Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

On the subject of planning I'll simply say that the problem, the real problem, is that Australia has lost focus on technical things in general.

Australian Energy Market Operator which replaced NEMMCO, that being the National Electricity Market Management Company.

Engineering? Well to be blunt that was simply taken for granted, a given if you like, and there wasn't much interest in it. To say it was overlooked is quite an understatement really.

There were plenty who mocked when almost 20 years ago all the calculations were done in Tasmania about integrating high levels of wind power into a system which also had a DC interconnector to Victoria. What was the point? Look here - you don't have an interconnector working yet and you don't have wind farms either so this looks rather like a "make work" exercise to keep people in a job.

That was very much the thinking from one side of politics. 20 years later and there is indeed an interconnector, there are indeed wind farms, and in 2016 we had another state, SA, completely blacked out because they failed to do the same exercise. Technical people 1, conservative politicians 0.

Reality is that the technical side of all this has been overlooked, taken for granted, since most of the people who did such things were purged out in most states back in the 1990's. It's to the point that in some cases there's simply nobody still working in Australia with the required skill, literally the whole lot are gone, so there's no option other than to bring people from overseas.

What's needed is a return to focusing on the technical aspects first and foremost rather than this "tail wagging dog" obsession with economic theory and politics which dominates at present.

I don't blame AEMO, they're in the somewhat impossible situation of being a financial organisation running a technical operation without the required authority to do so. AEMO themselves get plenty of knockbacks when they want to do things, they spend plenty of time arguing with the various regulators and so on. There's an awful lot of obstruction thrown their way by politicians and the assortment of government bodies from the ACCC to the AEMC to the AER and so on and it all has one very clear message - anything technical shall be subservient to finance, markets and economic theory and is considered a very, very low priority even if it's an actually drastic problem.

On a positive note, well there's people like Kate Summers who don't hold back in calling it like it is. She's had plenty to say on the madness of it all from a purely technical perspective.

Then there's those at the corporate level who in layman's terms have more guts than the rest so far as keeping control is concerned. There's not enough of them but it's not zero thankfully and ultimately they'll drag the rest forward even if it does take a decade or two longer than it ought to. :2twocents
 
As an update on the situation in SA + south-west Victoria:

So far, so good. It's very much a "reverse" way of running a power system but it's working. Downside = burning a lot of gas and costing a lot of money. It's working though.

Examination and testing thus far finds no evidence of fatigue, corrosion or anything like that having caused the failure. The Bureau of Meteorology's "downburst" theory, whilst unproven by any actual measurements at the time, seems to be the explanation in the absence of any other cause being identified.

Looking ahead, one transmission circuit should be back in operation this coming weekend. This has been installed on temporary transmission towers. That'll put the south-west Vic loads back in Vic as such and greatly improve the situation. Second transmission circuit should follow ~3 weeks later also on temporary towers.

Proper reconstruction on permanent towers isn't sorted out but the answer is "second half of calendar year 2020".

Looking at the operational statistics of this arrangement for the past week:

Total electricity supplied = 351 GWh or an average of 2089 MW including estimated rooftop solar production. Of this:

211 GWh from gas, 85 GWh from wind, 58 GWh from solar, 0.7 GWh from diesel. 8 GWh was supplied from Victoria via Murraylink (the DC interconnection) and 11 GWh was sent from SA to Vic via the same link.

Of the gas-fired generation, 80 GWh was from Mortlake power station (Origin) in south-west Vic and the rest from plants in SA.

Of the solar, the split was 47 GWh estimated from rooftop systems (houses etc) and 11 GWh from large scale solar farms with the latter operating significantly below capacity, on occasion completely shut down, due to the technical issues at present.

In terms of the financial implications, various generating companies have been operating under directions from AEMO which have the practical effect of forcing them to operate at times and output volumes that they wouldn't otherwise choose for purely economic reasons. These companies, some of which are ASX listed, are able to claim back these costs under established processes so ultimately consumers are footing the bill.

For those technically unable to operate due to the situation it's tough luck unless they've got some form of insurance.

There are also others who are able to run but who are not running in practice since there's no need physically, and no point financially, under current circumstances of mild weather and so on. That they weren't chosen to be directed comes down to the technical characteristics of plant - the decision is made on a purely technical basis without regard to who owns it.

