The future of energy generation and storage

[Chronos-Plutus]

View attachment 105153

Sorry; you need to look at the levelised cost of electricity:

 

[basilio]

Apparently there is a determined new push to make Nuclear New.
This analysis does an excellent job of deconstructing this push and pointing out the serious technical limitations of Nuclear Power for future energy generation.

Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/

 

[basilio]

Chronos, how about reading the whole article in Renew which summarizes the main CSIRO points.
They take particular care with the issues around Nuclear Power because clearly the industry is throwing whatever it can to get back into the game.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Apparently there is a determined new push to make Nuclear New.
This analysis does an excellent job of deconstructing this push and pointing out the serious technical limitations of Nuclear Power for future energy generation.

Nuclear lobby takes aim at Victoria to tackle prohibitions
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-lobby-takes-aim-at-victoria-to-tackle-prohibitions/

We have nuclear reactors operating right now in Australia; Lucas Heights. The prohibition on commercial nuclear reactors was absurd and should be lifted immediately.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

View attachment 105156 Chronos, how about reading the whole article in Renew which summarizes the main CSIRO points.
They take particular care with the issues around Nuclear Power because clearly the industry is throwing whatever it can to get back into the game.

The CSIRO have no vision; they are irrelevant.

I have been in contact with a few CSIRO scientists before. They are lethargic and boring.

 

[basilio]

The CSIRO have no vision; they are irrelevant.

"If you don't have the facts thump the table and scream LOUDER"
............................................................
For generation costs, expressed as the levellised cost of energy (LCOE), it notes that wind and solar are clearly the cheapest form of bulk energy, at half the cost of fossil fuel alternatives, and one fifth the cost of nuclear. Even with storage – shorter duration batteries or longer duration pumped hydro – wind and solar match fossil fuels, and are one third the cost of nuclear.

In coming years, the costs of wind and particularly solar are expected to continue to fall. And storage too, so their cost advantage of renewables and storage is expected to increase.

So, by 2030, nuclear is still well out of the money, and wind and solar have increased their cost advantage over fossil fuels, particularly those with a carbon price attached.

In virtually every scenario, the CSIRO study envisages a world dominated by wind and solar by 2050. Nuclear may play a slightly increased role in the “diverse technology” scenario, but this is only with artificial limits placed on the deployment of wind and solar.

So, by 2030, nuclear is still well out of the money, and wind and solar have increased their cost advantage over fossil fuels, particularly those with a carbon price attached.

In virtually every scenario, the CSIRO study envisages a world dominated by wind and solar by 2050. Nuclear may play a slightly increased role in the “diverse technology” scenario, but this is only with artificial limits placed on the deployment of wind and solar.
But it only sees SMRs entering the equation in more than a decade’s time if governments get serious about the 2°C target, if they impose a limit on the renewable energy share, and if there is a significant carbon price.

Given that even the Coalition government expects the share of renewables to reach 50 per cent by 2030, and AEMO expects that to be higher by 2030 and heading to at least 74 per cent to 90 per cent by 2040, then that does not appear to leave much room for either carbon capture and storage or nuclear in this country.

And, of course, there is no enthusiasm for a carbon price from the main nuclear lobbyists, primarily the Minerals Council of Australia and the LNP politicians who are also pushing coal.

The CSIRO study says that in some scenarios the cost of carbon capture and storage and nuclear could be lower than previous estimations, particularly if small modular reactors achieve a reduction in nuclear capital costs after 2030.

Even then, as this graph shows, the cost of nuclear in 2040 will still be considerably more expensive than the combination of wind and solar and storage, and likely to be more than three times more expensive across different scenarios. A similar cost disparity remains for 2050. And investors, it notes, will go for value for money.

Giles Parkinson
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of The Driven. Giles has been a journalist for 35 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

"If you don't have the facts thump the table and scream LOUDER"
............................................................
For generation costs, expressed as the levellised cost of energy (LCOE), it notes that wind and solar are clearly the cheapest form of bulk energy, at half the cost of fossil fuel alternatives, and one fifth the cost of nuclear. Even with storage – shorter duration batteries or longer duration pumped hydro – wind and solar match fossil fuels, and are one third the cost of nuclear.

