Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
So it really sounds as though something needs to be built quickly, before the old plant really does fall over.
The other thing that is obviously required, is a requirement for companies that wish to deploy large scale renewables, factor in a storage component commensurate with their nameplate generated output. What ratio that would be, could be determined by someone like the AEMO.
Just a thought, but it would actually make the roll out of renewables more sustainable and speed up the retirement of fossil fueled generation IMO.
It would also give some certainty to the actual available storage, on the system.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
So if I can ask a direction question, from a purely technical perspective disregarding politics, should the proposed gas generator be built , or are there better options ?
Click to expand...
Some raw data:

Actual historic peak demand in NSW (AEMO data). All peaks occurred during summer except where indicated.

2019-20 = 13,827 MW
2018-19 = 13,861 MW
2017-18 = 13,081 MW
2016-17 = 14,107 MW
2015-16 = 13,599 MW
2014-15 = 11,874 MW
2013-14 = 12,016 MW
2012-13 = 13,906 MW
2011-12 = 12,942 MW (peak was in winter not summer)
2010-11 = 14,764 MW

So typically it's approaching 14,000 MW but there's a couple of outliers where it's significantly lower due to weather and the all time record high is 14,764 MW.

Now looking at the supply side (these figures are the summer rating where temperature is relevant):

Coal:
Bayswater = 2520 MW (closure planned for 2036)
Eraring = 2720 MW (closure 2032)
Liddell = 1680 MW (closure 1 unit 2022, other 3 in 2023)
Mt Piper = 1350 MW (remaining technical life is ~25 years)
Vales Point B = 1320 MW (closure 2029)

Combined cycle gas:
Tallawarra = 395 MW

Open cycle gas:
Colongra = 640 MW (also diesel-fired, see notes at end)
Smithfield = 107 MW
Uranquinty = 640 MW

Diesel / kerosene fuelled gas turbines:
Broken Hill = 50 MW
Hunter Valley = 30 MW (closing mid-2030's)
Eraring gas turbine = 30 MW (closing 2032) (see notes at end)

Hydro:
Blowering = 70 MW
Guthega = 68 MW
Hume = 29 MW (can be connected to either NSW or Victoria)
Shoalhaven (pumped hydro) = 240 MW
Tumut 1 = 330 MW
Tumut 2 = 286 MW
Tumut 3 (conventional hydro with 600 MW pumping capacity) = 1800 MW

Total generation NSW = 14,305 MW

Transmission Qld > NSW = 1288 MW

Transmission Vic > NSW uses the same lines as the Snowy scheme, that's what the lines were built for, such that operation of Snowy generation in NSW crowds out the ability to transfer from Victoria. Realistically though can push another 450 MW through with all Snowy plant running, considerably higher if Snowy output is lower. That assumes of course that Vic actually has the power to spare - that's far from certain and really depends on what the weather's doing and whether or not anything fails.

Total all sources = 16,043 MW not including intermittent generation (wind and solar) which may or may not generate at the time of peak demand.

Take Liddell out and that becomes 14,363 MW

Add in the planned 190 MW upgrade of transmission Qld > NSW and that brings it up to 14,553 MW

Add the 100 MW upgrade of Bayswater power station and that brings it up to 14,653 MW

Add AGL's planned 200 MW batteries (4 x 50 MW) and that brings it up to 14,853 MW

Add AGL's proposed 252 MW gas-fired peaking plant near Newcastle and that brings it up to 15,105 MW.

Comparing that to historic peak demand it could be described as right on the edge.

If everything works perfectly then the lights stay on.

If the weather's such that populated regions of NSW don't experience simultaneous heatwaves or extreme cold then demand stays down so no drama.

If the heatwave is accompanied by strong winds at wind farms then that fixes the problem too. Anyone's guess if that actually happens but it's not unprecedented to go either way - windy or still.

On the other hand, get the temperature up to 45 degrees and take a couple of units off due due to breakdown or if there's nothing to spare from Victoria well then there's no alternative other than to shed load.

Overall, you won't find any competent engineer, operator, manager or anyone else who'll put their name on anything saying that it'll work but likewise, they'd all agree that it possibly would if the weather's mild and plant all works perfectly. It's on the edge, it's in the "maybe but no guarantees it will" zone.

Not included above is Redbank, a 150 MW coal-fired plant that's presently not being run. No technical reason why it couldn't be run, that it isn't is a business thing with perhaps a bit of politics and so on thrown in. It's small, but every bit helps and it's already built and so on so it could make sense (politics aside).

Snowy 2.0 when completed will add 2040 MW and, until the point where more coal plant closes, fixes the issue.

Beyond the technical it then becomes an economic and political question:

Cost of building more capacity to avoid load shedding versus the economic value of a reliable electricity supply?

Political consequences of blackouts versus political consequences of building gas turbines or other measures to avoid them?

Alternative options eg bring forward batteries or smaller pumped hydro that will be needed in 2030 anyway with the Vales Point closure or accelerate the SA - NSW transmission line project.