The great problem with this industry is of course that many on the political / economics / regulatory side of it all would read the above and struggle to stand up and explain what on earth it's all about. Those people are the ones approving and managing most of this grand transition and therein lies a fair bit of the problem.

My comment there is nothing personal, I know some of those people, but it's akin to putting the chief accountant in charge of advertising. They might be brilliant as such but they're the wrong person for the task at hand, there's a need for a much greater technical emphasis in all this. :2twocents
 
Upcoming on National Press Club today (12/2/2020)

Alan Finkel on "managing the transition to an electric planet".

Should be a interesting talk, 12:30 on ABC20.

https://www.npc.org.au/speakers#upcoming-speakers-4e56bae8-19e5-4e1a-98b9-db2f50c87e58
Did you read his recent Report?
I found it wishy washy and was extremely disappointed.
We need real leadership to transition and presently there is none.
The government keeps saying it does not want to lose jobs and increase electricity prices. Yet by failing to grasp the opportunities out there we will be losing jobs and electricity cannot be cheaper in years ahead as the levers will have driven the prices well above what renewables would have achieved.
 
Did you read his recent Report?
I found it wishy washy and was extremely disappointed.
We need real leadership to transition and presently there is none.
The government keeps saying it does not want to lose jobs and increase electricity prices. Yet by failing to grasp the opportunities out there we will be losing jobs and electricity cannot be cheaper in years ahead as the levers will have driven the prices well above what renewables would have achieved.

Are you an electrical engineer or scientist specialising in that field rob ?

To me, the problem is all about environmentalists or politicians trying to design power grids to suit their own ideals without paying attention to realities like grid stability, need for baseload backup etc.

Now I'm not an expert in those things either but if you listen to engineers then you realise that such things are important and you need backup systems that you can switch on and off if necessary and are able to run for as long as they are needed and not just until the battery runs down, and gas is a way you can do that.

If you have any other problems with Finkel's report, please let us know.
 
IMO this sort of issue is the problem when Governments get involved.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/aurora-what-you-should-know-about-port-augustas-solar-power-tower-86715/

https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-solar-towers-and-storage-plants-will-reshape-energy-markets-73278/

Now I was one of the believers in this technology it sounded wonderfull in theory, but as history showed the Plant couldn't get funding, yet contracts had already been written for the power.
If there had been a Government guarantee on the cost to build, it would probably have been built already.

But now with the benefit of hind sight it would probably have been a big white elephant, that may have cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot of money for a long period of time, the private sector wouldn't fund it for a reason.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...olar-power-companies-have-all-but-disappeared
From the article: Dated 20 January 2020
SolarReserve, which developed the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes concentrated solar power (CSP) plant in Nevada, is thought to have halted operations after losing its only income-generating U.S. contract and selling foreign projects including Aurora in Australia and Likana in Chile last year.

The company could not be reached by email or phone this month, and its website was no longer active. Industry veteran Luis Crespo, president of Spanish CSP association Protermosolar, told GTM he believes SolarReserve is no longer operational and its assets have been sold off as part of a liquidation.

Santa Monica, California-based SolarReserve lost the income from its only U.S. power-purchase agreement, with the Berkshire Hathaway-owned Nevada state utility NV Energy, last October, according to a lawsuit filed at the time. NV Energy had agreed to buy electricity from Crescent Dunes up until 2040 but broke off the contract over performance failures at the plant.

Crescent Dunes was developed with $737 million in U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantees and run by a SolarReserve-linked entity called Tonopah Solar Energy. SolarReserve’s October lawsuit claimed the Department of Energy had gained control of Tonopah’s board in a bid to close Crescent Dunes after receiving NV Energy’s default notice.

The move “exposes SolarReserve’s equity to the uncertainty of a Tonopah bankruptcy filing,” said the suit at the time.
But problems at Crescent Dunes were nothing new. Commissioned in 2015, the plant never managed to achieve its average expected monthly output, according to a late-2019 market outlook from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. And last August, S&P Global Platts said the plant had only achieved a 0.3 percent capacity factor in the second quarter of 2019, delivering a paltry 765 megawatt-hours of power to the grid
.

