The future of energy generation and storage

basilio said:

So what have I done to improve my carbon footprint. ?
Plenty actually but clearly not enough to save the planet ..

I never will either and nor will the best individual efforts of the millions of people who do make small and large changes to their life to reduce their environmental impact.

The issues require action both personally and on the big picture. Changing the direction of industries to reduce their environmental impact whether its pollution, destroying ecosystems, or creating green house gases that will ultimately cook all our gooses is a government responsibility.

But it takes the silent majority to recognise, demand and support those changes.

Click to expand...

Actually the silent majority, is trusting that it is happening as quickly as technically possible and there is enough evidence in the media to support that belief.
If there wasn't, they would be demanding more and faster change.
It is only the minority, who are asking for change no matter what the cost, be that financial or to electrical system security.

Smurf1976 said:

As for nuclear - well if it can be done in an economically viable manner then I'm not opposed in principle. Likewise I doubt that AGL or Origin or anyone else would ignore it if they think they can do it cheaply enough to be profitable. They're in business to make money for shareholders after all so they're unlikely to ignore it if it's attractive financially.

Click to expand...

That sums up the nuclear situation perfectly smurf.
At some time in the future gas will be unavailable, be that due to depletion or environmental/pollution concerns, if at that time renewables/storage can't supply the required generation reliably then nuclear will have to be looked at.
Cost won't be an issue, if it is the only option.

If nuclear power is to come to Australia then it should be government owned and run.

Considering the dangers it's just not safe to put it in commercial hands, especially not foreign corporations over which we have no control if things go wrong.

SirRumpole said:

If nuclear power is to come to Australia then it should be government owned and run.

Considering the dangers it's just not safe to put it in commercial hands, especially not foreign corporations over which we have no control if things go wrong.

Click to expand...

I would strongly agree with that, the other thing if it is government owned, it can be closed independent of financial considerations.

sptrawler said:

I would strongly agree with that, the other thing if it is government owned, it can be closed independent of financial considerations.

Click to expand...

Good idea but frankly a very heroic assumption.

If, somehow, a nuclear reactor was built for many, many billions (after the inevitable cost blow outs.) it would have to have some sort of long term commitment to deliver power at a price that would somehow justify its construction, running and decommissioning costs.

We know from current experience in the UK that these contacts would be far more costly than a wind/solar/battery configuration.

So imagine a situation where 3 years into the operation someone (Who? How? On what basis ?) says that there is a significant potential risk with the operation of the plant.

Where to now ? Could anyone see such a plant closed down with the ruinous costs already committed ? Frankly I think this could only happen if in fact there was a major incident in the plant which made it publicly clear it was in a diabolical state. A theoretical case would never get off the ground.

And in any case what "new situation" could arise that wasn't reasonably foreseeable in the planning and construction of such a long term project ? And who was responsible for not recognising this scenario ?

I can see one very clearly but I suspect it would be ignored in the planning process.

I think the risk/reward ratio for a nuclear power station is too badly skewed to consider such a direction. Particularly when it is clear solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro systems are far more cost competitive and offer little of the inherent risks and costs of the nuclear option.

basilio said:

Good idea but frankly a very heroic assumption.

If, somehow, a nuclear reactor was built for many, many billions (after the inevitable cost blow outs.) it would have to have some sort of long term commitment to deliver power at a price that would somehow justify its construction, running and decommissioning costs.

We know from current experience in the UK that these contacts would be far more costly than a wind/solar/battery configuration.

So imagine a situation where 3 years into the operation someone (Who? How? On what basis ?) says that there is a significant potential risk with the operation of the plant.

Where to now ? Could anyone see such a plant closed down with the ruinous costs already committed ? Frankly I think this could only happen if in fact there was a major incident in the plant which made it publicly clear it was in a diabolical state. A theoretical case would never get off the ground.

And in any case what "new situation" could arise that wasn't reasonably foreseeable in the planning and construction of such a long term project ? And who was responsible for not recognising this scenario ?

I can see one very clearly but I suspect it would be ignored in the planning process.

I think the risk/reward ratio for a nuclear power station is too badly skewed to consider such a direction. Particularly when it is clear solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro systems are far more cost competitive and offer little of the inherent risks and costs of the nuclear option.