In coming years, the costs of wind and particularly solar are expected to continue to fall. And storage too, so their cost advantage of renewables and storage is expected to increase.

So, by 2030, nuclear is still well out of the money, and wind and solar have increased their cost advantage over fossil fuels, particularly those with a carbon price attached.

In virtually every scenario, the CSIRO study envisages a world dominated by wind and solar by 2050. Nuclear may play a slightly increased role in the “diverse technology” scenario, but this is only with artificial limits placed on the deployment of wind and solar.

So, by 2030, nuclear is still well out of the money, and wind and solar have increased their cost advantage over fossil fuels, particularly those with a carbon price attached.

In virtually every scenario, the CSIRO study envisages a world dominated by wind and solar by 2050. Nuclear may play a slightly increased role in the “diverse technology” scenario, but this is only with artificial limits placed on the deployment of wind and solar.
But it only sees SMRs entering the equation in more than a decade’s time if governments get serious about the 2°C target, if they impose a limit on the renewable energy share, and if there is a significant carbon price.

Given that even the Coalition government expects the share of renewables to reach 50 per cent by 2030, and AEMO expects that to be higher by 2030 and heading to at least 74 per cent to 90 per cent by 2040, then that does not appear to leave much room for either carbon capture and storage or nuclear in this country.

And, of course, there is no enthusiasm for a carbon price from the main nuclear lobbyists, primarily the Minerals Council of Australia and the LNP politicians who are also pushing coal.

The CSIRO study says that in some scenarios the cost of carbon capture and storage and nuclear could be lower than previous estimations, particularly if small modular reactors achieve a reduction in nuclear capital costs after 2030.

Even then, as this graph shows, the cost of nuclear in 2040 will still be considerably more expensive than the combination of wind and solar and storage, and likely to be more than three times more expensive across different scenarios. A similar cost disparity remains for 2050. And investors, it notes, will go for value for money.

Giles Parkinson
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and is also the founder of One Step Off The Grid and founder/editor of The Driven. Giles has been a journalist for 35 years and is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review.

I don't need you to copy and paste text. Write what you must with reference if you wish to continue this discourse.

The engineering facts stand for themselves; nuclear has ~3 times the CF and ~2 times the infrastructure lifespan, in comparison to wind and solar.

The CSIRO should be shutdown if they think the world can just run off wind and solar.

 

[qldfrog]

Nuclear Levelised cost of electricity is cheap relative to renewables:
View attachment 105154

Sorry for my tone,
Upset as i am now siding with @basilio, a rate occurrence i will not get used to..

 

[macca]

Fukishima was built on a coastline prone to tsunamis.

I know people that know that coastline well and they said that the bays in that area are wider at the mouth than further in, they described them as being like saw teeth.

Consequently the wave is allowed into the inlet and then compressed as it narrows further inland.
The shear volume of water forces the wave to get higher as it gets narrower the further inland it goes.

It would be the exact opposite at Port Phillip Bay or Sydney Harbour which have narrow mouths and wide sheltered waters within

Moreton Bay would be a problem as it has a wide mouth which narrows down as it goes inland and becomes a river, very bad if a tsunami hits

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I know people that know that coastline well and they said that the bays in that area are wider at the mouth than further in, they described them as being like saw teeth.

Consequently the wave is allowed into the inlet and then compressed as it narrows further inland.
The shear volume of water forces the wave to get higher as it gets narrower the further inland it goes.

It would be the exact opposite at Port Phillip Bay or Sydney Harbour which have narrow mouths and wide sheltered waters within

Moreton Bay would be a problem as it has a wide mouth which narrows down as it goes inland and becomes a river, very bad if a tsunami hits

I say we build them inland, underground, and use recycled wastewater from all the regional towns for cooling.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I know people that know that coastline well and they said that the bays in that area are wider at the mouth than further in, they described them as being like saw teeth.