To me that pretty well sums up the cart before the horse, I've been talking about and why Government guarantees can end up costing taxpayers a fortune.
If we had an agressive Federal Government climate change pro active regime in place, my guess would be we would be already rueing the day it was started and we would be up to our ears in financial problems associated with it:2twocents.
Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
To me, the problem is all about environmentalists or politicians trying to design power grids to suit their own ideals without paying attention to realities like grid stability, need for baseload backup etc.
Given they are not involved in the design of the grid, it is a matter of the problem resting squarely with all industry players.
Now I'm not an expert in those things either but if you listen to engineers then you realise that such things are important and you need backup systems that you can switch on and off if necessary and are able to run for as long as they are needed and not just until the battery runs down, and gas is a way you can do that.
This is a "so what" issue. Industry knows what is needed and needs to make sure it happens. If the expertise is not here then get it: there is a wealth of technical expertise in Europe.
If you have any other problems with Finkel's report, please let us know.
It's a great idea, but didn't tell us anything we did not know. All it really says is here's what we are doing already and we should try to do more.
Big deal.
 
Given they are not involved in the design of the grid, it is a matter of the problem resting squarely with all industry players.

So why haven't they done it ?

You are continually complaining about "no plan" from government, but here you are saying that it's industry's job to sort out.

Which is it ?
 
From your post smurf a national body that overseas the roll out and design of the grid is required, maybe the AEMO needs to be beefed up, but to ask politicians to decide whats needed technically is bottom of the garden stuff. IMO fairy land.
On a side note, there was an argument put up here that we could already be running on renewables, the roadmap plan they posted on this forum included 18 concentrated salt storage power stations to close coal down by 2030.
Funny that argument has been dropped.
 
We need real leadership to transition and presently there is none.

The detail of that leadership is necessarily technical if we want a good outcome.

That's "technical" as in electrical power engineering, civil engineering, ecology, meteorology, accounting and so on sort of "technical" just just the engineering side only. Technical as in not political or ideological.

That said if "team Australia" isn't performing well, and on this one we very clearly aren't, well then the buck stops with the captain and right now that is Scott Morrison. Same in any situation - if the factory's not running or the planes aren't flying then ultimately the buck stops with the CEO.

Being objective though, the last time the team was performing on top we had Hawke as PM. The slide got well and truly underway when Keating was in and for various reasons has continued ever since. Some may have tried, others didn't, but ultimately if you look at the overall situation well then any real planning for the future was scrapped by about 1993 and the overall health of infrastructure at least in the now problematic states peaked prior to the turn of the century.

At the state level well a lot of silly things were done in the 1990's by Liberal governments but to be fair some of the seeds of trouble were sown as far back as the late 1970's and that was under Labor in NSW and under both Liberal and Labor governments during the late-70's and throughout the 1980's in Victoria.

It would be a mistake to think that politics offers a solution when it created the mess in the first place. What it does need to do though is remove the barriers and put in place those things which can bring about a way forward. :2twocents
 
So why haven't they done it ?

You are continually complaining about "no plan" from government, but here you are saying that it's industry's job to sort out.

Which is it ?
Government sets the policy.
There is no coherent policy on renewables so sorting out the problems with the grid is not their concern as they have continued to pander to fossil fuels.
The grid works fine for fossil fuel inputs as that is what it was designed for.
 
IMO this sort of issue is the problem when Governments get involved.
The SA government was trying to shore up it's energy needs given the inaction at a federal level.
It's what happens when you get no leadership at the national level.
So what you really have shown is what happens when the the government which is supposed to be involved fails to do its job.
I harp on about policy because that was my background for 8 years in Canberra, and I know that good policies come from great leadership and are driven by commitment. Neither of these latter qualities prevail in the federal sphere, so here we are.
And don't think it is going to change.
Any budget surplus Australia might have under Morrison will be due in no small part to coal and gas exports. They are not going to kill off this cash cow.
Labor knows it too. So their credentials for economic management would be down the gurgler in one term if they tried to change things drastically on coming in to government.
The sad part here is that what we the public are being told is less than honest. So when it comes to election time we will get another round of spin that puts climate change as the most important concern, but is not affordable to be fixed.
Over 99% of the population have no idea of LCOE.
And even if they had heard of it, they would not be able to understand its complexities. It's a bit like climate change. But there's just one matter to bear in mind with climate, and that's CO2. And with renewables it's that they are cheaper than any FF alternative.
So do what Elon Musk did and design a system that works for your product rather than treating it as an afterthought.
Elon Musk had the vision to make his BEV idea work. And he has consistently done this by getting the smartest and best operators on board.
 
