call, for something major to be built.
Time will tell, it will be self resolving.

 

[IFocus]

No policy, no plan, think about the size and complexity 5,10,20,30, even 40 year planning give capital certainty as to the model / system at the moment it just seems random although there must be some thing happening in the back ground surely?

 

[rederob]

That is the whole issue IMO, the unbending demand that only renewables be installed, meanwhile existing base load gets older and fails more.

That's a complete misunderstanding of where we are at.
Without an overarching policy on energy there is no incentive for the private sector presently to spend on more baseload given that the best bang for their buck is from renewables, even if it's idle.
At best Snowy 2.0 is 2024, so that is not going to keep the lights on as the south east swelters through another 5-6 hot summers.
The federal Minister should be sacked, and someone competent be put to the task. But that will not work either, because the Coalition are ideologically opposed to the concept that renewables should be predominant. So long as we have the private sector investing in the cheapest form of energy, and no national policies to ensure energy security for consumers, we will remain in this rut.
The notion that this will be "self resolving" is really code for "things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better."

 

[Smurf1976]

there must be some thing happening in the back ground surely?

The big problem is the lack of room to move when things go wrong, due to insufficient capacity, and the amount of problems actually occurring now being rather high.

I've previously mentioned the major failures at Loy Yang A and Mortlake plus the onshore transmission fault in Victoria which has cut all supply to and from Tasmania.

I don't think the details are public so I won't say much but on 28th August another significant source of supply in Victoria failed in the early hours of the morning.

It's pure good luck that the weather is mild due to seasonal factors but if it was properly hot / cold or if much more went wrong then things would be rather interesting in Victoria yes.

 

[sptrawler]

That's a complete misunderstanding of where we are at.
Without an overarching policy on energy there is no incentive for the private sector presently to spend on more baseload given that the best bang for their buck is from renewables, even if it's idle.
At best Snowy 2.0 is 2024, so that is not going to keep the lights on as the south east swelters through another 5-6 hot summers.
The federal Minister should be sacked, and someone competent be put to the task. But that will not work either, because the Coalition are ideologically opposed to the concept that renewables should be predominant. So long as we have the private sector investing in the cheapest form of energy, and no national policies to ensure energy security for consumers, we will remain in this rut.
The notion that this will be "self resolving" is really code for "things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better."

Very rousing, maybe you could make a suggestion, as to what size renewable generating and storage plant could be installed to overcome the obvious problem with base load dispatchable power.

 

[SirRumpole]

The big problem is the lack of room to move when things go wrong, due to insufficient capacity, and the amount of problems actually occurring now being rather high.

I've previously mentioned the major failures at Loy Yang A and Mortlake plus the onshore transmission fault in Victoria which has cut all supply to and from Tasmania.

I don't think the details are public so I won't say much but on 28th August another significant source of supply in Victoria failed in the early hours of the morning.

It's pure good luck that the weather is mild due to seasonal factors but if it was properly hot / cold or if much more went wrong then things would be rather interesting in Victoria yes.

IMHO, instead of stuffing around waiting for the private sector to do something, State and Federal governments should be building new combined cycle gas plants and making sure, through a reservations policy that we have the gas to feed them, plus encouraging the development of other fuels like ethanol or hydrogen as reserve fuels.

The policy vacuum is going to weigh heavily on us very quickly if no action is taken.

 

[rederob]

Very rousing, maybe you could make a suggestion, as to what size renewable generating and storage plant could be installed to overcome the obvious problem with base load dispatchable power.

Baseload is not the issue.
The issue is capacity in extreme circumstances.
To propose renewables as a problem ignores the issue of policy settings necessary to ensure that load shedding events can be circumvented.
While electricity prices are high enough to signal new entry for lower cost plant technologies, barriers to entry have for a number of years now stalled investment in non-renewable generation.
Investors continue to cite a lack of stability and predictability in government energy policy, market interventions (eg Snowy 2.0), government ownership in the industry (look at Tassie!), difficulties in obtaining finance given policy uncertainty, vertical integration, and contract market liquidity as barriers.

 

[sptrawler]

Baseload is not the issue.
The issue is capacity in extreme circumstances.
.

Base load is a problem, otherwise overnight your storage is being used, when morning load starts coming in at 0600, there is no point having most of yesterdays storage gone.
It may well be an overcast day, with no wind, meanwhile everyone is looking at the depleted storage levels, of course base load is an issue.
If you have several days, where renewables can't cover the day time load and top up the storage, then you have a major issue.
What isn't an issue is the evening peak, everything should be ready and charged, covering that is the easy part.IMO
If as you say, it is only times of extreme circumstances, they can be circumvented by voluntary load shedding.