Consequently the wave is allowed into the inlet and then compressed as it narrows further inland.
The shear volume of water forces the wave to get higher as it gets narrower the further inland it goes.

It would be the exact opposite at Port Phillip Bay or Sydney Harbour which have narrow mouths and wide sheltered waters within

Moreton Bay would be a problem as it has a wide mouth which narrows down as it goes inland and becomes a river, very bad if a tsunami hits

If we had a large scale water infrastructure network that carried the freshwater from FNQ down to the Australian Eastern states to our food bowl regions, we could just tap into that for cooling the plant; but our government has no vision.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Sorry for my tone,
Upset as i am now siding with @basilio, a rate occurrence i will not get used to..

It's all good, we don't have to agree on everything. Just a discussion .

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

If we had a large scale water infrastructure network that carried the freshwater from FNQ down to the Australian Eastern states to our food bowl regions, we could just tap into that for cooling the plant; but our government has no vision.

Emergency cooling or we can use a gas for emergency cooling.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

really liking the to and fro; and almost don't want to intervene (almost).

But it's a share forum so....

Adding to my previous posts, looking at gas production in Victoria from present sources then the forecast reduction in 2024 as compared to 2020 is, if we value it at $5 / GJ (roughly the current price) worth about $800 million a year. 361 PJ in 2020 down to 202 PJ in 2024 is the forecast.

That's a potentially company making opportunity for any small cap which successfully finds gas and brings it into production and could work out very nicely for shareholders. A lot of "if" there of course - I'm just highlighting that the market opportunity is there, how it gets filled being the question...

Nothing's static (if you're not going forward, you're going backward); present sources implies more of the same. But, with Vic gas, things are changing

Exxon confirmed it was pursuing a sale of its 50 per cent stake in the offshore fields despite uncertainty in the industry after the COVID-19 pandemic and oil price crash earlier in the year.

Beach Energy, 30 per cent owned by Seven Group, had been seen as a potential bidder but the Stokes-controlled conglomerate said it had carefully looked at the assets itself as it considers potential growth opportunities.

“There’s still considerable potential in the Bass Strait,” Seven Group’s head of energy Margaret Hall told the Annual Credit Suisse Australian Energy Conference on Tuesday. “The resources obviously aren’t as easy as they used to be, but within the context of the demand requirements on the east coast with gas replacement and infrastructure in place and the transport network, the opportunity for incremental investment is very good.”

New money, new depreciation schedules .... there's life in the old girl yet

 

[basilio]

Chronos, for someone who came to this discussion proclaiming strong qualifications in finance and engineering you seem to have just thrown them away and just made up whatever stuff comes out of your mouth.

Your refusal to acknowledge the simple cost benefits analysis around comparing the cost of various energy alternatives led to my posting the work of CSIRO engineers which demonstrate beyond rational dispute that Nuclear Energy is not cost competitive and is very unlikely to be in any foreseeable scenarios.

Your response was to trash the CSIRO as having no vision. WTF ! The process of analyzing competing costs of energy production is an engineering /financing analysis not a tub thumping Big Picture, Back of the Envelope, Make it Up speech.

I decided to finally post the extended commentary because it was clear the CSIRO needed to address the fierce criticism from the Big Picture, Back of the envelope Nuclear Lobbyists who are trying to persuade Federal Government Ministers that pouring unlimited billions of dollars into the industry will be "Nation Building " . You may not want to read it. But I suggest other thread readers could be interested in seeing just how spurious and self serving these arguments are.

I was also staggered at your amazing suggestion that we build a national network of pipes to bring fresh water from FNQ to our food bowls - and then use that water to cool Nuclear Power plants!

You call yourself an engineer and a "finance"person ? I don't need an engineering degree or a finance degree to recognise that the enormous infrastructure and pumping costs of such a venture would forever dwarf any economic utility. And then you propose that instead of using this (now) costly and precious resource for food you want to cool these massive nuclear power stations ?

