The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

Obviously, not a problem now but do we agree the current grid can not serve that?

According to this https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9208.0

Victoria has about 26% of the cars in Australia and on average they travel 14,100 km per year.

19,000,000 cars nationally x 0.26 = 4.94 million in Victoria. Let's round that up to 5 million.

14,100 km each per year x 5 million = 70,500,000,000 km driven per year or 193,150,684 km per day.

value-collector reports consumption of about 12 kWh / 100 km and official specification of 15 kWh / 100 km.

Most calculations I've seen done, by anyone, have been based on 20 kWh / 100 km as a nice round number that's unlikely to be too low.

I'll be generous here and use 25 kWh / 100 km, or you could express that as 0.25 kWh / km.

193,150,684 x 0.25 = 48,287,671 kWh per day or an average over 24 hours of 2012 MW (or double that over 12 hours etc). That compares with present Victorian average electricity consumption of 5300 MW and peak demand of 10,490 MW.

The highest daily consumption over the past 12 months occurred on 31 January at 183 GWh or an average load of 7625 MW.

Realistically some EV's will charge during the peak, eg those who use a fast charger at a service station or in a car park are going to do it at a time convenient to them, so there will need to be some upgrades that's a given. We're not talking about 120% or anything like that though since, even if EV charging were distributed evenly across the day with no conscious effort to avoid adding to the peak demand, the increase in that peak is still only about 20%.

There's also a point that demand tends to rise anyway. Here's some historic data for Victoria:

2010: 10,088 MW
2000: 7717 MW
1992: 5850 MW (I don't have the data for 1990 handy......)
1980: 4031 MW
1970: 2536 MW
1960: 1313 MW
1950: 504 MW
1940: 219 MW
1930: 103 MW

All time record = 10,490 MW

So it's not as though we haven't added rather a lot of supply and network capability in the past. Indeed in the mid-1970's Victoria was, electrically, smaller than South Australia is today.

On the network side certainly there will be some particular areas where upgrades are needed but that's nothing that hasn't been seen before. It's not a rebuild, it's more about adding some transformers here, building a subtransmission line there, etc.

In all of that, it must be remembered that we're talking about 30+ years to do all this, it's not something that's going to happen overnight. So 30+ years in which to sort out a way of dealing with an increase in peak demand that's less than half what we've actually done in the past 30 years.

Go back 30 years and 1990 was a different world really. No internet most obviously. Not simply most not having it, but simply no such concept. Google, Facebook, social media and so on were not terms that anyone recognised in 1990 when the mere idea of sending studio quality music, or heaven forbid video, over a phone line would have seemed truly ridiculous. And yet here we are, dial-up has been and gone, so too ADSL is now largely redundant and for that matter so are the phone lines themselves. All that happened in less time than we'll have to implement charging infrastructure for EV's.

CO2?

Best I can say there is that hypothetically supposing we generated 100% of the electricity used to charge EV's using diesel (very unlikely but to make the point) then for 0.25 kWh / km that works out at about 5.1 litres / 100 km and for 0.15 kWh / km it works out at 3.1 litres / 100 km.

Those figures don't compare badly with existing ICE vehicles bearing in mind that at the upper end of that we're talking about utes and SUV's not a small hatchback. And of course we won't actually generate 100% of the power using diesel, indeed even 10% from that source would be unlikely at the national level over the long term.

Power generation does pollute yes. With this thread in mind I asked someone who has a reasonable view of it from a distance if they'd mind taking a photo this afternoon:

I wouldn't be too worried though. There's nothing in that plume that's drastically toxic - it's CO2 and water vapour mostly.

Even using fossil fuels as the power source for EV's isn't a deal breaker. There's still that huge efficiency gain compared to petrol engines, even if we're still polluting we're doing so on a lesser scale and not in anyone's face, and there's still the aspect that having emissions discharged up a 200+ metre high stack away from most people beats having a few million exhaust pipes discharging in the suburbs at almost ground level.

 

[Smurf1976]

As smurf has said, it is a technical issue, that needs careful planning.

It's one of those things which can be done but that's no guarantee it will actually be done. Therein lies the danger.

