Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
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
Click to expand...
You sound like Donald Trump.
The media has been saying renewables reduce electricity prices, which is the opposite of what you posted.
As for white noise, I think you might mean something else.
 
sptrawler said:
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
Click to expand...
Sorry forgot, most of the white noise comes from the ABC and Redrob. :roflmao:
 
Short answer is that from a technical perspective pretty much any head of water can be used.

The range of operating hydro plant in Tasmania for example is from nominally 835m head down to 17m although the latter will be closer to 13m at minimum storage level.

Overseas there's even lower, 5m isn't unknown.

The economics of very low head systems tend to be rather poor however since they generally involve a lot of physical infrastructure relative to power produced. Eg Cluny, the lowest head station in Tas, is really only viable because it's downstream of Repulse dam and power station the road and transmission line to which runs almost straight past the Cluny site. So without any real transmission or road cost and with an already regulated flow of water it stacked up but it wouldn't if there had to be a special road built and so on.

At the other extreme, well for Poatina which has an 835m head it was still profitable despite being an incredibly ambitious project at the time (construction started in 1957) and having to redesign construction machinery just to be able to build it due to the nature of the site.

So higher head does bring advantages economically but from a purely technical perspective low head can certainly work, it's just a matter of using the appropriate turbines.

Where it does get more painful is when there's a major variation in the range of head on the machines. There's no "hard" limit but bottom line is that the greater the variation vertically from full to empty, the greater the loss of efficiency and output as the level declines. A station with an almost constant head (eg Tungatinah) has definite advantages over one where the head drops by literally half as the storage is drawn down (eg Butlers Gorge) or where the vertical change exceeds 50m (eg Gordon in Tas or Dartmouth in Vic).

As for reusing any equipment from the old Collinsville power station, short answer is no so far as any actual power generating machinery is concerned. Incidental things like workshop or office facilities would be about it but even then only if it's convenient since they're just a building.

There's a lot of differences between steam plant and hydro:

Steam plant is normally run on a horizontal axis, the steam turbine is horizontally beside the alternator, whereas any modern (1950's onwards) hydro plant will normally be vertical axis with the turbine right at the bottom driving an alternator above it.

No similarities between the turbines. Completely different in design.

For the alternator speed and thus the required number of poles (getting a bit technical here..... :)) is vastly different. Steam plant at 3000 RPM is a very different situation to hydro plant where under 200 RPM is common and anything over 600 RPM is unusually fast. So a completely different construction of the alternator there in order to still produce a 50Hz output with hydro plant often running at an "odd" speed (et 273 RPM for a real example) with the required number of electrical poles to suit.

So no real ability to re-use things other than incidental stuff like a workshop or any steel beams which just happen to be the right size or anything like that.

The transmission line is of course another matter and certainly of possible use. There's already some use of it for solar but it has spare capacity to my understanding (I claim no expertise on Qld transmission lines though).

Collinsville PS has already had two lives by the way. It was built, operated, closed then had a major overhaul and a second life and a second closure. That's not an unknown practice in Queensland - same thing happened at Callide A and Swanbank A.

Plant at the old station is 4 x 30MW with the later addition of 1 x 60 MW. That's tiny by today's standards - Kogan Creek in Qld is 750 MW from a single machine, Eraring (NSW) is 4 x 700 MW and the two Loy Yang stations between them (Vic) have 6 units each of 530 - 585 MW (variation since they're all similar but not identical). :2twocents
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
That's the problem if you start measuring success by profit alone, in an area that delivers essential services success might just mean affordable and reliable services rather than overall profits.
Click to expand...

If the aim is to make a profit then wind + solar + batteries + gas is the answer. Hence that's exactly what the for-profit companies are doing.

AGL aren't going with huge batteries, LNG import terminals and gas-fired power stations for fun. They're doing it because it's profitable.

Where pumped hydro comes in is if you don't want the gas bit. Hence the rather epic battle between those who want gas and those who want pumped hydro or in other words the AGL Vs Australian Government / Snowy Hydro saga which comes down to far more than just an argument about the Liddell power station.

