The future of energy generation and storage

[basilio]

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.

So basically your saying the CSIRO /AMEO analysis of competing energy costs of gas, coal, solar, hydro, nuclear is just rubbish from a bunch of incompetent geriatrics who just don't understand how "Valuable and Important and Nation Building" a Nuclear Industry will be for Australia ?

And I/We are supposed to take your supremely confident assertions as the basis for kicking off a nuclear industry and disregard the Energy Market Authorities and CSIRO analysis of comparative costs which indicate this would a folly of gigantic proportions ?

Questions.

1) If in fact these comparison figures are so wrong where is the business case showing a more favourable comparison ?

2) One of the critical points made in the CSIRO analysis is the very rubbery figures for actual cost of building a nuclear installation VS the creative accounting of the shrills, spivs and BS artistes who make a living selling shares to suckers and sucking dollars from Governments. We who live in teh real world are acutely conscious of the long history of very expensive Nuclear white elephants

3) In what rational universe could you come up with idea of pumping water from FNQ south to cool wildly expensive Nucklear Power Stations ?

By the way Chronos you absolutely no idea of my background in terms of capacity to understand energy costs ect.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

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.

I think we need to embrace our energy options in a holistic manner which is absent of hardline indoctrination, that considers the established assets which are currently in place for many decades to come. I am happy to allow coal and gas to continue on provided that our food security and freshwater security isn't compromised; I think that it is only fair to allow nuclear into our energy mix.

If we look at Cooper Energy; they have what? A few decades of gas at most. There is no reason why they can't diversify their gas streams with looking at the feasibility of building biogas plants that use green waste and sewage waste for anaerobic digestion to produce methane. This will be an additional revenue methane stream for the business that is economically productive, waste effective and environmentally intelligent.

I am willing to discuss religion and philosophy on a different thread, on this forum if permitted.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

So basically your saying the CSIRO /AMEO analysis of competing energy costs of gas, coal, solar, hydro, nuclear is just rubbish from a bunch of incompetent geriatrics who just don't understand how "Valuable and Important and Nation Building" a Nuclear Industry will be for Australia ?

And I/We are supposed to take your supremely confident assertions as the basis for kicking off a nuclear industry and disregard the Energy Market Authorities and CSIRO analysis of comparative costs which indicate this would a folly of gigantic proportions ?

Questions.

1) If in fact these comparison figures are so wrong where is the business case showing a more favourable comparison ?

2) One of the critical points made in the CSIRO analysis is the very rubbery figures for actual cost of building a nuclear installation VS the creative accounting of the shrills, spivs and BS artistes who make a living selling shares to suckers and sucking dollars from Governments. We who live in teh real world are acutely conscious of the long history of very expensive Nuclear white elephants

3) In what rational universe could you come up with idea of pumping water from FNQ south to cool wildly expensive Nucklear Power Stations ?

By the way Chronos you absolutely no idea of my background in terms of capacity to understand energy costs ect.

You could be the Treasurer of NSW for all I care. You still have no clue!

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

So basically your saying the CSIRO /AMEO analysis of competing energy costs of gas, coal, solar, hydro, nuclear is just rubbish from a bunch of incompetent geriatrics who just don't understand how "Valuable and Important and Nation Building" a Nuclear Industry will be for Australia ?

And I/We are supposed to take your supremely confident assertions as the basis for kicking off a nuclear industry and disregard the Energy Market Authorities and CSIRO analysis of comparative costs which indicate this would a folly of gigantic proportions ?

Questions.

1) If in fact these comparison figures are so wrong where is the business case showing a more favourable comparison ?

2) One of the critical points made in the CSIRO analysis is the very rubbery figures for actual cost of building a nuclear installation VS the creative accounting of the shrills, spivs and BS artistes who make a living selling shares to suckers and sucking dollars from Governments. We who live in teh real world are acutely conscious of the long history of very expensive Nuclear white elephants

3) In what rational universe could you come up with idea of pumping water from FNQ south to cool wildly expensive Nucklear Power Stations ?

By the way Chronos you absolutely no idea of my background in terms of capacity to understand energy costs ect.