Incidentally the need for massive amounts of cooling water is another serious problem with any Nuclear Power station. That is why most such entities soak up large rivers or the nearby sea.

And you seriously suggest that in an already parched Australia we should apportion substantial water resources to such a purpose ? (It's worth noting that one of the great advantages of retiring coal fired power stations is recapturing the billions of litres of water currently cooling the power stations .)

 

[basilio]

And now for something completely different ..

I just came across a company with a very courageous proposal to produce millions of litres of synthetic petrol from AIR, WATER and ELECTRICITY.

There were two articles I found and if anyone is interested in reading them it could make for an interesting discussion.
(I don't have a dog in this race...)

QUEST FOR FIRE
This former playwright aims to turn solar and wind power into gasoline
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/former-playwright-aims-turn-solar-and-wind-power-gasoline


CO2-to-Fuels RenewableGasoline and JetFuel Can Soon BePrice Competitivewith Fossil Fuels Rob McGinnis1,*
Rob McGinnis, PhD, is an inventor and entrepreneur. He is the founder and CEO of Prometheus, a company that is developing technology to remove carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into fuels. He previously founded Mat-tershift, where he developed large-scale carbon nanotube membranes. Rob was previously founder of OasysWater, a company focused on developing forward osmosis technologies for water purification. Rob received his PhD in Engineering from YaleUniversity.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqr6up85rhgy665/McGinnis-2020-Joule-CO2-to-Fuels.pdf?dl=0

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Chronos, for someone who came to this discussion proclaiming strong qualifications in finance and engineering you seem to have just thrown them away and just made up whatever stuff comes out of your mouth.

Your refusal to acknowledge the simple cost benefits analysis around comparing the cost of various energy alternatives led to my posting the work of CSIRO engineers which demonstrate beyond rational dispute that Nuclear Energy is not cost competitive and is very unlikely to be in any foreseeable scenarios.

Your response was to trash the CSIRO as having no vision. WTF ! The process of analyzing competing costs of energy production is an engineering /financing analysis not a tub thumping Big Picture, Back of the Envelope, Make it Up speech.

I decided to finally post the extended commentary because it was clear the CSIRO needed to address the fierce criticism from the Big Picture, Back of the envelope Nuclear Lobbyists who are trying to persuade Federal Government Ministers that pouring unlimited billions of dollars into the industry will be "Nation Building " . You may not want to read it. But I suggest other thread readers could be interested in seeing just how spurious and self serving these arguments are.

I was also staggered at your amazing suggestion that we build a national network of pipes to bring fresh water from FNQ to our food bowls - and then use that water to cool Nuclear Power plants!

You call yourself an engineer and a "finance"person ? I don't need an engineering degree or a finance degree to recognise that the enormous infrastructure and pumping costs of such a venture would forever dwarf any economic utility. And then you propose that instead of using this (now) costly and precious resource for food you want to cool these massive nuclear power stations ?

Incidentally the need for massive amounts of cooling water is another serious problem with any Nuclear Power station. That is why most such entities soak up large rivers or the nearby sea.

And you seriously suggest that in an already parched Australia we should apportion substantial water resources to such a purpose ? (It's worth noting that one of the great advantages of retiring coal fired power stations is recapturing the billions of litres of water currently cooling the power stations .)

Oh please; your little tricks don't work on me.

You just copy and paste stuff that you have little comprehension of understanding; all in your indoctrinated cause to plunge humanity into darkness.

You have no clue about energy, you have never worked in power generation; and using the CSIRO as your shield is just pathetic. The CSIRO are a bunch of geriatrics.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

And now for something completely different ..

I just came across a company with a very courageous proposal to produce millions of litres of synthetic petrol from AIR, WATER and ELECTRICITY.

There were two articles I found and if anyone is interested in reading them it could make for an interesting discussion.
(I don't have a dog in this race...)

