Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

It is possible, but the economics don't stack up when considering all the associated costs of transmission infrastructure and storage. Then looking at powering all the electric or hydrogen vehicles, forget it; we should just go nuclear.

Small rural and regional towns can build their own renewable microgrids. Our cities need nuclear for a clean energy future where all our road transportation is electric vehicle and/or hydrogen based.
I was only talking theoretically, it is already obvious that the commercial side of renewables (H2) will be exploited much quicker than our domestic requirements, far more money in it and immense market opportunity.
 
In regard to the UK, by the time their nuclear power plants are operational they will additionally have installed more than triple the generating capacity from wind. The UK remains on the right track and there are no energy economists that will support the UK's present nuclear foray.
If we followed the UK's lead, by the time Snowy 2.0 was operational we would have added instead in wind energy no less than 10MW capacity, negating the need for Snowy 2.0.
Try using data or some other form of evidence if you are going to bandy around your ideas.
Talking nonesense again Rob, I don't know why I bother, but here we go again.
as you say above, with regard the U.K, you are agreeing with Chrono and myself, there will be a mix of renewables and nuclear.

Point number two. Even the most basic understanding of renewables, accepts the requirement of storage.
 
I was only talking theoretically, it is already obvious that the commercial side of renewables (H2) will be exploited much quicker than our domestic requirements, far more money in it and immense market opportunity.

It is akin to a religious cult that the public taxpayer must donate to.

I look at renewable energy where it is fit for purpose. Running a transmission cable from Indonesia to Singapore that taps into the geothermal energy from Indonesia's Western provinces makes economic sense. But that would torpedo the nonsensical Sun Cable project.
 
Renewable energy sources are quite viable for many countries. The mix will vary depending location, geography.
Indonesia for example has an excellent range of renewable energy options that would easily power the country. And on top of that the closure of coal fired power stations would reduce the horrendous pollution around the major cities.
Indonesia should put more energy into renewable power
Kate Walton
Blackouts and chronic air pollution in a nation with
abundant sources of clean energy makes no economic sense.

....In fact, Indonesia has the potential to generate 788,000 megawatts (MW) of power from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. This is more than 14 times the country’s current electricity consumption. Thanks to magma, hot rocks, and hot water beneath its surface, Indonesia has 40% of the world’s geothermal energy stores, enough for 29,000 MW of energy. Meanwhile, its huge maritime area could provide 75,760 MW of power through projects such as the Larantuka Straits Tidal Bridge, a US$550 million project that will power 250,000 homes in East Flores. When completed, it will be the world’s largest tidal power plant.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indonesia-s-should-put-more-energy-renewable-power

Do you support my idea to tap the geothermal from Sumatra and run a transmission cable to Singapore? ;)
 
If we followed the UK's lead, by the time Snowy 2.0 was operational we would have added instead in wind energy no less than 10MW capacity, negating the need for Snowy 2.0.
Except that wind most certainly is not a substitute for Snowy 2.0

Wind is fine as a source of energy and it's a reasonably cheap one at that.

As a source of dispatchable power though, well it's not completely useless but it's extremely close to it since it since it routinely goes very close to zero.

The solution to that problem is storage and strong transmission networks between regions.

With present technology storage in practice means pumped hydro with or without also using batteries. Batteries are good for peak loads and fast response but, at present, not up to the task of being constantly discharged for a day or more without recharging during that period. Hydro can do that easily with proper design however but batteries do have a role. Hydrogen is technically doable just, at present, terribly inefficient as a method of electricity storage.

Following charts show wind generation only. Looking closely at the chart for SA you'll see two periods of very flat generation output, one on Friday 19 June and the other on Sunday 21 June. In short, available output, that is wind speed, exceeded what could be accommodated in the grid at the time such that some wind generation is intentionally shut down.

Large scale solar generation also experiences the same problem and is at times shut down, thus wasting the potential production. That's not really an issue in SA at this time of year but it has happened to partial extent in Queensland on each of the past three days (final chart in yellow).

upload_2020-6-25_13-46-53.png


upload_2020-6-25_13-48-45.png


upload_2020-6-25_13-50-29.png


upload_2020-6-25_13-58-41.png
 
Last edited:
Haha; your Sun Cable project has no economic merit when juxtaposed with geothermal that is in such close proximity. Running cables for 1000s of kilometres from an energy source that has a capacity factor of half that of geothermal.