 

[basilio]

This story is for anyone who wants to open a conversation about the economics and practicalities of a nuclear power station vs renewable energy.

A rolling absolute disaster. The wiki article has some horrible insights.

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant
Illustration for Hinkley Point nuclear plant long read Illustration: Guardian Design Team
Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal? By Holly Watt

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

 

[rederob]

Base load is a problem, otherwise overnight your storage is being used, when morning load starts coming in at 0600, there is no point having most of yesterdays storage gone.
It may well be an overcast day, with no wind, meanwhile everyone is looking at the depleted storage levels, of course base load is an issue.
If you have several days, where renewables can't cover the day time load and top up the storage, then you have a major issue.
What isn't an issue is the evening peak, everything should be ready and charged, covering that is the easy part.IMO
If as you say, it is only times of extreme circumstances, they can be circumvented by voluntary load shedding.

Nope.
You are inventing a problem which did not exist.
For many decades there was plenty base load power and renewables were never part of the mix.
Nowadays renewables are eating into the time of day where energy is most required, not when it is least required.
You need to apply critical thinking to this issue.
The correct issue to address is ensuring that known consumption peaks are married to capacity.
In that regard, the policy makers have failed.
As existing generators break down or are phased out, replacement capacity should be matching it in every regard. But there is no investment incentive for this to occur. So, investment is instead in the cheapest sources of energy, and there is no requirement that they have concomitant storage.
Your ideas were along the lines of there being some agenda that demanded only renewables be installed, whereas it is a simple investment decision being made while the policy makers do their vacuous best.

 

[sptrawler]

Nope.
You are inventing a problem which did not exist.
For many decades there was plenty base load power and renewables were never part of the mix.
Nowadays renewables are eating into the time of day where energy is most required, not when it is least required.
You need to apply critical thinking to this issue.
The correct issue to address is ensuring that known consumption peaks are married to capacity.
In that regard, the policy makers have failed.
As existing generators break down or are phased out, replacement capacity should be matching it in every regard. But there is no investment incentive for this to occur. So, investment is instead in the cheapest sources of energy, and there is no requirement that they have concomitant storage.
Your ideas were along the lines of there being some agenda that demanded only renewables be installed, whereas it is a simple investment decision being made while the policy makers do their vacuous best.

As far as I know, the problem is the only investment ATM, is in renewables.

But I do find your definitive answers compelling, their is an air of authority and knowledge about them.

 

[SirRumpole]

This story is for anyone who wants to open a conversation about the economics and practicalities of a nuclear power station vs renewable energy.

A rolling absolute disaster. The wiki article has some horrible insights.

Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant
Illustration for Hinkley Point nuclear plant long read Illustration: Guardian Design Team
Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal? By Holly Watt

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

As pointed out in the first article, power generation and cost benefit analyses are secondary as far as nuclear reactors in the superpowers are concerned.

The main reason they were constructed in the first place and are still being constructed is to provide fuel for nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines, the rest is just for show.

 

[sptrawler]

As pointed out in the first article, power generation and cost benefit analyses are secondary as far as nuclear reactors in the superpowers are concerned.

The main reason they were constructed in the first place and are still being constructed is to provide fuel for nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines, the rest is just for show.

Several are becoming expert and repeating what has been discussed at length previously. IMO

 

[Smurf1976]

On the question of government versus private ownership I'll note a few things (in random order):

*Electricity is fundamentally a system not a market. This point was recognised by government in Tasmania back in the 1990's when the privatisation question seriously arose - you could privatise Hydro Tas successfully so long as you sold the whole lot to one operator. Split it up and then you've got entrenched inefficiencies and that's exactly what has happened in places which went down that track.

*Hydro Tas isn't perfect but it's a reasonably efficient operator as confirmed by external reviews. To the extent that any cost reduction is possible, it thus relates primarily to the cost of capital not to operational expenditure. That is, private ownership could do it cheaper only by accepting a return on investment below the long term government bond rate. That's the inescapable reality when most costs are up front and already incurred.

*The market in Tasmania is and has always been highly focused on trade exposed industry and heat applications in competition with other fuels. That was the case a century ago and it still is today. Just because the market price has risen nationally doesn't mean it can be passed onto consumers - international factors and the cost of other fuels determine that.

*There's no lack of willingness to invest in Tasmania at present indeed there's somewhat a boom going on down there with intermittent renewables. That investors are able to avoid most of the technical and regulatory risks by going to the island state and working with HT rather than trying to compete against them is ultimately driving that.

*To be clear, the market in Tas is open should anyone wish to compete and same goes for Queensland. They will of course need to seriously sharpen their pencils - in both states they're competing in a market driven by trade exposed industry where the focus will be on overseas pricing not what some other company is doing locally.

