The future of energy generation and storage

[IFocus]

Simple version:

1. Generator (company that owns the plant) offers supply at $x

2. AEMO directs the physical dispatch of generation according to price (cheapest first) subject to meeting technical constraints.

3. Something goes wrong. Whatever - eg a generating unit trips.

4. If primary frequency enabled then machines will of their own accord increase output to maintain system frequency.

5. Those looking to regulate economic things get seriously unhappy that someone who was supposed to generate 200 MW generated 220 MW. They get really, really unhappy about this.

6. After realising it was going to make life miserable, the owners of generation simply disabled the governors rather than keep being belted over the head for keeping the system stable.

7. End result is the electricity system is now far less robust and stable than it was previously.

That's a simplified version but it's how it has all gone. If anyone wants a more technical understanding of the issue then see here:

Be aware it's over an hour and goes into detail - it's not aimed at a general public audience but it's probably the best explanation I've seen and it's a comprehensible one for those keen to understand.

My real lament though isn't the technical detail but the reality that there's something in common with a lot of things in all this. Electricity is one, hospitals are another, climate change is another.

What??? I hear you say! Hospitals? Climate change?

The common link is that engineering is the practical application of science and trades are the practical application of engineering. Equivalents to that exist in medicine and many other fields - there's the underlying science, there's a white collar profession based around it and there are all sorts of people who do physical things based around what that profession has determined need to be done.

The common theme with energy, climate, hospitals and so on is that as a society we're choosing to ignore the science in favour of an ideological debate. In order to do that we have various political constructs and other things which ensure that we don't have engineers, doctors, climate scientists and so on making the decisions but rather, it's passed to someone in a completely unrelated field.

So the details differ but the same fundamental issues exist across multiple fields. Have a proper chat to someone in medicine who grasps the big picture there and it's alarmingly familiar.

With regard to the energy debate I'll observe that those who I'll put in the "engineering" camp and those who I'll put in the "environmental" camp have a lot more in common than may seem apparent. Put aside the extreme ones with hard line ideological views and focus on the future without disrespecting the past and there's an awful lot in common. Both are ultimately lamenting the same fundamental problem - a society which chooses to ignore the science.

Note that I said engineering not energy and I said environmental not climate. That's because the same concept applies far more widely than just energy and climate change. Those certainly aren't the only issues where the science is being ignored with building things or when it comes to the natural world. And of course there's those trying to run hospitals who face the same basic issue too as do others.

All this stuff used to worry me somewhat but it doesn't so much today. It's so widespread, across so many seemingly unrelated fields, that it's way out of my hands to do anything about it. Beyond sensible preparation at the personal level and investing to make a profit, that's about it really. There's not much chance that I'll be reversing something which has spanned multiple governments of both persuasions and to which the significant minor parties haven't effectively opposed either.

Once there's a big enough problem, only then will it be possible to go forward but we're not at that point yet. It'll happen, and we'll only know when in hindsight, but we're not at that point yet.

Afraid very little difference in large private companies at least it was my experience in chemical manufacturing company, it was world wide 5000 to 8000 employees, consultants and ideology used to drive us nuts, all we wanted to do was clever stuff to be better (and did) all every other mug manager wanted to do was what some unrelated industry did that didn't work (would ring up the industry and ask reply was usually laughter follow by you poor souls).

 

[sptrawler]

Afraid very little difference in large private companies at least it was my experience in chemical manufacturing company, it was world wide 5000 to 8000 employees, consultants and ideology used to drive us nuts, all we wanted to do was clever stuff to be better (and did) all every other mug manager wanted to do was what some unrelated industry did that didn't work (would ring up the industry and ask reply was usually laughter follow by you poor souls).

You are spot on IFocus, it always amazed me how every new manager NEVER came in and said " this is running great I will leave it as it is", no they had to come in a fffff everything up.