Politicians especially tend to underestimate what's required which can be summed up by saying that whilst modern computers for home or small office use are somewhat "plug and play", anything major like a power grid really does need very thorough design.

A key input to that is what does society want it to do? How reliable does it need to be? What environmental impacts are acceptable and what isn't? Etc.

A problem is that politicians tend to want to keep themselves and government in general as far as possible away from anything technical and the media isn't keen on it either. So things tend to be either downplayed or sensationalised.

 

[Smurf1976]

If you've ever wondered what's inside a power station then see this video.

It's a look around one unit only, not the entire station, and gives some idea of the complexity of it all.

Main point - there's a lot to go wrong and sooner or later something does fail. Hence the typical ~80% availability of coal plant and the need to allow for breakdowns without putting the lights out.

If you want to know how loud it is in such a place then think "seriously loud".

The plant in the video was located in Victoria and is now permanently closed indeed it's under demolition.

The material on the conveyor belts is coal.

 

[qldfrog]

According to this https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9208.0

Victoria has about 26% of the cars in Australia and on average they travel 14,100 km per year.

19,000,000 cars nationally x 0.26 = 4.94 million in Victoria. Let's round that up to 5 million.

14,100 km each per year x 5 million = 70,500,000,000 km driven per year or 193,150,684 km per day.

value-collector reports consumption of about 12 kWh / 100 km and official specification of 15 kWh / 100 km.

Most calculations I've seen done, by anyone, have been based on 20 kWh / 100 km as a nice round number that's unlikely to be too low.

I'll be generous here and use 25 kWh / 100 km, or you could express that as 0.25 kWh / km.

193,150,684 x 0.25 = 48,287,671 kWh per day or an average over 24 hours of 2012 MW (or double that over 12 hours etc). That compares with present Victorian average electricity consumption of 5300 MW and peak demand of 10,490 MW.

The highest daily consumption over the past 12 months occurred on 31 January at 183 GWh or an average load of 7625 MW.

Realistically some EV's will charge during the peak, eg those who use a fast charger at a service station or in a car park are going to do it at a time convenient to them, so there will need to be some upgrades that's a given. We're not talking about 120% or anything like that though since, even if EV charging were distributed evenly across the day with no conscious effort to avoid adding to the peak demand, the increase in that peak is still only about 20%.

There's also a point that demand tends to rise anyway. Here's some historic data for Victoria:

2010: 10,088 MW
2000: 7717 MW
1992: 5850 MW (I don't have the data for 1990 handy......)
1980: 4031 MW
1970: 2536 MW
1960: 1313 MW
1950: 504 MW
1940: 219 MW
1930: 103 MW

All time record = 10,490 MW

So it's not as though we haven't added rather a lot of supply and network capability in the past. Indeed in the mid-1970's Victoria was, electrically, smaller than South Australia is today.

On the network side certainly there will be some particular areas where upgrades are needed but that's nothing that hasn't been seen before. It's not a rebuild, it's more about adding some transformers here, building a subtransmission line there, etc.

In all of that, it must be remembered that we're talking about 30+ years to do all this, it's not something that's going to happen overnight. So 30+ years in which to sort out a way of dealing with an increase in peak demand that's less than half what we've actually done in the past 30 years.

Go back 30 years and 1990 was a different world really. No internet most obviously. Not simply most not having it, but simply no such concept. Google, Facebook, social media and so on were not terms that anyone recognised in 1990 when the mere idea of sending studio quality music, or heaven forbid video, over a phone line would have seemed truly ridiculous. And yet here we are, dial-up has been and gone, so too ADSL is now largely redundant and for that matter so are the phone lines themselves. All that happened in less time than we'll have to implement charging infrastructure for EV's.

CO2?

Best I can say there is that hypothetically supposing we generated 100% of the electricity used to charge EV's using diesel (very unlikely but to make the point) then for 0.25 kWh / km that works out at about 5.1 litres / 100 km and for 0.15 kWh / km it works out at 3.1 litres / 100 km.

Those figures don't compare badly with existing ICE vehicles bearing in mind that at the upper end of that we're talking about utes and SUV's not a small hatchback. And of course we won't actually generate 100% of the power using diesel, indeed even 10% from that source would be unlikely at the national level over the long term.