*Snowy Hydro, Hydro Tas and the Queensland government owned electricity entities are not themselves government despite being owned by it. Snowy in particular is however an obvious and convenient target for those who wish to express frustration with the Australian government over the whole situation.

*Most players in the industry realised long ago that they needed to understand how the others work. That is, those who are privately owned realised they needed to understand how government owned companies and government itself works and thinks. Meanwhile the remaining government owned entities realised that they needed to fully understand how large privately owned businesses function and some of them took that to extremes to get the detail right. Those on both sides who failed to do so have either ended up with someone else owning them or are having an awful lot of drama because of it.

*There are plenty of contracts between parties including those with a privately owned company on one side and a government owned one on the other. Business is business no matter who the shareholders happen to be.

*There's one particular company which has managed to get pretty much everyone offside one way or another with their adversarial approach. Workers, unions, governments, equipment suppliers, rival companies, everyone really. For the others, well business is business just get on with it no need to throw stones at everyone and start a war and to be clear there are plenty of (perfectly legal) arrangements between a number of "rival" companies on commercial terms.

*To the extent there's a rather visible divide between the two big government owned hydro operators and some of the big private operators it really comes down to what the end game is.

One one side it's big pumped hydro, smaller privately owned storage schemes (hydro and battery) and privately owned renewables as the energy source for a "100% renewable" grid which in due course also replaces the direct use of other fuels, eg gas, for heating etc.

On the side other it's a combination of privately owned renewables, smaller privately owned storage schemes (hydro and battery) and an expansion of gas production and/or imports and a system that eventually uses no coal bit with significant use of gas for power and no intention of ever replacing gas for water heating etc.

Those two objectives, 100% renewables via big storage projects versus expanding the use of gas, are mutually exclusive and thus put their proponents on a direct collision course with each other. That one side is backed by two companies which are both government owned, and the other is backed by private enterprise, adds a broader ideological and political aspect to that divide.

Amidst all that there are some who are finding a way through better than others. If you're a privately owned generator and can own wind and solar, and you can sign contracts with Snowy selling to and buying from them, and you can be the retailer, well then there's still a very viable business in that so long as you can put aside any ideological thoughts about who owns what and the merits of gas. There are companies doing just that certainly.

On the whole issue more broadly, well I could have said 6 hours ago that:

1. There's no immediate crisis but there's not a lot of room left in Victoria between demand and supply.

2. Wind and solar is going to waste in Victoria and SA right at this moment.

Both would be absolutely true statements just a few hours ago but I reckon I'd have maybe 1 or 2% of the population able to grasp that without further explanation and therein lies the problem in all of this. It's a technical field which under normal circumstances would be of no real interest to most people just like they don't really care how air traffic control or the 4G network functions so long as it does.

To that end I'll simply say that yes wind and solar most certainly can work as can coal or nuclear and there's no sensible reason for the ideological battle over it all. With all technologies though it needs to be done properly and that's where the problems arise since doing it "properly" inevitably adds to the cost. End result = not done properly = fails = public thinks the idea is a dud.

To that end engineers and economists are at opposite ends of the spectrum. From an engineering perspective, inventory and co-operation are precisely what we need. From an economists perspective the former is to be avoided and the latter brings talk of literally putting people in jail. That divide, far more than any technical problem or issues of who owns things, is a barrier to progress in all of this. Remove all that and it's not overly difficult to make a power system work. Just design and build basically, nothing actually needs to be invented since it already has been.

 

[Smurf1976]

when morning load starts coming in at 0600, there is no point having most of yesterdays storage gone.
It may well be an overcast day, with no wind, meanwhile everyone is looking at the depleted storage levels, of course base load is an issue.
If you have several days, where renewables can't cover the day time load and top up the storage, then you have a major issue.

Hence the battle of the gas drillers / importers versus the big pumped hydro proponents. Those are the two realistic paths to solve this one - serious bulk storage of renewables or alternatively using gas.

What isn't an issue is the evening peak, everything should be ready and charged, covering that is the easy part.

In theory yes although in practice the batteries were flat during the load shedding incident in Victoria earlier this year. Flat because they were discharged too early when there was no technical need to do so - that's what happens when it's viewed as a market rather than as a system.

In theory though, as long as that sort of thing can be stopped then batteries and the small pumped hydro schemes can do it pretty easily yes.

Where the issue arises is how to charge them when wind and solar yields are down - and that's big pumped hydro versus gas basically plus perhaps a bit of diesel.

My expectation there is that we'll end up with some of both. Snowy and Hydro Tas will build their projects but they won't go so far as to put the gas companies out of business, they'll still have a market. That's my expectation anyway.