This is a question for the engineers among us. I know it comes from ignorance, but I hope it's not silly.

In TV news aerial shots of the Collinsville open cut coal mine it looks like a mighty big hole, which leads to the question: Is it big enough to make its feasibility as the energy source for a pumped hydro power station worth investigating? I assume (bravely) that any such investigation would include the feasibility of converting (surely not?) the existing generator or building a new one?

Thanks
 
This is a question for the engineers among us. I know it comes from ignorance, but I hope it's not silly.

In TV news aerial shots of the Collinsville open cut coal mine it looks like a mighty big hole, which leads to the question: Is it big enough to make its feasibility as the energy source for a pumped hydro power station worth investigating? I assume (bravely) that any such investigation would include the feasibility of converting (surely not?) the existing generator or building a new one?

Thanks
Not stupid, in north qld, a water battery is being buit using an old gold mine pit
Coal is a bit different as open cut coal is not usually very deep.for economic reasons.if the coal seam is too deep, you move to underground mining and so much smaller capacity with flooded galleries
Gold copper mines etc can go very deep 1km or so for gold so that offer indeed great opportunity in term of a surface dam and bottom of pit one
The bhp olympic dam mine in South Australia goes nearly 1km deep and was supposed to be transformed to an open pit one.but i think it has been canned
That would become a massive opportunity for energy storage past its life
 
This is a question for the engineers among us. I know it comes from ignorance, but I hope it's not silly.

In TV news aerial shots of the Collinsville open cut coal mine it looks like a mighty big hole, which leads to the question: Is it big enough to make its feasibility as the energy source for a pumped hydro power station worth investigating? I assume (bravely) that any such investigation would include the feasibility of converting (surely not?) the existing generator or building a new one?

Thanks
Not a stupid question at all, the stupid question is one not asked and making an assumption instead.
I wont give the long winded version, because I really cant be bothered.:roflmao:
But pumped hydro relise on three things, a dam or water catchment at the bottom, a dam or water catchment at the top and water.
Right next issue is the power to turn the turbine comes from one of two things, first pressure which means dam A has to be a lot higher than catchment B, or volume, which means there is a lot of water in dam A.
This is because you get nothing for nothing, to get a lot of power to turn the alternator, you need a lot of head pressure, or you need a really big impeller and a lot of volume to drive it.
Smurf will explain it a lot better, it is his bread and butter, hydro.:xyxthumbs
 
But pumped hydro relise on three things, a dam or water catchment at the bottom, a dam or water catchment at the top and water.
The lower dam needs to be of significant volume to make the project worthwhile and underground mines generally won't cut it especially as many of these are paste and fill.

The maths are:
E [J] = 9.81*ƿwater*Vres*h*headƞ

Where E is the energy stored in joules. Divide by 3.6 x 106 to convert to kWh; ƿwater is the density of water, usually about 1000 kg/m3; Vres is the volume of the reservoir in cubic meters; hhead is the head height in meters; and ƞ is the efficiency of the energy conversion (consider losses like turbine efficiency, generator efficiency, and hydrodynamic losses).

(You can convert from flow rate in meters cubed per second to power in kW using the equation:
P [kW] = 9.81 ƿwaterhhead ƞ F / 1000)
 
Power prices will fall thanks to renewables (if you believe the ABC).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...over-coal-continues/11966652?section=business
Well who would have thought that, despite the Government, prices are likely to fall, which they have been saying is what they are aiming for.
I don't even live over East, but over here in the West, all we hear is the Federal Government is trying to force the price of electricity down and the media saying it can't be done.
So I guess time will tell, there is a lot of white noise surrounding the issue and most comes from the ABC. IMO:xyxthumbs
 
I thought I fixed the formula I posted above, but obviously did not. The correct formula is:

E [J] = 9.81*ƿwater*Vres*hhead*ƞ

Sorry
 
Top