Power generation does pollute yes. With this thread in mind I asked someone who has a reasonable view of it from a distance if they'd mind taking a photo this afternoon:

View attachment 106255

I wouldn't be too worried though. There's nothing in that plume that's drastically toxic - it's CO2 and water vapour mostly.

Even using fossil fuels as the power source for EV's isn't a deal breaker. There's still that huge efficiency gain compared to petrol engines, even if we're still polluting we're doing so on a lesser scale and not in anyone's face, and there's still the aspect that having emissions discharged up a 200+ metre high stack away from most people beats having a few million exhaust pipes discharging in the suburbs at almost ground level.

Thanks for taking the time of getting the figures for nb cars victoria etc.
The 25kwh per 100km is the actual need on the grid inc battery losses and come straight from a research paper..with new batteries so we are good there
Figures you reach are around 2500 mwh half but same order of magnitude.
does not include trucks etc wonder about light trucks aka utes which are 50pc of traffic if not more around my area.?
We overall agree that infrastructure will need upgrade and infrastructure production improved.
Doable if done properly no doubt with gradual takeon.
I think you are too optimistic as to the spreading of the charging hours but that can be solved too.
Trouble i see is that we need to increase mostly the baseload production so that mean storage which is the week point of solar.
Would also be interesting to see the actual cost of the last mile improvement required.kms in rural, underground lines in suburbs.
Personally, i hope to get an ev in my next place, paid by my trading systems..and 100pc charged on solar during the day.i do not do 6.to 6 at the office anymore.
In qld, evs charged on the grid are still producing more co2 than diesel ice but that is due to our coal use, and it dies not matter anyway.
The good point of EV is that they allow removal of air pollution in cities and that is locally good as i experienced in China plus lower noises which is significant once you experience and notice it.
I am not anti EV in any way, it is not just a simpler solution.my dad in Europe is averaging 4l per 100 km on diesel ice with a 10y old car.beat that Ev...but i would prefer a Tesla

 

[SirRumpole]

Interesting article on the "smart grid".

I wonder how far Australia is going down this road now and in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting article on the "smart grid".

I wonder how far Australia is going down this road now and in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

Australia IMO will be going a long way down that road, we are going to be one of the most renewable dependent electrical systems in the World, due to the intermittent nature of the generation and the finite storage capacity.
Already all air conditioners have to be able to be remotely switched off, my guess is it will be a requirement for all heavy inductive load appliances at a later date.
The ability to actively interupt demand, will be paramount in stabalising the grid and ensuring sufficient storage reserves are held.
Just look at the situation Tassie ended up in, when the Bass strait link was broken a couple of years ago and their hydro storage had been run down supplying Victoria, you can't press a button and get rain to fill the dams.
They had to fly in a lot of diesel generators and that is a small load, it isn't the Eastern States grid.
It can go very pear shaped, when you don't have control of either your supply or your demand, as toilet paper showed.

 

[sptrawler]

The issue of the 20,000 dam sites for pumped storage, will be an interesting battleground, when the requirement for them to proceed is announced IMO.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/t...nowy-2-0/bc9ced9f-12f5-46af-b6ec-ffeddd72e718

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...aled-by-leaked-documents-20200721-p55e3e.html

 

[SirRumpole]

Australia IMO will be going a long way down that road, we are going to be one of the most renewable dependent electrical systems in the World, due to the intermittent nature of the generation and the finite storage capacity.
Already all air conditioners have to be able to be remotely switched off, my guess is it will be a requirement for all heavy inductive load appliances at a later date.
The ability to actively interupt demand, will be paramount in stabalising the grid and ensuring sufficient storage reserves are held.
Just look at the situation Tassie ended up in, when the Bass strait link was broken a couple of years ago and their hydro storage had been run down supplying Victoria.
It can go very pear shaped, when you don't have control of either your supply or your demand, as toilet paper showed.

What bothers me is the potential for hacking as pointed out in the article.

We can't even keep the Ch... hackers out of government sites so how can we keep them out of the grid ?

 

[sptrawler]

What bothers me is the potential for hacking as pointed out in the article.

We can't even keep the Ch... hackers out of government sites so how can we keep them out of the grid ?