Meanwhile transmission Vic - SA was restored (1 of 2 circuits only at this stage) about 24 hours ago. So far, so good although the temporary towers do have a lower wind rating than the ones which blew over so there'll be some concern if a storm comes. It's the only real option for a quick fix though. Second line is a couple of weeks away.:2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Where pumped hydro comes in is if you don't want the gas bit. Hence the rather epic battle between those who want gas and those who want pumped hydro or in other words the AGL Vs Australian Government / Snowy Hydro saga which comes down to far more than just an argument about the Liddell power station.
Click to expand...

Gas won't last forever (about 60 years for Australia on current production). That might seem a long time but the companies will be looking for new markets all the time so the reserves will most likely decease at a higher rate. Therefore pumped hydro has to be the long term answer, as long as we have governments with some foresight and not just after a quick fix. (does anyone really believe that ?).:rolleyes:
 
SirRumpole said:
Gas won't last forever (about 60 years for Australia on current production). That might seem a long time but the companies will be looking for new markets all the time so the reserves will most likely decease at a higher rate. Therefore pumped hydro has to be the long term answer, as long as we have governments with some foresight and not just after a quick fix. (does anyone really believe that ?).:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Like I said early in the piece, I don't think there is any money in pumped hydro and very little in storage generally, the money is in generation.
That's why IMO the Government will have to get heavily involved in funding storage, which it is with Snowy 2.0 there really wont be any money in something that big at all IMO, but it will be required.
It is just one of those Nation building things that is going to be required, IMO it makes a lot more sense than the NBN, but that has been done to death.
The big issue is going to be the environmental lobby, they will go nuts when the discussion turns to pumping sea water inland, to fill pumped storage reservoirs.:roflmao: In reality it is the only way you will be able to get sufficient water.
Nobody is thinking the issues through, but I'm sure the Government is, you can bet on that.:xyxthumbs
I can't wait to read the two reports this year, the one on electric cars and the other on the transition to renewables roadmap.
 
sptrawler said:
The big issue is going to be the environmental lobby, they will go nuts when the discussion turns to pumping sea water inland, to fill pumped storage reservoirs.:roflmao: In reality it is the only way you will be able to get sufficient water.
Nobody is thinking the issues through....
Click to expand...
You say some pretty silly things.
For example, the Ord River dam holds about 70 times Sydney harbour's volume before flooding over, while north Queensland's baby Burdekin dam holds four times Sydney harbour.
I guess if people would be silly enough to propose a pumped hydro system where there is no water then you might be in luck.
I know if I were to do that then it would be to use the seawater for electrolysis to create hydrogen, and pump hydrogen fuel to wherever.
 
rederob said:
You say some pretty silly things.
For example, the Ord River dam holds about 70 times Sydney harbour's volume before flooding over, while north Queensland's baby Burdekin dam holds four times Sydney harbour.
I guess if people would be silly enough to propose a pumped hydro system where there is no water then you might be in luck.
Click to expand...
You just can't help yourself can you, make derogatory comments, I can see why you no longer write policy for the Labor Party you must have put your foot in it too often. :roflmao:
https://www.energyaustralia.com.au/about-us/energy-generation/energy-projects/pumped-hydro

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-a...water-pumped-hydro-storage-takes-shape-92608/

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-a...-pumped-hydro-plant-reaches-next-phase-73658/
From the article:
“This pioneering project aims to build Australia’s first ever pumped hydro using seawater and could open up the potential for future seawater pumped hydro around Australia. Pumped Hydro is the most common and mature form of energy storage which has been traditionally used in rivers, but seawater has the benefit of having no impact on rivers and no need to construct lower reservoirs,” Mr Frischknecht said;.

But as per usual I'm being silly and you know everything.:rolleyes:
 
Plenty of gas if we do not sell it o/s
SirRumpole said:
Gas won't last forever (about 60 years for Australia on current production)
Click to expand...
All known reserves can and do increase as years go by, more a matter of cost and ROI than availability.and in 60y, we will have at last realised that co2 is not responsible of any significant global warming and so other criterias will decide the pet solution:
Cost, sustainability, prioritisation of use etc
I would not condemn a renewable gas solution built in 2020
 
sptrawler said:
Like I said early in the piece, I don't think there is any money in pumped hydro and very little in storage generally, the money is in generation.
That's why IMO the Government will have to get heavily involved in funding storage, which it is with Snowy 2.0 there really wont be any money in something that big at all IMO, but it will be required.
It is just one of those Nation building things that is going to be required, IMO it makes a lot more sense than the NBN, but that has been done to death.
The big issue is going to be the environmental lobby, they will go nuts when the discussion turns to pumping sea water inland, to fill pumped storage reservoirs.:roflmao: In reality it is the only way you will be able to get sufficient water.
Nobody is thinking the issues through, but I'm sure the Government is, you can bet on that.:xyxthumbs
I can't wait to read the two reports this year, the one on electric cars and the other on the transition to renewables roadmap.
Click to expand...

from the point of view of owners of renewable generation there is money in storage.

there is a big difference in the price you can sell 1KWh of guaranteed supply vs 1KWh of random supply.