 

[bi-polar]

I know nothing but taxi companies have phones ( plastic box with numerals and sound app).
To save on being fined , couldn't a generator mechanic ring another plant and ask who's cheaper and who flicks the switch?

 

[Smurf1976]

Afraid very little difference in large private companies

I think what that comes down to is something far broader and that's about the quality of leadership very broadly in the West.

Everything from why we haven't been back to the moon, indeed why we can't even get a man in space without Russia's help, through to issues of hospitals and gas supplies can all be traced back to that really.

On the energy issue specifically though, I'll pass on calling for anyone to resign (see below) and simply note that the ACCC has an inherent flaw in being involved in this area in that it's founded upon an article of faith that competition necessarily leads to efficiency. That article of faith, and that's exactly what it has become in Australia, fails to differentiate between a market and a system and there's the flaw in it.

In reality energy company A competes with energy company B in much the same way as the Sydney Harbour Bridge competes with Victoria Road, there's zero chance that either's going out of business and any actual change in volume will be a minor one around the edges. It's not like say Coles versus Woolworths which is actual competition. That's the difference between a system and a market, a point lost on most.

That said, the following does sum up the gas situation rather well albeit bluntly: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/10/rod-sims-must-resign-over-energy-markets-failure/

Note in particular the big white area under the line for 2025 for which no supply exists in the absence of drilling and discovery, pipelines or imports. Note also that it won't take until 2025 for that gap to appear - it'll be here on a smaller scale well before that.

There is of course an investment opportunity there for anyone with a plan to fix it and there's a few possible companies there.

 

[Smurf1976]

You are spot on IFocus, it always amazed me how every new manager NEVER came in and said " this is running great I will leave it as it is", no they had to come in a fffff everything up.

I've actually worked for someone who did indeed do just that.

Came in, all running nicely, kept it going.

Under that management the staff pushed themselves hard of their own accord - everyone wins.

Agreed it's rare though yes.

 

[sptrawler]

Well it sounds as though the dog has sparked into action and started wagging its tail, at last a plan it may be just the beginning but IMO a step in the right direction, once the actual requirements are defined the policy can be developed to support it.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...-plan-for-wind-and-solar-20191013-p53083.html

From the article:
It said the electricity system of the future was likely to feature renewable plants that were much smaller than today's coal-fired power plants, in a system much more geographically dispersed than today's.

It also said these plants were "unlikely to be located where there is substantial existing transmission to serve them and is instead being connected in sunny or windy areas at the edges of the grid, where the network is less strong"
The AEMC has proposed that for the first time large-scale generators would be paid a localised price for their power at the wholesale level, which it said better reflected the marginal cost of supplying power at that location.
And while some generators were seeking connections to transmission lines at the edge of the grid, others were connecting at locations where power stations were already located, which meant that transmission lines were becoming heavily congested.

AEMC chairman John Pierce said the growth of dispersed renewable energy generation and battery storage required comprehensive reform of the electricity market


The commission has also proposed the introduction of something it called electricity grid "transmission rights", which generators would have to pay for. AEMC said this would give power generators more investment certainty while ensuring that power networks were used more efficiently.

"Money raised from the sale of these rights would be used to offset consumer bills," AEMC said.


The model the commission has proposed is similar to electricity markets overseas, including in the United States and New Zealand.

"The underlying rationale for the designs elsewhere are the same as those outlined above: a desire to provide appropriate, location-specific price signals for generation and transmission network service providers, and the tools to allow them to manage risks," AEMC said .

 

[SirRumpole]

Doubts cast on Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs and effectiveness.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...nsive-and-wont-deliver-energy-expert/11594768

 

[sptrawler]

Doubts cast on Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs and effectiveness.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...nsive-and-wont-deliver-energy-expert/11594768

There wasn't much of substance in that report, maybe there will be a second episode that gives some information, as to what will supply the storage if Snowy 2.0 doesn't go ahead.
As usual two people in the article, make up the whole basis of the article, no doubt we will have people marching in Sydney to ban Snowy 2.0 tomorrow.