Click to expand...

If that proves correct, then it wont be built, they wont build a nuclear power station for the fun of it, it will only be built if there is no other viable option.
It really isn't that difficult to follow.

sptrawler said:

If that proves correct, then it wont be built, they wont build a nuclear power station for the fun of it, it will only be built if there is no other viable option.
It really isn't that difficult to follow.

Click to expand...

SP I was responding to your comment that after a power station was built a government could decide to shut it down if there was some problem. As I said I couldn't see that happening unless the plant actually had a major incident.

In terms of a plant not being built because of risk factors ? Who would one trust to make this call ? The Nuclear Industry wanting a long term government guaranteed investment ?

I think the biggest risk will be ensuring long term cooling of the plant. Historically this was done by placing the plant close to the ocean and using seawater. The probability of rising sea levels with climate change makes this process very risky.

basilio said:

SP I was responding to your comment that after a power station was built a government could decide to shut it down if there was some problem. As I said I couldn't see that happening unless the plant actually had a major incident.

In terms of a plant not being built because of risk factors ? Who would one trust to make this call ? The Nuclear Industry wanting a long term government guaranteed investment ?

I think the biggest risk will be ensuring long term cooling of the plant. Historically this was done by placing the plant close to the ocean and using seawater. The probability of rising sea levels with climate change makes this process very risky.

Click to expand...

If power stations were only shut down due to major incidents, the coal fired stations wouldnt be getting shut down would they.
There is one thing for sure if the system requires a large clean power station to be built and nuclear is the only option, it will be built, despite you holding your breath and stamping your feet.lol

sptrawler said:

If power stations were only shut down due to major incidents, the coal fired stations wouldnt be getting shut down would they.
There is one thing for sure if the system requires a large clean power station to be built and nuclear is the only option, it will be built, despite you holding your breath and stamping your feet.lol

Click to expand...

Droll SP.

"If the system requires " And if my Aunt had a xick and balls she would be my Uncle.

I'm not sure why you are insisting on hypothesizing that a Nuclear Reactor will be built if it has to be. Apart from the economic reasons for not doing so you already made it clear that if it represented too much of a risk then it wouldn't be built.
Or is that line of thought no longer valid.

basilio said:

Droll SP.

"If the system requires " And if my Aunt had a xick and balls she would be my Uncle.

I'm not sure why you are insisting on hypothesizing that a Nuclear Reactor will be built if it has to be. Apart from the economic reasons for not doing so you already made it clear that if it represented too much of a risk then it wouldn't be built.
Or is that line of thought no longer valid.

Click to expand...

If the choice is between an unreliable power network, or adding a nuclear power plant, the plant will be built.
At this point in time, it is the only clean at call generating medium, with sufficient energy density to provide GW output for a small footprint.
Hopefully it isn't required and it may well not be, but having said that, i'm not emotionally tied to any baggage and can face reality.
I guess you could say I'm pragmatic, rather than fanatic.

sptrawler said:

I guess you could say I'm pragmatic, rather than fanatic.

Click to expand...

Totally agree No point being "fanatical" is there ?
From a purely pragmatic POV I am struggling to see how our current nuclear power systems will be economically viable vs any range of alternatives.

At the same time if the much touted modular thorium reactors prove themselves to be economical, safe and practical I would love to see the analysis.

I say get rid of power plants all together

Why not have a power plant in your home ? Ever wonder that one?

What if I told you there’s a device that you can get soon where it’s a box and it makes power, it’s heats your house p and it heats your hot water. Oh and it might even make fuel for your car lol.

All it take is you to hook it up to your town gas line
View attachment 106923

competitive said:

I say get rid of power plants all together

Why not have a power plant in your home ? Ever wonder that one?

What if I told you there’s a device that you can get soon where it’s a box and it makes power, it’s heats your house p and it heats your hot water. Oh and it might even make fuel for your car lol.

All it take is you to hook it up to your town gas line
View attachment 106923


View attachment 106921

Click to expand...

With a bit of luck it'll do better CFU(Ceramic Fuel Cells) ... There's about 700 posts up to 2018 on that now defunct company.
Good concept but not competative on price.