Well that will have to be something that we live with IMO.
There is no way, if we have a situation where demand exceeds storage and the forecast is for low generation, that excess consumption can continue. It is just common sense, like water rationing when the dams are low.
When you are relying on the weather to supply your electricity needs, it is a situation where you allow for the worst and hope for the best scenario.
Blind Freddy will be able to see that.
That is why the headlong rush based on emotive grandstanding doesn't cut it, when the crap hits the fan, they just say well you didn't have to listen to me.
Like we say over and over, we can't get ahead of the curve, even electric car charging will have to be able to be curtailed in a bad situation.
The whole renewable grid thing is a massive technical issue, as we keep saying.

 

[Smurf1976]

Just look at the situation Tassie ended up in, when the Bass strait link was broken a couple of years ago and their hydro storage had been run down supplying Victoria, you can't press a button and get rain to fill the dams.

Being well aware of the detail of that one it came down to a couple of things really:

1. Taking what it says in a contract literally.

Just because it says thou shalt do x, doesn't mean the other party should be counting on x actually happening. See "hotel quarantine in Victoria" for a more recent example of the same basic concept.

In my view it's a consequence of having far too many ex-lawyers in politics. They seem to think that a contract means something actually happens. Those with a technical background are all too aware that a contract is something written on a piece of paper and not what necessarily occurs in practice. Different worlds there.

PS - I don't hate lawyers, just saying there's a disproportionate number of them in politics and that does skew the thinking toward that mindset. A contract and reality are different things and you can't suddenly reverse a technical failure with a financial settlement agreed in court. Different worlds.

2. Direct interference by government, that is the Liberals for those inclined toward politics, prioritised financial return above all else.

That said, there's an upside to every crisis and ultimately that incident in 2015-16 along with the SA system black later that year were blessings in disguise in my view. They've forced the brushing aside of certain ideology and you'll note that there's a far greater focus from government, nationally, on supply security than there was previously. That doesn't mean it's fixed, not even close, but at least government now grasps that there's a problem and all those irritating engineers and technicians served a purpose after all.

That said, there's still a very long way to go and if I were to place bets on any state having a crisis in the next few years then I wouldn't be naming Tas or SA as the place it happens. Not impossible, but certainly not the highest risk. There's a few ticking time bombs elsewhere......

 

[sptrawler]

Being well aware of the detail of that one it came down to a couple of things really:

1. Taking what it says in a contract literally.

Just because it says thou shalt do x, doesn't mean the other party should be counting on x actually happening. See "hotel quarantine in Victoria" for a more recent example of the same basic concept.

In my view it's a consequence of having far too many ex-lawyers in politics. They seem to think that a contract means something actually happens. Those with a technical background are all too aware that a contract is something written on a piece of paper and not what necessarily occurs in practice. Different worlds there.

PS - I don't hate lawyers, just saying there's a disproportionate number of them in politics and that does skew the thinking toward that mindset. A contract and reality are different things and you can't suddenly reverse a technical failure with a financial settlement agreed in court. Different worlds.

2. Direct interference by government, that is the Liberals for those inclined toward politics, prioritised financial return above all else.

That said, there's an upside to every crisis and ultimately that incident in 2015-16 along with the SA system black later that year were blessings in disguise in my view. They've forced the brushing aside of certain ideology and you'll note that there's a far greater focus from government, nationally, on supply security than there was previously. That doesn't mean it's fixed, not even close, but at least government now grasps that there's a problem and all those irritating engineers and technicians served a purpose after all.

That said, there's still a very long way to go and if I were to place bets on any state having a crisis in the next few years then I wouldn't be naming Tas or SA as the place it happens. Not impossible, but certainly not the highest risk. There's a few ticking time bombs elsewhere......

Yes there is nothing like reality, to make politicians realise how helpless they are when it all gets out of control, and how they are held responsible for getting there.

 

[Smurf1976]

They had to fly in a lot of diesel generators

153 of them.

Most of them were shipped not flown however.

 

[Smurf1976]

Big problem with any sort of storage, inventory etc is this basically.