 

[Smurf1976]

There wasn't much of substance in that report, maybe there will be a second episode that gives some information, as to what will supply the storage if Snowy 2.0 doesn't go ahead.

The simple answer as to who loses if Snowy 2.0 and the Tasmanian pumped hydro projects are built is the gas industry.

Long term a mix of wind, solar, small storage schemes and gas is one option.

Wind, solar and a mix of both large and small storage schemes is the competing option in practice assuming nobody's going to build new coal or nuclear.

Snowy is the easier target of the two projects for many reasons. That it's a federal government owned entity is one aspect and the politics associated with that.

That Hydro Tas has made it rather clear that gas prices are too high to produce electricity at internationally competitive prices, and has taken that to formal arbitration, would also make those on that side of the fence inclined to keep clear.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem with that of course is, gas isn't clean either, it is just less polluting than coal. So it will only be a matter of time before it is seen as evil also.

 

[basilio]

Guess hat ? Apparently the Lithium Ion battery ( actually the designers) have won a Nobel rize .

Lithium Batteries Finally Get their Due with Nobel Prize Win
Mike Jacobs, Senior energy analyst | October 9, 2019, 12:57 pm EDT

Today’s award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to the scientists that created lithium ion batteries marks the common heritage of mobile communications (laptops and smart phones), electric vehicles, and a new era in energy storage for our electric system.


The award recognizes John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for discoveries that made lithium ion batteries possible. These discoveries in turn made possible the commercialization of the nascent technologies of portable phones and electric cars. Lithium is the lightest of the metal elements, and making batteries lightweight is important for mobile uses, such as laptops, phones and vehicles.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/lithium-batteries-nobel-prize-win

 

[qldfrog]

. So it will only be a matter of time before it is seen as evil also.

Currently there is a campaign against hydro 2, and a new one trending aiming at removing existing hydro in Tasmania, to restore to its primal beauty
There is no limit to fanatism, definitely neither science nor common sense or reality

 

[SirRumpole]

Currently there is a campaign against hydro 2, and a new one trending aiming at removing existing hydro in Tasmania, to restore to its primal beauty
There is no limit to fanatism, definitely neither science nor common sense or reality

Replace a dam with a lot of windmills.

Talk about obstructing the scenery.

 

[Smurf1976]

Currently there is a campaign against hydro 2, and a new one trending aiming at removing existing hydro in Tasmania, to restore to its primal beauty
There is no limit to fanatism, definitely neither science nor common sense or reality

I'll declare my bias in that I played a role in pulling the rug from under the last such proposal back in 1995. I didn't ask the questions but I did write some of them.

Ultimately though it's purely an ideologically driven idea. Greens cannot and will not support hydro in the same way as Liberal cannot and will not support unions. Simple as that.

A wind farm is not an alternative to having inflows to long term storage by the way and I can assure you that those advocating this are well aware of that point indeed last time around they did end up publicly admitting it (followed by a prompt defence that coal isn't really so bad).

There are many who grumble about the CO2 issue but when it comes to actually reducing emissions support is far weaker in practice. Hence why there's quite a few who could be considered as on the "inside" who've privately given up on the issue - it won't be fixed, not much chance of that since there's always some excuse as to why it isn't the priority and here's another example of that.

 

[sptrawler]

I asked about the backlash, and you offered nothing.
Wind turbines can be unsightly in pristine wilderness environments and the questions Bob Brown has asked are legitimate. The south coast of Australia's mainland - from Albany to Port Augusta - is probably a better option for turbines, but won't win any votes.
Rather than invent problems, how about you stump up with the issues you consider are going to cause concern.