The CSIRO can be shutdown tomorrow with little to no impact on our nation's future prosperity. They are a bunch of lazy and overpaid dinosaurs!

Many of our universities can be defunded also, if they aren't careful!

 

[basilio]

The CSIRO can be shutdown tomorrow with little to no impact on our nation's future prosperity. They are a bunch of lazy and overpaid dinosaurs!

Many of our university's can be defunded also, if they aren't careful!

Why don't you go and put a sock in it Chronos. Your trashing your credibility. Your wasting our time.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Why don't you go and put a sock in it Chronos. Your trashing your credibility. Your wasting our time.

Our time?

Really?

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Why don't you go and put a sock in it Chronos. Your trashing your credibility. Your wasting our time.

Am I wasting the time of a deluded activist that wants the world to be plunged into the Stone Age?

Hope you don't work for a university, they need to be defunded ASAP, if so.

 

[SirRumpole]

If we look at Cooper Energy; they have what? A few decades of gas at most. There is no reason why they can't diversify their gas streams with looking at the feasibility of building biogas plants that use green waste and sewage waste for anaerobic digestion to produce methane. This will be an additional revenue methane stream for the business that is economically productive, waste effective and environmentally intelligent.

Sugar cane --> ethanol --> gas turbines --> electricity ?

e.g. Brazil.

https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/22300/Brazil-turbines-sugar-ethanol

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Sugar cane --> ethanol --> gas turbines --> electricity ?

e.g. Brazil.

https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/22300/Brazil-turbines-sugar-ethanol

No; I am talking about anaerobic digestion for Cooper Energy; methane production. Mixing grass and sewage will produce methane.

 

[sptrawler]

IMO the reason nuclear isn't being supported ATM, is because it isn't needed, huge swathes of empty land and a very small load by world standards makes renewables and gas a sensible proposition.
However a lot will depend on the success of the H2 market, if we find there is a massive market, then supplementing the renewables and at the same time reducing dependence on gas may change the whole generation landscape.
One thing for sure, neither ideology nor money will come into it, if it becomes necessary. As has been proven with this virus, money is only an issue, untill it has to be spent.
It will all be self resolving IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

IMO the reason nuclear isn't being supported ATM, is because it isn't needed, huge swathes of empty land and a very small load by world standards makes renewables and gas a sensible proposition.

Yes, that's it, we just don't need it.

Let's see a cost benefit analysis for nuclear including storing the waste for 50,000 years, decommissioning the plant, and provision for cleanups of accidents and the cost of nuclear soars into the stratosphere.

 

[SirRumpole]

Sugar cane --> ethanol --> gas turbines --> electricity ?

e.g. Brazil.

https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/22300/Brazil-turbines-sugar-ethanol

No; I am talking about anaerobic digestion for Cooper Energy; methane production. Mixing grass and sewage will produce methane.

We grow sugar cane, Brazil already generates power from theirs, why not us as well ?

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

IMO the reason nuclear isn't being supported ATM, is because it isn't needed, huge swathes of empty land and a very small load by world standards makes renewables and gas a sensible proposition.
However a lot will depend on the success of the H2 market, if we find there is a massive market, then supplementing the renewables and at the same time reducing dependence on gas may change the whole generation landscape.
One thing for sure, neither ideology nor money will come into it, if it becomes necessary. As has been proven with this virus, money is only an issue, untill it has to be spent.
It will all be self resolving IMO.

It is just capital and politics. If I was a multi-billionaire, like Gates; I would build a commercial Molten Salt Small Modular Reactor within 15 years. No problems at all.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Yes, that's it, we just don't need it.

Let's see a cost benefit analysis for nuclear including storing the waste for 50,000 years, decommissioning the plant, and provision for cleanups of accidents and the cost of nuclear soars into the stratosphere.

Well you won't be closing down our gas and coal plants then, without the nuclear replacement.

 

[Smurf1976]

Sugar cane --> ethanol --> gas turbines --> electricity ?

From a technical perspective a gas turbine can use any liquid or gas fuel so long as it's free of non-combustible solids (in layman's terms "ash").