Be interesting to know if and/or how many of their units were still in operation; as to feel out durability of the system CFU developed.... info on that Anyone?
And all the time as world production of Solar PV doubles the price per watt of output falls by 24%...That is a cost curve that needs to be recognised when you're thinking about where you are puting your money.

Tell us all about your upcoming 'Box' Muckkers??

https://www.sunfire.de/en/products-and-technology/sunfire-home

Sunfire are not a new company
In fact they have been around for about 10 years I think.
I originally thought they where founded by Audi with there blue crud but I think that was another company called climeworks but I think they are the same company
I remember climeworks and sunfire where working together years back but now they look like two companies. But there are so many new companies now such as carbon Engineering, terrestrial and there was even a company that was using solar co2 capture producing synthetic fuels. But I think sunfire is the leading tech in all these companies.

There high-temperature co-electrolysis technology is cutting edge and has unbelievable potential in renewable energy sector for hydrogen production.
Total energy I think has bought up one of there technology’s for thermal electrolysis but unsure what they did with it.
But yeh sounds like a company I’d put my money on but I got no idear how lol

They are definitely a company who have big plans

View attachment 106956

More community batteries deployed in Western Australia.
https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/si...stalled-in-western-australia-powerbank-trial/
From the article:
The installation of the latest community PowerBank, in this case a 464kWh Tesla battery energy storage system, was unveiled at Salamanca Reserve in the bayside southern-Perth suburb of Port Kennedy, on Friday.

It is the second such installation in a Perth metropolitan region, and the sixth all up under the Labor McGowan government’s Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap, including in Meadow Springs, Falcon, Ellenbrook, Kalgoorlie and, most recently, Busselton.

The addition of the community battery aims to help manage the flow of all that rooftop solar power on the local City of Rockingham grid, make way for more solar to be installed and, further down the track, offer solar households virtual storage to store their excess rooftop power and use it when needed.
Western Australia premier Mark McGowan, himself a resident of the City of Rockingham, said his government’s recent Electricity Industry Amendment Bill 2019, and its Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap, had boosted the speed of the battery rollout.

“Community batteries like this one in Port Kennedy is a great example of how our legislative changes have been applied in practical and meaningful ways to help local Western Australians and businesses all over WA,” he said.

sptrawler said:

More community batteries deployed in Western Australia.
https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/si...stalled-in-western-australia-powerbank-trial/
From the article:
The installation of the latest community PowerBank, in this case a 464kWh Tesla battery energy storage system, was unveiled at Salamanca Reserve in the bayside southern-Perth suburb of Port Kennedy, on Friday.

It is the second such installation in a Perth metropolitan region, and the sixth all up under the Labor McGowan government’s Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap, including in Meadow Springs, Falcon, Ellenbrook, Kalgoorlie and, most recently, Busselton.

The addition of the community battery aims to help manage the flow of all that rooftop solar power on the local City of Rockingham grid, make way for more solar to be installed and, further down the track, offer solar households virtual storage to store their excess rooftop power and use it when needed.
Western Australia premier Mark McGowan, himself a resident of the City of Rockingham, said his government’s recent Electricity Industry Amendment Bill 2019, and its Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap, had boosted the speed of the battery rollout.

“Community batteries like this one in Port Kennedy is a great example of how our legislative changes have been applied in practical and meaningful ways to help local Western Australians and businesses all over WA,” he said.

Click to expand...

Nice to see Falcon in there eh SP .

Good to see some thing being done for fault current.

A couple of recent announcements with broader implications:

TransGrid (transmission operator in NSW) has announced a preference for developing a 150 - 200 MW / 1,550 MWh compressed air energy storage facility at Broken Hill. If built this will be by far the world's largest such facility.

BH is presently connected to the rest of the grid via a single 260km long transmission line from southern NSW. Loss of that line due to either a fault or maintenance isolates Broken Hill from the rest of the grid, resulting in reliance on 2 x 25 MW gas turbines (diesel fired) located near the town which are seriously stretched in meeting peak demand.

Building the new storage facility would, combined with the existing Silverton wind farm (200 MW) and Broken Hill solar farm (53 MW) fixes any issues there for backup whilst also delivering benefits from being able to run generation from the storage when needed to meet peak demand more broadly (that is, outside Broken Hill) assuming the transmission line is in service. It's also should reduce curtailment of output from the present wind and solar facilities - everyone wins.