Put a technical person (doctor, engineer, trades etc) in charge of any sort of warehouse, reservoir, stockpile etc and their first response will be that "more is better" and next they'll want to know how much is actually needed in the worst case scenario and aim to have that much plus a bit more. If in doubt, err on the side of having too much rather than not enough.

Put a financial person (especially private equity or those of similar inclination) in charge of the same warehouse, reservoir, stockpile etc and they'll immediately point to the huge waste of having all that stock just sitting there. They'll stop all supply until it's virtually empty and will store only the bare minimum needed for day to day operations. If in doubt, it's better to have an empty shelf in the shop than to have product sitting in a warehouse a day longer than necessary.

That's the crux of it basically. Technical people will tend to fill things up, wanting only enough space to ensure that rain isn't wasted or the trains can unload or whatever. Having plenty of spare parts, coal, wheat or whatever on hand provides reassurance that anything which might go wrong can be dealt with in time before the stockpile runs out, thus meaning no interruption to customers or whatever the business does.

Financial people will not see interruption to the physical business as a problem so long as they've covered that via some form of insurance. As such, they'll see no need for the stockpile or indeed for the warehouse itself and will get rid of it as an unnecessary cost.

An engineer would point out that an insurance payout will be in $ not tonnes of flour or MW of electricity and won't keep the bakery running or the lights on. They will also ponder how much a pile of coal sitting on the ground or water in a dam could possibly be costing anyway given it'll be used eventually and the facility to store it is already built.

The two sides are chalk and cheese.

I had a rather lengthy discussion with someone about a piece of workshop equipment once. He was removing it from the workshop he ran on the grounds that it was uneconomic to keep it. Upon questioning, his reasoning was that it cost $x for the floor space it was occupying plus $y for depreciation and so on. End result was he pretty much gave the machine away and then paid a contractor big $ to do the work - they'd have spent more in a month with the contractor than they got for the machine.

Now the problem is, people like that usually win the debate when it comes to politicians and so on. There aren't too many in parliament who've spent any time at all in any sort of workshop and the idea of getting rid of such a thing holds much appeal. That even the lowest level blue collar worker with nothing beyond a grade 10 education can readily spot the flaws in their economic argument won't convince them or the bosses unfortunately.

Same happens across the board. Over the past couple of years we've had coal-fired plant running out of coal, we've had gas / oil fired plant ending up without any of either fuel available and so on. All ultimately due to the same underlying thought process.

Much the same can be seen with the pandemic. It doesn't take a genius to work out that whoever decided how large the stockpiles of various things ought to be was far closer to the "financial" side than to the "technical" side. That alone has probably cost the country $ billions but rest assured we saved the cost of having things sitting on a shelf. Etc.

If society wants this stuff to work then ultimately we have to sort out issues like that. We have to decide that having $1 billion worth of coal, gas and water sitting in storage isn't the end of the world indeed with present low interest rates the cost is trivial. Bulk electricity in the NEM is after all a $14 billion a year business so that sort of stockpile is nothing really.

Tesla is an example of that "technical" sort of thinking really. Building up the company, having all the money in intellectual property, plant, staff capability, materials and so on. That's classic "technical" management of anything - put a finance guy in and they'd have everything sold and leased back, production outsourced and the dividends flowing to shareholders within weeks. A decade later they'd have no company however, that's the downside of that approach and it's a rather large one.

 

[sptrawler]

153 of them.

Most of them were shipped not flown however.

It was rhetorical, I was meaning had to be obtained quickly.
Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I've been reading Rob's "how not to admit a clanger" book.

 

[sptrawler]

I had a rather lengthy discussion with someone about a piece of workshop equipment once. He was removing it from the workshop he ran on the grounds that it was uneconomic to keep it. Upon questioning, his reasoning was that it cost $x for the floor space it was occupying plus $y for depreciation and so on. End result was he pretty much gave the machine away and then paid a contractor big $ to do the work - they'd have spent more in a month with the contractor than they got for the machine.

On the same theme, a very large company I worked for, had a thrift drive led by bean counters.
The bean counters decided carrying spares, that hadn't been used for years, was a waste.
So the stores had a really good clean out, much was sold to a very large listed scrap merchant, to cut a long story short buying back a 4MW multi stage feed pump and motor wasn't cheap.