Ethanol, or indeed any distilled liquid fuel, meets that requirement so can be done.

For a residual fuel, one which does contain non-combustible solids, it has been used successfully overseas with adequate filtration on the fuel to get rid of the otherwise abrasive nasties.

Economics are another question but technically it's doable. Canola oil etc could be done too.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

From a technical perspective a gas turbine can use any liquid or gas fuel so long as it's free of non-combustible solids (in layman's terms "ash").

Ethanol, or indeed any distilled liquid fuel, meets that requirement so can be done.

For a residual fuel, one which does contain non-combustible solids, it has been used successfully overseas with adequate filtration on the fuel to get rid of the otherwise abrasive nasties.

Economics are another question but technically it's doable. Canola oil etc could be done too.

You can use Skydrol (hydraulic fluid) and it will turn and burn in a gas turbine engine, under the right conditions. Never seen it, but that is what I was told when learning to fix, test and troubleshoot gas turbine engines.

Ethanol blends are easy for standard road vehicles with internal combustion engines. We should have been doing this back in the 70s.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

From a technical perspective a gas turbine can use any liquid or gas fuel so long as it's free of non-combustible solids (in layman's terms "ash").

Ethanol, or indeed any distilled liquid fuel, meets that requirement so can be done.

For a residual fuel, one which does contain non-combustible solids, it has been used successfully overseas with adequate filtration on the fuel to get rid of the otherwise abrasive nasties.

Economics are another question but technically it's doable. Canola oil etc could be done too.

I shouldn't, but I will take it a step further:

Did you know that the Bore Compartment Cooling of a GE CF6-80C2 Gas Turbine Engine is operational up to around ~20000ft whereby it deactivates and the Turbine Cooling Control starts!

Try to find that information on the internet

 

[sptrawler]

.
Ethanol blends are easy for standard road vehicles with internal combustion engines. We should have been doing this back in the 70s.

We could have run our whole vehicle fleet on lpg, but as with nuclear, it wasn't needed so it didn't happen.
Now everyone thinks electric cars are just around the corner, so selling an lpg conversion on a car now would be like selling fridges to eskimos.
Everything changes, technology changes, public perceptions change.

If small modular reactors become commonplace around the world, and are proven safe, who knows in 30 years time they may be sitting outside huge solar/wind farms with huge electrolysis plants attached.

Then the generator runs 24/7 at mcr, when the renewables are supplying the load the generator makes H2, when the renewables output drops, the generator picks up the load and reduces H2 generation.

Win/win the steam turbine lasts longer because it isn't cycling, it is operating constantly at mcr so maximum efficiency and the problem with renewables intermittency is solved.
Time and technology will sort it.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

We could have run our whole vehicle fleet on lpg, but as with nuclear, it wasn't needed so it didn't happen.
Now everyone thinks electric cars are just around the corner, so selling an lpg conversion on a car now would be like selling fridges to eskimos.
Everything changes, technology changes, public perceptions change.

If small modular reactors become commonplace around the world, and are proven safe, who knows in 30 years time they may be sitting outside huge solar/wind farms with huge electrolysis plants attached.

Then the generator runs 24/7 at mcr, when the renewables are supplying the load the generator makes H2, when the renewables output drops, the generator picks up the load and reduces H2 generation.

Win/win the steam turbine lasts longer because it isn't cycling, it is operating constantly at mcr so maximum efficiency and the problem with renewables intermittency is solved.
Time and technology will sort it.

Buddy; if we want to keep this stupid commercial nuclear prohibition in place; then so be it.

I don't have the monetary capital or political capital to change it.

We can just be a dumb nation; and I will go back to just reading my books in the library.

 

[sptrawler]

Buddy; if we want to keep this stupid commercial nuclear prohibition in place; then so be it.

I don't have the the monetary capital or political capital to change it.

We can just be a dumb nation; and I will go back to just reading my books in the library.

I personally think we will end up with nuclear power, it is the only thing with the grunt, to rid the world of fossil fuel generation.
Also as I said, the amount of H2 required to replace fossil fuel in transport needs, will force the adoption IMO.
But I can't be bothered arguing about it, been there done that.