You truly are delusional.
"Geothermal represents the lowest levelized cost of electricity in comparison to other sources of energy." (https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/u-s-...itive-on-levelized-cost-of-electricity-basis/)
Please show us the costs and scale of existing geothermal operations rather than a research paper.
Numerous projects in Australia, which has excellent geothermal resources...
"It is estimated that one per cent of the geothermal energy shallower than five kilometres and hotter than 150°C could supply Australia's total energy requirements for 26 000 years (based on 2004-05 figures)."
have failed to show any commercial potential.
As I have said, Lazard uses real world examples to determine their costings so you will need to stump up.
Talking nonesense again Rob, I don't know why I bother, but here we go again.
as you say above, with regard the U.K, you are agreeing with Chrono and myself, there will be a mix of renewables and nuclear.
I completely disagree with your statement. The world is in a major energy transition phase and as that resolves nuclear will be an option only when no other supply is feasible.
I have always maintained that renewables plus storage are essential. That storage can be via conversion to hydrogen, or any battery system.
 
Please show us the costs and scale of existing geothermal operations rather than a research paper.
Numerous projects in Australia, which has excellent geothermal resources...
"It is estimated that one per cent of the geothermal energy shallower than five kilometres and hotter than 150°C could supply Australia's total energy requirements for 26 000 years (based on 2004-05 figures)."
have failed to show any commercial potential.
As I have said, Lazard uses real world examples to determine their costings so you will need to stump up.
I completely disagree with your statement. The world is in a major energy transition phase and as that resolves nuclear will be an option only when no other supply is feasible.
I have always maintained that renewables plus storage are essential. That storage can be via conversion to hydrogen, or any battery system.
Australian geothermal isn't viable, too far underground, completely different geophysics.
I think you're just a bit jealous that I have come up with a clearly feasible and original idea that makes far more economic sense than the Sun Cable project.

Iceland are going very well with geothermal.
 
Now for some charts showing the use of hydro and batteries to offset the variability in wind and solar. Technically it's dead easy so long as there's enough of it (which at present there isn't).

First three charts are hydro, last one is battery. As can be seen, batteries are cycled much more rapidly than hydro in practical application. Values below zero represent pumping / charging.

upload_2020-6-25_14-7-3.png


upload_2020-6-25_14-7-34.png


upload_2020-6-25_14-7-58.png


upload_2020-6-25_14-9-53.png
 
Except that wind most certainly is not a substitute for Snowy 2.0
I don't assume that all the wind power generated is immediately fed into the grid as dispatchable, and you know full well that both wind and solar presently suffer considerable curtailment. Reinvesting "curtailment" into storage solutions should be cost effective.
However, as you have previously identified, there are many other issues in Australia disadvantaging new capacity generation, particularly from renewables. As a result, aside from the remarkable Tesla battery's role in stabilising the system, there is no real incentive to invest in storage.
 
Australian geothermal isn't viable, too far underground, completely different geophysics.
I think you're just a bit jealous that I have come up with a clearly feasible and original idea that makes far more economic sense than the Sun Cable project.

Iceland are going very well with geothermal.
On the contrary.
Just show us the metrics for the ideas you put up.
 
On the contrary.
Just show us the metrics for the ideas you put up.

Go look at the LCOE of geothermal compared to other energy sources. You are deliberately refusing to look at the numbers. Look at IRENA:

upload_2020-6-25_15-12-0.png


Furthermore the geothermal energy is just within a few hundred kilometres from Singapore.
 
However, as you have previously identified, there are many other issues in Australia disadvantaging new capacity generation, particularly from renewables. As a result, aside from the remarkable Tesla battery's role in stabilising the system, there is no real incentive to invest in storage.
Not an insignificant amount of GHG's produced, too.
 
On the contrary.
Just show us the metrics for the ideas you put up.

Here IRENA state between 4 cents and 14 cents /KWh: "Between 2007 and 2014, the LCOE of geothermal varied from USD 0.04/kWh for second-stage development of a field to USD 0.14/kWh for greenfield developments." (https://www.irena.org/costs/Power-Generation-Costs/Geothermal-Power). Considering that the Sumatra geothermal source is within a few hundred kilometres; it is a certainty that it is more economically feasible to adopt my idea than the Sun Cable. The Sun Cable is 1000s of kilometres away and will lose more than ~15% of the electricity generated just in transmission loss, furthermore geothermal has double the capacity factor and a significantly longer infrastructure lifespan.

I WIN; END OF CONVERSATION!
 
Go look at the LCOE of geothermal compared to other energy sources. You are deliberately refusing to look at the numbers. Look at IRENA:

View attachment 105227

Furthermore the geothermal energy is just within a few hundred kilometres from Singapore.
Get up to speed.
Many grid scale solar pv contracts are now being awarded at less than 2 cents/kwh, and costs are continuing to decline.
Geothermal projects are few and far between, and cost are continuing to increase:
upload_2020-6-25_15-42-4.png

I notice you continue not to able to show the metrics of your claims wrt to US nuclear and Singapore geothermal.
 