 

[Smurf1976]

It was rhetorical, I was meaning had to be obtained quickly.

A 58MW OCGT was indeed flown in by the way.

(Open Cycle Gas Turbine for those for whom that comment makes no sense).

 

[basilio]

Big problem with any sort of storage, inventory etc is this basically.

Put a technical person (doctor, engineer, trades etc) in charge of any sort of warehouse, reservoir, stockpile etc and their first response will be that "more is better" and next they'll want to know how much is actually needed in the worst case scenario and aim to have that much plus a bit more. If in doubt, err on the side of having too much rather than not enough.

Put a financial person (especially private equity or those of similar inclination) in charge of the same warehouse, reservoir, stockpile etc and they'll immediately point to the huge waste of having all that stock just sitting there. They'll stop all supply until it's virtually empty and will store only the bare minimum needed for day to day operations. If in doubt, it's better to have an empty shelf in the shop than to have product sitting in a warehouse a day longer than necessary.

That's the crux of it basically. Technical people will tend to fill things up, wanting only enough space to ensure that rain isn't wasted or the trains can unload or whatever. Having plenty of spare parts, coal, wheat or whatever on hand provides reassurance that anything which might go wrong can be dealt with in time before the stockpile runs out, thus meaning no interruption to customers or whatever the business does.

Financial people will not see interruption to the physical business as a problem so long as they've covered that via some form of insurance. As such, they'll see no need for the stockpile or indeed for the warehouse itself and will get rid of it as an unnecessary cost.

An engineer would point out that an insurance payout will be in $ not tonnes of flour or MW of electricity and won't keep the bakery running or the lights on. They will also ponder how much a pile of coal sitting on the ground or water in a dam could possibly be costing anyway given it'll be used eventually and the facility to store it is already built.

The two sides are chalk and cheese.

I had a rather lengthy discussion with someone about a piece of workshop equipment once. He was removing it from the workshop he ran on the grounds that it was uneconomic to keep it. Upon questioning, his reasoning was that it cost $x for the floor space it was occupying plus $y for depreciation and so on. End result was he pretty much gave the machine away and then paid a contractor big $ to do the work - they'd have spent more in a month with the contractor than they got for the machine.

Now the problem is, people like that usually win the debate when it comes to politicians and so on. There aren't too many in parliament who've spent any time at all in any sort of workshop and the idea of getting rid of such a thing holds much appeal. That even the lowest level blue collar worker with nothing beyond a grade 10 education can readily spot the flaws in their economic argument won't convince them or the bosses unfortunately.

Same happens across the board. Over the past couple of years we've had coal-fired plant running out of coal, we've had gas / oil fired plant ending up without any of either fuel available and so on. All ultimately due to the same underlying thought process.

Much the same can be seen with the pandemic. It doesn't take a genius to work out that whoever decided how large the stockpiles of various things ought to be was far closer to the "financial" side than to the "technical" side. That alone has probably cost the country $ billions but rest assured we saved the cost of having things sitting on a shelf. Etc.

If society wants this stuff to work then ultimately we have to sort out issues like that. We have to decide that having $1 billion worth of coal, gas and water sitting in storage isn't the end of the world indeed with present low interest rates the cost is trivial. Bulk electricity in the NEM is after all a $14 billion a year business so that sort of stockpile is nothing really.

Tesla is an example of that "technical" sort of thinking really. Building up the company, having all the money in intellectual property, plant, staff capability, materials and so on. That's classic "technical" management of anything - put a finance guy in and they'd have everything sold and leased back, production outsourced and the dividends flowing to shareholders within weeks. A decade later they'd have no company however, that's the downside of that approach and it's a rather large one.

Great analysis Smurf.

It is always a robust discussion and there are times when the hands on people really want to "keep everything" becasue they might/will need it.

BUT the determination of the finance wing to reduce stocks to a minimum in the name of reduced expenditure is ruthless and overaching and from my experiences in industry costly when something serious happens.
But of course when the Black Swan flies in the bean counters jump off the ship.