QUEST FOR FIRE
This former playwright aims to turn solar and wind power into gasoline
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/former-playwright-aims-turn-solar-and-wind-power-gasoline


CO2-to-Fuels RenewableGasoline and JetFuel Can Soon BePrice Competitivewith Fossil Fuels Rob McGinnis1,*
Rob McGinnis, PhD, is an inventor and entrepreneur. He is the founder and CEO of Prometheus, a company that is developing technology to remove carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into fuels. He previously founded Mat-tershift, where he developed large-scale carbon nanotube membranes. Rob was previously founder of OasysWater, a company focused on developing forward osmosis technologies for water purification. Rob received his PhD in Engineering from YaleUniversity.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqr6up85rhgy665/McGinnis-2020-Joule-CO2-to-Fuels.pdf?dl=0

Look: I am not trying to upset you; yet spending years on The Conversation reading publications from UNSW's Mark Diesendorf about how bad nuclear energy won't help you in understanding how energy works. He is paid to publish his narrative.

Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'll keep out of the "religious" aspect of the debate but one thing I'll point out is that the relative cost of the various options is by no means static and is influenced by a number of factors.

Scale is one. Some technologies benefit from economies of scale far more than do others. Coal in particular is economically problematic at anything other than a very large scale. Alinta found that out in SA the hard way and it's no secret that coal is struggling financially in WA despite having already shut the higher cost operations and the private stations having been built as cheaply as could possibly be done. In contrast some of the coal stations in the eastern states are hugely profitable, such is the benefit of their massive scale.

Cost of finance / returns to investors is another since the capital employed per unit of output varies hugely depending on the technology. Even within the same resource type, well it's more costly to build for low grade coal than to build for high grade coal and it's more costly to build high efficiency gas than to build low efficiency gas. Etc.

Location also has an effect and for more than one reason. Construction costs, access to natural resources (wind, sun, water, fossil fuels), existing electricity transmission infrastructure, value of the land itself, climate will affect the efficiency and output capacity of gas turbines, etc.

Plant capacity factor is another key since if it's not running then there's a saving on fuel costs but little saving on some other costs and no saving at all on the original cost of construction. Since electricity demand itself varies, it's simply not possible to run all plant constantly and if we take SA as the more extreme example, well average demand is only about 46% of peak demand so that means plant is idle more than it's running. Victoria's not a lot better, average demand being about 51% of peak. It's higher in the other states, Queensland and Tasmania in particular at about 75% and 70% respectively, but still can't run flat out constantly.

Looking at some specific data for real power stations, annual capacity factors as follows:

Torrens Island A (480 MW) and B (800 MW) combined data. Plant location is SA, fuel is gas (steam turbines), owner is AGL (an ASX listed company).

2005-06 = 22%
2006-07 = 26%
2007-08 = 29%
2008-09 = 21%
2009-10 = 20%
2010-11 = 21%
2011-12 = 22%
2012-13 = 19%
2013-14 = 15%
2014-15 = 16%
2015-16 = 24%
2016-17 = 25%
2017-18 = 25%
2018-19 = 23%


The low figures aren't because it's broken or otherwise unable to operate, technically it could achieve 80%+ easily, but because there simply isn't a constant market for its full output.

Now for another one, Newport D. This is a gas-fired plant (steam turbine) in Victoria owned by Energy Australia (not listed).

2005-06 = 10%
2006-07 = 31%
2007-08 = 40%
2008-09 = 24%
2009-10 = 12%
2010-11 = 6%
2011-12 = 10%
2012-13 = 3%
2013-14 = 6%
2014-15 = 2%
2015-16 = 8%
2016-17 = 10%
2017-18 = 20%
2018-19 = 19%


Reason for the above is simply the market, from a technical perspective the plant could achieve around 90%.

Now another one, Tamar Valley Combined Cycle which is gas-fired CCGT plant in Tasmania. Owner is AETV, the parent company of which is Hydro Tasmania (state government owned). The plant has been in service since 2009.