Get up to speed.
Many grid scale solar pv contracts are now being awarded at less than 2 cents/kwh, and costs are continuing to decline.
Geothermal projects are few and far between, and cost are continuing to increase:
View attachment 105228
I notice you continue not to able to show the metrics of your claims wrt to US nuclear and Singapore geothermal.

Now you're just making stuff up with the solar 2 cents per kWH. The capital cost and transmission loss of running cables for 1000s of kilometres kills the Sun Cable just alone; when compared to my geothermal source that is just a few hundred kilometres away from Singapore.

I can torpedo the Sun Cable tonight with the push of a few buttons on my keyboard. I am pretty sure BP and Shell might be interested in my idea :D.
 
Last edited:
Now you're just making stuff up with the solar 2 cents per kWH. The capital cost and transmission loss of running cables for 1000s of kilometres kills the Sun Cable just alone; when compared to my geothermal source that is just a few hundred kilometres away from Singapore.

I can torpedo the Sun Cable tonight with the push of a few buttons on my keyboard. I am pretty sure BP and Shell might be interested in my idea :D.

Not so smug now rederob; are you?

A quick email to a few BP and Shell executives and you can say goodbye to the Sun Cable:roflmao:
 
Not so smug now rederob; are you?

A quick email to a few BP and Shell executives and you can say goodbye to the Sun Cable:roflmao:
Geothermal is fine - I am keen on all sensible renewable options. However, all present costs relate to what is called low hanging fruit.
The problem is scaling renewables to demand and, in the case of Singapore, thinking that Indonesia would prefer to advantage another country over its own energy needs.
 
Geothermal is fine - I am keen on all sensible renewable options. However, all present costs relate to what is called low hanging fruit.
The problem is scaling renewables to demand and, in the case of Singapore, thinking that Indonesia would prefer to advantage another country over its own energy needs.

Deals can always be done between the Singaporean and Indonesian governments; I wouldn't be worried about that. They are both a part of ASEAN.
 
Deals can always be done between the Singaporean and Indonesian governments; I wouldn't be worried about that. They are both a part of ASEAN.

LOL: I used to work for Singaporeans; they never knew how talented I was because of the dumb Australian managers that I was forced to work under!
 
Rather than going around in circles ideologically, how about we take a business approach to it?

This is, after all, a stock market forum and taking a business approach is exactly what an actual business does.

Let's do a real, actual scenario not a hypothetical one.

Eraring power station is located in NSW. It's a conventional technology coal-fired plant owned by Origin Energy with a capacity of 2880 MW (4 x 720 MW). It is planned to close due to reaching end of life in 2032 and is thus a very real situation where replacement is required with a decision required within the next few years.

Annual output from the plant is approximately 16 TWh (Origin Energy data) valued at about $1.2 billion based on spot prices.

Technically the plant is capable of higher annual production, it could do 20 TWh easily, but the market doesn't facilitate that since, as with most places, electricity demand in NSW is quite variable and in NSW average load over the year is just under 60% of peak load.

Now if Origin were to replace Eraring with a nuclear plant then, based on costs for Hinkley Point C in the UK, that comes to $32 billion.

In practice a replacement would not use 2 large generating units as at Hinkley Point C since incorporating that into the NSW grid would be technically problematic. Rather, it would involve 3 or 4 smaller units, increasing costs, however for simplicity we'll ignore that here and work with the $32 billion.

Total operating costs of the plant come to about AUD 32 per MWh based on this from the US government (converted to AUD at 70c): https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo19/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

That gives a nuclear replacement for Eraring an annual operating budget of $512 million. Let's be nice and round that down to $500 million for convenience.

So $1.2 billion in revenue - $500 million in operating costs = $700 million cash surplus.

Now, if you were the CEO or a board member of Origin then, bearing in mind your obligation to shareholders, do you consider this to be a worthwhile investment that the company ought to make?

$32 billion to build it over at least 7 years with zero revenue during that time.

Once built it runs for 60 years and you get $700 million a year return on your investment without allowing for depreciation and eventual decommissioning costs.

Key risks are premature major failure of equipment such that operation for 60 years is not guaranteed, that the project is likely to be highly controversial which will likely subject the company to extreme levels of scrutiny, and that the market may shift in a manner which permanently reduces viable output at some time during the project's lifespan.

Do you recommend to the rest of the board that the company proceed with this investment and if so, by what means do you propose to fund it?

For reference Origin's present market cap is $10.567 billion and AGL's is $10.744 billion.

What would you do if you were making the decision?

Personally, I don't see nuclear as stacking up financially in Australia. That's a business analysis not an ideological one. :2twocents
 
Top