 

[sptrawler]

At last the discussion is starting to focus on the issues, rather than emotion and agendas leading the way, we may start and see some real action in the renewables space IMO. The focus is starting to turn to HV grid issues, rather than agenda's, which is a massive step forward IMO.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nine-mo...-to-zero-due-to-system-strength-issues-89108/
Another nine large-scale solar farms in north Queensland with a total capacity of more than 712MW have been warned that their output could be cut to zero in certain circumstances due to emerging “system strength” issues in that part of the state.
The warning was made in a market notice issued by the Australian Energy Market Operator on Monday and comes on top of a previous warning that affected two solar farms and one wind farm earlier this year.
The latest to be affected are the Clare (110MW), Collinsville (42MW), Daydream (80MW), Hamilton (58MW), Hayman (58MW), Kidston (50MW), Ross River (128MW), Rugby Run (128MW), and Whitsunday (58MW) generators.
They have been told that their output could be restricted to zero if certain combinations of synchronous generators (coal, gas or hydro) are not operating at the time.
System strength issues were first identified in South Australia as far back as 2017, but because there was a formal declaration of a shortfall, the market operator and the local grid owner formed a coordinated plan to address the issue, which includes the installation of four synchronous condensers, a move that will allow the number of gas generators needed at any one time to be reduced significantly.
PowerLink issued a call for expressions of interest into potential solutions to the system strength issues in that part of the grid in April. It said it received a strong response but won’t reveal details of its plans till December.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/grid-pr...newable-energy-investment-in-australia-73144/
In a webinar hosted by the Clean Energy Council on Tuesday afternoon, panellists ranging from CEFC CEO Ian Learmonth to Octopus Investments managing director Simon Reynolds said increasing uncertainty around connection and commissioning of large-scale solar and wind energy projects were acting as a major dampener on new investment in the sector.
“We’ve got to build 1.6 times the existing generation fleet between now and 2050,” Dooley said. “In terms of volume of investment, you can see [in the chart below] it’s $US10.3 trillion needs to happen through these next three decades.”
To attract its share in these trillions, Australia will have to convince investors it can provide what Dooley describes as “enabling grid infrastructure” – that is, a network that can be relied upon to support and export new renewable energy generation, once it is built.
For future investors and developers, the problem is firmly on the radar. “In Australia, grid risk is key,” said Reynolds, whose Octopus Investments launched in Australia in 2018 and made its first move with the 333MW Darlington Point solar farm Griffith in NSW in early 2019 – the Group’s 161st solar project, all told.

 

[SirRumpole]

At last the discussion is starting to focus on the issues, rather than emotion and agendas leading the way, we may start and see some real action in the renewables space IMO. The focus is starting to turn to HV grid issues, rather than agenda's, which is a massive step forward IMO.

As an amateur, it seems to me that if these types of generators (wind, solar) were required to build storage as well as generation , would it not solve a lot of these issues ?

Chuck any oversupply into a battery a la Elons one in SA and Bob's your uncle.

This just seems another example of pretty clueless governments wanting more electricity supply without thinking of the other issues like grid stability.

 

[sptrawler]

As an amateur, it seems to me that if these types of generators (wind, solar) were required to build storage as well as generation , would it not solve a lot of these issues ?

Chuck any oversupply into a battery a la Elons one in SA and Bob's your uncle.

This just seems another example of pretty clueless governments wanting more electricity supply without thinking of the other issues like grid stability.

I think the battery isn't a long term or base load solution for our grid, it is part of it but hydro/hydrogen/nuclear are really the only 'clean' solution ATM.
But in reality at this stage, the grid needs to be reconfigured to be able to deal with the supply from the farms, before storage becomes a major issue.
At the moment, if the grid could accept the input the fossil fueled stations could be backed off, because of stability issues the renewables have to be backed off.
I think multiple farms, will end up co sharing a storage solution, rather than each project installing their own.
The grid, which are State issues, need to be completely upgraded to take massive amounts of remote generation, it is going to be a big stimulus spend IMO.
If like the Sun Cable proposal, you are going to pump 10GW flat chat down a HV cable, the battery solution probably works because it is all working at optimum and probably isn't a major component in the system overall.
But if you are on a long strung out grid, with peaks and troughs in demand and and fluctuating loads and extended time periods of variable generation, I just think something more robust, reliable and with longevity is required.
Only my personal belief.