The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Ffs
Do you understand the difference between the north west shelf and browse

FFS can't you read, or google $hit, or is English your second language?
Now do your own research.
https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/australia/news/1090525/woodside-barnett-agree-on-browse-base
From the article:
Putting a supply base in Western Australia was one of the conditions Premier Colin Barnett put on the state renewing the portion of the retention leases covering those gas fields that are within WA waters.

The rest of the retention leases are in Commonwealth waters.

Barnett sensationally told the recent Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association conference in Perth that if the Browse joint venturers wanted the retention leases renewed they had to commit to a supply base in WA and a domestic gas allocation.

 

[Value Collector]

Infigen (IFN) seem to be snuggling up with Tesla.

Infigen have installed a Large 25MW/52MW Tesla battery at their one of their wind farm sites to help smooth/firm up output from one of their 8 wind farms.

But, they have also announced they are now the supplier of electricity to Teslas National super charging network.

----------------
Infigen operate 8 wind farms and a solar Farm and all have contracted supply from 2 other renewable projects owned by others.

They also own a Tesla Battery and an Open cycle Gas power plant in western Sydney which they use to firm up contracted supply from their wind farms.

They are still a relatively small company $770 Market cap, But they have a pretty interesting strategy.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/infigen...esla-australia-ev-supercharger-network-50181/

 

[Value Collector]

Didn't Morrison once describe SA's battery as a "big banana" ?

He is a Turd.

 

[Humid]

FFS can't you read, or google $hit, or is English your second language?
Now do your own research.
https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/australia/news/1090525/woodside-barnett-agree-on-browse-base
From the article:
Putting a supply base in Western Australia was one of the conditions Premier Colin Barnett put on the state renewing the portion of the retention leases covering those gas fields that are within WA waters.

The rest of the retention leases are in Commonwealth waters.

Barnett sensationally told the recent Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association conference in Perth that if the Browse joint venturers wanted the retention leases renewed they had to commit to a supply base in WA and a domestic gas allocation.

An imaginary supply base complete with imaginary FLNG ship
It's going through Karratha pops

 

[Humid]

FFS can't you read, or google $hit, or is English your second language?

From a bloke that can't spell Labor

 

[Humid]

Your hero Barnett put the Browse gas field 5 years behind by trying to ram James Price Point down Woodsides neck

 

[rederob]

On the same subject this is also why it is a State issue to reserve gas, they use it, the contract for gas reservation is between the supplier and the user.

States can certainly negotiate agreements with producers for supply. However, it is completely wrong to suggest that "it is a State issue to reserve gas" as the federal government is able to legislate on national energy policy, which has an overarching impact on all States.

 

[sptrawler]

States can certainly negotiate agreements with producers for supply. However, it is completely wrong to suggest that "it is a State issue to reserve gas" as the federal government is able to legislate on national energy policy, which has an overarching impact on all States.

As long as it was reserved, I guess it doesn't matter who did it, as long as it was done.
Way too much finger pointing and grand standing. IMO

 

[rederob]

As long as it was reserved, I guess it doesn't matter who did it, as long as it was done.
Way too much finger pointing and grand standing. IMO

Well it was great for WA to do it, but as it was not part of any national plan, those States without significant gas reserves don't get to have a say in what their needs are.
So yes, it does matter who does it as what is happening is not equitable.

 

[basilio]

Excellent new technology to create emission free hydrogen from natural gas.
AFC energy fuel cells are going places.
AFC Energy Inks Pact With HiiROC To Produce Clean Hydrogen
from Alliance News | 27th January 2020 13:55

(Alliance News) - AFC Energy PLC on Monday said it has entered into an agreement to use HiiROC Ltd's plasma process to convert natural gas into a clean hydrogen stream for fuel cell.

AFC, a developer of alkaline fuel cells which use hydrogen for electricity production, has entered into binding preliminary agreement with green hydrogen generation technology developer HiiROC under which the companies intend to commercialise HiiROC's plasma-based technology.

HiiROC's technology produces clean zero carbon dioxide emission hydrogen through a plasma process fuelled by natural gas or biogas, converting hydrocarbons into a clean hydrogen and solid carbon.