If a company owned 7 wind farms Their production will fluctuate, but they could be pretty sure the at any time 10% of their capacity would be working, at other times 50% and sometimes 100%

So they may only be able to contract 10% of their production at the higher rates of guaranteed supply, while selling 90% “run of plant” Eg random supply.

by adding in storage, into the mix the company can feel confident in contracting a much higher percentage of their production into the higher priced guaranteed supply market, so they might contract 50% at higher rates rather than 10%
 
Value Collector said:
from the point of view of owners of renewable generation there is money in storage.

there is a big difference in the price you can sell 1KWh of guaranteed supply vs 1KWh of random supply.

If a company owned 7 wind farms Their production will fluctuate, but they could be pretty sure the at any time 10% of their capacity would be working, at other times 50% and sometimes 100%

So they may only be able to contract 10% of their production at the higher rates of guaranteed supply, while selling 90% “run of plant” Eg random supply.

by adding in storage, into the mix the company can feel confident in contracting a much higher percentage of their production into the higher priced guaranteed supply market, so they might contract 50% at higher rates rather than 10%
Click to expand...
I was more referring to large scale pumped storage, not so much battery storage as it is smaller, more dynamic and less capital cost especially when the land content and access is considered plus the civil works.
 
sptrawler said:
I was more referring to large scale pumped storage, not so much battery storage as it is smaller, more dynamic and less capital cost especially when the land content and access is considered plus the civil works.
Click to expand...

AGL has contracted for 4 batteries in NSW. Each is 50 MW / 100 MWh so that's 200 MW with 400 MWh storage in total.

It works because they can be 100% certain of charging them at least once daily in Summer, and twice daily in Winter, as required to meet peak demand using whatever generation that happens to be running outside the peaks be that coal, gas, wind, solar or hydro (and at times all of those will in practice be the means of charging).

No chance you'll get them to sign up to provide firm supply from that arrangement though if they're not allowed to use fossil fuels or hydro as the method of charging during the days, at times weeks, when wind and solar isn't sufficient.

Hence AGL is also proposing an approximately 250 MW gas-fired power station to go with the batteries and is also adding 100 MW capacity to an existing coal-fired plant nearby.

So all up 100 MW coal, 250 MW gas, 200 MW battery - put together that's workable.

If you don't want the coal and gas though, well then it's down to pumped hydro. No real money in that at this stage - the two government entities promoting it are both making what amounts to a bet that ~50% renewables won't be where it stops and that we'll go beyond that. If that happens then they made the right choice. If we stick with coal, gas or nuclear then they should have built those instead.

Timing is also a factor in all that. AGL can commission their batteries in 2023 and financially write the whole thing off by the mid-2030's. In contrast it's no secret that Hydro Tas and Snowy Hydro both already have plans in regard to existing assets which extend beyond 2100. There's an order of magnitude difference in the timing there.

Some of the big batteries are planned to be scrapped before some of the current coal fleet by the way. Eg Ballarat (Vic), Gannawarra (Vic), Dalrymple (SA) and Lake Bonney (SA) batteries all have nominated decommissioning dates between 2030 and 2034. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Timing is also a factor in all that. AGL can commission their batteries in 2023 and financially write the whole thing off by the mid-2030's. In contrast it's no secret that Hydro Tas and Snowy Hydro both already have plans in regard to existing assets which extend beyond 2100. There's an order of magnitude difference in the timing there.
.
Click to expand...
I would guess Snowy2.0 will end up costing around $4-5 billion, things that big normally end up costing twice what was first suggested, so the pay back time will probably be never. But as with the Snowy Hydro and Tasmania it will be available for a long,long time.
In reality large reliable storage will be required, to have a sustainable renewable supplied grid, so pumped storage has to happen whether it pays for itself or not. IMO
 

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