Well Rob don't say I didn't tell you, there would be a backlash against the renewables by the 'greenies, well it is starting to wind up.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-in-worst-possible-place-20191015-p530vu.html

 

[rederob]

Well Rob don't say I didn't tell you, there would be a backlash against the renewables by the 'greenies, well it is starting to wind up.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-in-worst-possible-place-20191015-p530vu.html

Anything built has an environmental footprint - that's trivial.
Isn't the issue here that what is being proposed isn't necessary, is too expensive, and will be too late. I have never been a fan of Snowy 2.0 and have made that clear in these threads. Localised wind/solar plus storage is a far more practical solution as is scalable and far easier to integrate into the grid.
That said, the reality is if you had asked most people if they prefer Snowy 2.0 or massive coal/gas plants instead, there won't be many putting their hands up for the latter. If you asked "greenies," it's a no contest.
So the backlash is not about "renewbles" as the preferred energy source, but being smart about it.

 

[sptrawler]

Anything built has an environmental footprint - that's trivial.
Isn't the issue here that what is being proposed isn't necessary, is too expensive, and will be too late. I have never been a fan of Snowy 2.0 and have made that clear in these threads. Localised wind/solar plus storage is a far more practical solution as is scalable and far easier to integrate into the grid.
That said, the reality is if you had asked most people if they prefer Snowy 2.0 or massive coal/gas plants instead, there won't be many putting their hands up for the latter. If you asked "greenies," it's a no contest.
So the backlash is not about "renewbles" as the preferred energy source, but being smart about it.

A reliable 2GW pumped storage, would go a long way to supporting renewables and their intermittency, but it will be difficult to get agreement with the contesting parties as usual.
As for integrating it with the grid, it would be far easier, than multiple smaller ones at this point in time, there would be much fewer transmission lines required.

 

[qldfrog]

Jesus, with mentality like that, we will still burn coal in 100y
Get some real facts
You put wind turbines where it is windy, solar farms where it is sunny, not where it is convenient
And seldom matching ..
So you need storage if you want renewable, especially with all the extra refugees CC will bring us
And no, batteries is not an option
Read @Smurf1976 to educate yourself

 

[Smurf1976]

Localised wind/solar plus storage is a far more practical solution as is scalable and far easier to integrate into the grid.

That is the solution being proposed by AGL and similar companies.

Wind + solar + small storage + gas.

Hence AGL spending $295 million on 210 MW of new gas-fired generation in SA and choosing technology that’s economically and technically best suited to operating not continuously but a lot of the time. It’s not a base load plant but it’s certainly not a peaking or backup operation either - it’ll be run quite a bit.

Likewise AGL’s planned LNG import terminal.

Likewise AGL’s already built LNG production and storage facility in NSW to meet peak gas demand and the plan to locate new gas-fired generation not too far away.

Other companies much the same, I’ve just picked AGL since they’re big and well known and it makes the point.

They’re all looking at a mix of intermittent renewables of gas somewhere in the order of 50/50 or looking at doing one side of that on the assumption others will do the other side.

Hence the other LNG import and gas-fired generation proposals from various companies and others who intend drilling for gas in Australia instead particularly the NT.

Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania’s proposals aren’t competing against others building small storage systems, they’ll still be needed albeit a bit later, and they giving a leg up to add very much more wind and solar.

They are however a credible threat to pull the rug from under the gas aspect of what others are planning and will face huge opposition for that reason.

It’s a case of two irreconcilable long term visions.

Wind + solar + small storages + gas

More wind + more solar + small storages + big pumped hydro. No gas.

Answering the question of which is best first requires answering a policy question.

Tell me how much gas we aim to be using in the long term, 2050 and beyond, and it’s then very easy to answer the question regarding the big hydro proposals and whether or not they’re needed or worthwhile.

It’s a gamble basically. If someone is looking at this in 2050 then was going mostly renewable the right decision? Or is gas still pretty cheap such that we shouldn’t have bothered with expensive storage schemes?

 

[SirRumpole]

What are these "small storages" ?

Batteries ?