Under the commercialisation agreement, AFC will get global preferential rights to integrate HiiROC's plasma-based technology with the company's proprietary H-Power fuel cell, which is expected to lead to a GBP2 million initial reduction in hydrogen cost to AFC Energy
https://www.ii.co.uk/news/afc-energ...-produce-clean-hydrogen-al1580133316431407900

 

[Smurf1976]

However, it is completely wrong to suggest that "it is a State issue to reserve gas" as the federal government is able to legislate on national energy policy, which has an overarching impact on all States.

For the record SA had the idea of reserving gas for use only within SA back in the 1980’s.

Laws may have changed but the legal situation at the time turned out to be that doing so would have been contrary to the Australian Constitution which says something about free trade between states being a given that can’t be stopped unless for reasons of quarantine etc.

Victoria had similar ideas about thwarting any attempt to build a Vic - Tas pipeline during the great dams debate of the early 1980’s. No real fuss ensued since such a pipeline wasn’t built at the time, the idea later revived in the 1990’s with the pipeline finally operating in 2002.

 

[sptrawler]

Shell to build a 120MW solar farm at Wandoan, Queensland.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-australia-solar-idUSKBN20104W

 

[Smurf1976]

Shell to build a 120MW solar farm at Wandoan, Queensland.

Shell have tip toed around the edges of the power industry since the early 1980's but never really got anywhere apart from selling oil and gas to power stations. This might finally change that......

Meanwhile Smurf gets on soapbox and says something about avoiding those who are burning investors' money in this sector since there's quite a few doing that as I've been on about for a while: https://www.theage.com.au/environme...iled-as-grid-links-stall-20200209-p53z3l.html

It's all possible, it can be made to work, but all this stuff isn't even slightly close to being "plug and play" and is no place for those who don't have an extremely firm grip on the technical side.

 

[rederob]

Shell have tip toed around the edges of the power industry since the early 1980's but never really got anywhere apart from selling oil and gas to power stations. This might finally change that......

Meanwhile Smurf gets on soapbox and says something about avoiding those who are burning investors' money in this sector since there's quite a few doing that as I've been on about for a while: https://www.theage.com.au/environme...iled-as-grid-links-stall-20200209-p53z3l.html

It's all possible, it can be made to work, but all this stuff isn't even slightly close to being "plug and play" and is no place for those who don't have an extremely firm grip on the technical side.

As the article points out:
"If AEMO had performed their role as the network planner properly, they would have forecast these problems occurring well beforehand, thereby avoiding pushing these projects to the economic brink after they are built."
@sptrawler keeps saying it will all work itself out, and I keep saying that there is no policy supporting renewables.
There was a comment earlier that Australia's problems in accommodating the the technical integration of renewables are somehow unique. I doubt that as both China and the USA have similar issues in terms of geographic separations, while Europe has managed very sophisticated network integrations.
Meanwhile we have the Coalition wanting millions of dollars to investigate the feasibility of another coal-fired power plant... sheer lunacy!

 

[sptrawler]

Shell have tip toed around the edges of the power industry since the early 1980's but never really got anywhere apart from selling oil and gas to power stations. This might finally change that......

Meanwhile Smurf gets on soapbox and says something about avoiding those who are burning investors' money in this sector since there's quite a few doing that as I've been on about for a while: https://www.theage.com.au/environme...iled-as-grid-links-stall-20200209-p53z3l.html

It's all possible, it can be made to work, but all this stuff isn't even slightly close to being "plug and play" and is no place for those who don't have an extremely firm grip on the technical side.

A lot of what is in the article is a repeat of the ABC article last week, but the more of these reporters that actually come to grips with the reality of problem the better, at least then the focus will be on the real issue rather than the perceived and emotional issues. IMO
From the article:
This is an emerging phenomenon that has not been seen at scale in other developed power systems around the world," he said, adding that the issues were the result of the heavy concentration of new renewable energy plants "in an area that is weakly connected to the ‘backbone’ of the grid"

The more the focus is placed on this issue, the quicker it will be resolved, way too much energy is being wasted on politicising a technical and logistical problem IMO.

 

[rederob]

A lot of what is in the article is a repeat of the ABC article last week, but the more of these reporters that actually come to grips with the reality of problem the better, at least then the focus will be on the real issue rather than the perceived and emotional issues.

It's very clear that there is no policy and as a result there is poor planning.
Do you have an alternative reality?