2009-10 = 63%
2010-11 = 81%
2011-12 = 85%
2012-13 = 85%
2013-14 = 47%
2014-15 = Zero production
2015-16 = 30%
2016-17 = 40%
2017-18 = 41%
2018-19 = 18%
2019-20 to date = zero production, plant has not operated since April 2019

The above is again due to the market which is itself driven by hydro system inflows, wind speeds, temperature (heating / cooling load), gas prices, electricity prices in other states especially Victoria, etc. There was nothing precluding this station operating in 2014-15 or in recent months, just no technical need to run it and no financial incentive to do so in lieu of something else. If it needs to run to keep the lights on in Tasmania, or there's money to be made by running it and sending the output to Victoria, then it'll be back in action.

Finally, monthly data for Barker Inlet which is brand new, completed just before Christmas last year, and located in SA. Fuel is gas with diesel pilot (internal combustion plant) and the owner is AGL. Plant capacity is 210 MW and AGL have publicly disclosed the construction budget as $295 million.

January (first full month of normal operations) = 23%
February = 11%
March = 18%
April = 16%
May = 25%
June to date = 28%

First production from the above was on 17 October 2019 however progressive commissioning and plant testing involved some periods of uneconomic running, indeed at times it was run with negative prices, which was needed to get the work done but obviously not how it'll normally be running given that it's capable of going from shut down to full output in a matter of minutes thus has no need to stay running when doing so is unprofitable.

On a day to day basis there's also a lot of variation. Eg Barker Inlet ran with a 65% capacity factor on 17 June but there are certainly days when it's literally zero.

Now in looking at that data, they're all ultimately responding to the market. It's no coincidence that AGL (a listed company), Energy Australia (not listed) and AETV / Hydro Tas (government) all backed off production from gas around 2014 - 15. They're all ultimately feeding the same grid, they're all experiencing similar conditions and all responding similarly to them. Ownership may influence the detail but they're all ultimately reaching very similar conclusions.

I have deliberately chosen examples of the same resource (gas) being used by very different companies (listed, unlisted, government) to illustrate the point that all are acting similarly which is unsurprising given it's one big interconnected market.

I've posted this for the information of those interested either because they're invested in companies or this sector or for other reasons. I'll steer well clear of any "religious" type debates as I said.

On the gas side of it all, well as an example of the sort of company that might be in a good position with all this going on is Cooper Energy. The Sole gas field offshore Victoria has 241 PJ of reserves and once they get it working properly (currently in commissioning with some minor difficulties according to their recent update) the gas processing plant can process 68 TJ / day.

That makes them a minor player in volume terms, it's only about 12% Victoria's annual gas use if they run it flat out or about 6% of peak day consumption, but the resource will sustain that rate for almost a decade in a market short on supply and it seems that the company is selling much or all of it into the spot market.

That's for information only - do your own research before investing into Cooper Energy or anyone else, I'm just pointing out the opportunity and market background.

The above information could, if you really wanted to, all be sourced via AEMO and the ASX. Not in an easy form for much of it but ultimately the data's in the public domain - I've chosen specific examples with that in mind.

 

[Smurf1976]

Nothing's static (if you're not going forward, you're going backward); present sources implies more of the same. But, with Vic gas, things are changing

Indeed and I emphasise "present sources" to mean exactly that - what exists right now won't be sufficient. So someone needs to develop something new and that's where the opportunity arises.

Exploration and production in Victoria is one way so long as there's gas still in the ground.

Pipeline supply from or via NSW / SA is another noting that could potentially originate either within those states or from Qld, NT or even WA. Or some could come from Tas in the event anyone were to find some gas there.

APA would be a company almost certainly involved with any proposal requiring new or expanded pipelines.

Import LNG to Victoria is another way noting that AGL has a proposal to do just that.

Import the LNG to NSW / SA.

Etc. Lots of ways to do it so my point is really just to highlight that there's a market needing supply and that investors may find opportunity by looking at companies able to supply it.