Separate but related to that AGL is aiming for 850 MW of large scale battery capacity by 30 June 2024. The soon to be closed Liddell power station (NSW) is one identified possible site, other sites being considered include Torrens Island power station (SA) and at various wind and solar sites.

From a purely electrical perspective a battery doesn't have to be located at the source of generation, indeed even if it is it may still be charged with power generated somewhere else (and will be in the case of Liddell once it closes), but there are some practical advantages. Any existing power station by its very nature must have land, it must have a decent road leading to it suitable for trucks to use, there will be staff amenities, car parking and so on already there, security if required, and the big one - it's already connected to the grid. So it has some practical advantages and cost savings though isn't essential as such.

AGL already has the 30 MW / 8 MWh Dalrymple battery in SA and already has contracts with Maoneng for four 50 MW / 100 MWh batteries to be installed at sites in NSW. They also have a contract with Vena Energy for a 100 MW / 150 MWh battery at Wandoan in Queensland for which AGL will have dispatch rights (Vena Energy will own it).

So that leaves them looking for where to put ~520 MW. Could all go at Liddell, the existing power station which is closing is of 1680 MW capacity (was 2000 MW when built), or could be spread across however many sites.

Point though is that's all private investment, it's not something needing a government subsidy or law requiring it and it's being done in full awareness that Snowy Hydro is actively pursuing a 2000 MW pumped storage facility in NSW. As I've noted previously, batteries and pumped hydro fit well together and if we're going to be using mostly, or entirely, renewable energy in the future then we're going to need both so there's no inherent conflict between one versus the other.

So in summary:

*150 - 200 MW / 1550 MWh compressed air energy storage facility at Broken Hill.

*820 MW or new large scale batteries being developed by AGL (though not necessarily with AGL as the actual owner). Of that 100 MW / 150 MWh is going at Wandoan in Qld, 200 MW / 400 MWh at various sites in NSW, rest to be built at Liddell power station or elsewhere.

As with anything, expect those numbers to change a bit either way. If someone gives AGL a good tender price for something 10% larger or smaller then odds are they'll go with it etc, the 850 MW is a target not a precise thing that has to be achieved with no margin for variation.

Smurf1976 said:

820 MW or new large scale batteries being developed by AGL (though not necessarily with AGL as the actual owner). Of that 100 MW / 150 MWh is going at Wandoan in Qld, 200 MW / 400 MWh at various sites in NSW, rest to be built at Liddell power station or elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I should clarify that by adding:

30 MW / 8 MWh is already at Dalrymple in SA.

150 MW at Liddell seems pretty definite, the question's about how much more to put there versus elsewhere. They've sought the relevant approvals for 500 MW but that doesn't necessarily mean going all the way, energy companies commonly use that approach to keep their options open for further development.

Also some other companies doing things with batteries:

The Neoen / Tesla "big battery" in SA being upgraded by 50% from its original 100 MW / 129 MWh.

There's a proposal by the same company to build a 600 MW battery in Victoria.

NT is also looking at adding a large battery to the system in Darwin in order to reduce the need for spinning reserve (in layman's terms that's generators running at minimal output ready to immediately ramp up if something suddenly fails - normal practice in every grid in the developed world). In the case of the NT that's quite inefficient, gas turbines don't cope well with running at low loads and that's the only sort of plant they have up there, so there's a decent gas saving to be had by replacing that function with a battery to carry the load until a turbine is started up from cold.

So there's a bit of an "arms race" going on with batteries basically. WA's putting some into the distribution network to address localised issues and even Tasmania, which has no need from a bulk supply perspective due the dominance of hydro, is still looking at possibilities in terms of addressing localised network issues etc.

Sounds like it is all progressing well smurf.

sptrawler said:

Sounds like it is all progressing well smurf.

Click to expand...

I'd compare it to an extremely unfit, overweight etc person who's come to the realisation that something really must be done. That's the first step and they've done that and they've stopped eating sugar, bought a book on healthy eating and some walking shoes.

The problem is understood, steps are being taken to fix it, but it isn't actually fixed yet - there's still a risk of things falling in a heap in the short term until things are actually built.