 

[sptrawler]

The Federal Government might at last put a lid on all the ranting and chanting.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...o-glasgow-climate-summit-20200209-p53z4b.html
From the article:
Australia will take a new long-term emissions reduction target to November's UN climate summit, as the Morrison government weighs up whether to join more than 80 countries to commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Mr Taylor said on Sunday the government believed the answer was not a new tax or more bureaucracy but "practical change" driven by science and technology.

"The pathway to meaningful impacts on global emissions is through development and deployment of new technologies," Mr Taylor said.

"That is where Australia can have the biggest impact on reducing global emissions."

He confirmed the government expected to deliver a long-term emissions reduction strategy before the Glasgow summit.

When asked directly about the 2050 target, Mr Morrison said he would "never make a commitment like that if I couldn’t tell the Australian people what it would cost them”.


Mr Taylor and Mr Morrison have continued to declare Australia would "meet and beat" its 2030 Paris targets of reducing emissions by between 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels, potentially without using Kyoto carryover credits.

The government is also close to finalising its draft Technology Investment Roadmap, which it says will set a framework for investment priorities in emissions-reducing technologies over the short term (to 2022), medium term (to 2030) and long term (to 2050).

It sounds as though the Government is actually working on a plan, without the use of a napkin, which is new and novel method that might show a degree on maturity which would be a new and novel approach.lol
That should make everyone feel better, they can sit down and have a nice cup of tea now, it is all going to be fixed.
Without shooting from the hip.

 

[rederob]

The Federal Government might at last put a lid on all the ranting and chanting.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...o-glasgow-climate-summit-20200209-p53z4b.html
From the article:
Australia will take a new long-term emissions reduction target to November's UN climate summit, as the Morrison government weighs up whether to join more than 80 countries to commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Mr Taylor said on Sunday the government believed the answer was not a new tax or more bureaucracy but "practical change" driven by science and technology.

"The pathway to meaningful impacts on global emissions is through development and deployment of new technologies," Mr Taylor said.

"That is where Australia can have the biggest impact on reducing global emissions."

He confirmed the government expected to deliver a long-term emissions reduction strategy before the Glasgow summit.

When asked directly about the 2050 target, Mr Morrison said he would "never make a commitment like that if I couldn’t tell the Australian people what it would cost them”.


Mr Taylor and Mr Morrison have continued to declare Australia would "meet and beat" its 2030 Paris targets of reducing emissions by between 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels, potentially without using Kyoto carryover credits.

The government is also close to finalising its draft Technology Investment Roadmap, which it says will set a framework for investment priorities in emissions-reducing technologies over the short term (to 2022), medium term (to 2030) and long term (to 2050).

It sounds as though the Government is actually working on a plan, without the use of a napkin, which is new and novel method that might show a degree on maturity which would be a new and novel approach.lol
That should make everyone feel better, they can sit down and have a nice cup of tea now, it is all going to be fixed.
Without shooting from the hip.

You seriously trot that out!
It actually says NOTHING.
If you think otherwise, then please explain exactly what they are going to do next, or do at all.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why use coal when you can use gas ? It's cheaper, less polluting and easier to ramp up and down according to demand.

We will need some form of baseload in case there is a long drop off in renewable supply (lots of overcast weather for example) . The government should be building gas baseload stations because the private companies don't want an asset that is going to lie idle for large amounts of time unless they can charge exhorbitant amounts when those assets are needed. Consumers should not be exposed to profiteering in times of need.

 

[sptrawler]

Why use coal when you can use gas ? It's cheaper, less polluting and easier to ramp up and down according to demand.

We will need some form of baseload in case there is a long drop off in renewable supply (lots of overcast weather for example) . The government should be building gas baseload stations because the private companies don't want an asset that is going to lie idle for large amounts of time unless they can charge exhorbitant amounts when those assets are needed. Consumers should not be exposed to profiteering in times of need.

They are all going to be stranded assets, so unfortunately the Government will probably either have to underwrite the building, or the running of whatever is built. I doubt the Banks will want to stump up the money, when there is so much negative sentiment against anything fossil fuel.
This to a large degree is happening in W.A, the Government coal fired stations are closing and the only private coal station and the associated mine are facing financial difficulties.
The Eastern States are a bit different, in the fact the grid is big enough to be able to keep quite large coal units on, without the need to cycle them.
Just my opinion.