Notes:

Colongra gas turbines have a very limited gas supply due to pipeline constraints which enables operation at full load for ~5 hours in any 24 hour period using gas. Operation beyond that requires that diesel be used.

Eraring gas turbine is capped by law to operate not more than 200 hours per annum due to emissions. That doesn't influence its ability to generate at the peaks, since the absolute peak is less than 200 hours a year, but does mean that it's generally not run and is thus not a competitor to other generation most of the time.

Murray 1 and Murray 2 power stations, total 1500 MW and part of the Snowy scheme, are physically in NSW in terms of infrastructure etc but electrically are in Victoria. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
So if I can ask a direction question, from a purely technical perspective disregarding politics, should the proposed gas generator be built , or are there better options ?
Click to expand...
I guess that will be answered by Labors response, if Labor says it shouldn't be built, then if they win the next election they will have to live with the call.
If Labor knows it really does need building, they wont say much and will let the Libs wear the green backlash.
Not being political, but both parties will be aware of the system requirements.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Some raw data:

Actual historic peak demand in NSW (AEMO data). All peaks occurred during summer except where indicated.

2019-20 = 13,827 MW
2018-19 = 13,861 MW
2017-18 = 13,081 MW
2016-17 = 14,107 MW
2015-16 = 13,599 MW
2014-15 = 11,874 MW
2013-14 = 12,016 MW
2012-13 = 13,906 MW
2011-12 = 12,942 MW (peak was in winter not summer)
2010-11 = 14,764 MW

So typically it's approaching 14,000 MW but there's a couple of outliers where it's significantly lower due to weather and the all time record high is 14,764 MW.

Now looking at the supply side (these figures are the summer rating where temperature is relevant):

Coal:
Bayswater = 2520 MW (closure planned for 2036)
Eraring = 2720 MW (closure 2032)
Liddell = 1680 MW (closure 1 unit 2022, other 3 in 2023)
Mt Piper = 1350 MW (remaining technical life is ~25 years)
Vales Point B = 1320 MW (closure 2029)

Combined cycle gas:
Tallawarra = 395 MW

Open cycle gas:
Colongra = 640 MW (also diesel-fired, see notes at end)
Smithfield = 107 MW
Uranquinty = 640 MW

Diesel / kerosene fuelled gas turbines:
Broken Hill = 50 MW
Hunter Valley = 30 MW (closing mid-2030's)
Eraring gas turbine = 30 MW (closing 2032) (see notes at end)

Hydro:
Blowering = 70 MW
Guthega = 68 MW
Hume = 29 MW (can be connected to either NSW or Victoria)
Shoalhaven (pumped hydro) = 240 MW
Tumut 1 = 330 MW
Tumut 2 = 286 MW
Tumut 3 (conventional hydro with 600 MW pumping capacity) = 1800 MW

Total generation NSW = 14,305 MW

Transmission Qld > NSW = 1288 MW

Transmission Vic > NSW uses the same lines as the Snowy scheme, that's what the lines were built for, such that operation of Snowy generation in NSW crowds out the ability to transfer from Victoria. Realistically though can push another 450 MW through with all Snowy plant running, considerably higher if Snowy output is lower. That assumes of course that Vic actually has the power to spare - that's far from certain and really depends on what the weather's doing and whether or not anything fails.

Total all sources = 16,043 MW not including intermittent generation (wind and solar) which may or may not generate at the time of peak demand.

Take Liddell out and that becomes 14,363 MW

Add in the planned 190 MW upgrade of transmission Qld > NSW and that brings it up to 14,553 MW

Add the 100 MW upgrade of Bayswater power station and that brings it up to 14,653 MW

Add AGL's planned 200 MW batteries (4 x 50 MW) and that brings it up to 14,853 MW

Add AGL's proposed 252 MW gas-fired peaking plant near Newcastle and that brings it up to 15,105 MW.

Comparing that to historic peak demand it could be described as right on the edge.

If everything works perfectly then the lights stay on.

:2twocents
Click to expand...
That doesn't leave much room for spinning reserve and outage work i.e unplanned
 
sptrawler said:
That doesn't leave much room for spinning reserve and outage work i.e unplanned
Click to expand...
Agreed - the whole situation could be described as "on the edge".

If coal / gas / hydro generating plant performance on days of high demand is close to perfect and/or if the wind's blowing strongly then it works.

If the hottest or coldest days just happen to be on weekends or public holidays then it works.

Get a properly hot or cold working weekday without much wind and with other generation performance being merely average and someone gets cut off.

A big part of the issue is average load versus peak. Peak is over 14,000 MW but average load is 8340 MW of which intermittent sources account for 1125 MW.

So in terms of dispatchable generation, that which doesn't rely on short term weather, then if we want a reliable supply there's a need for 16,000 - 18,000 MW of capacity (depending on just how reliable and bulletproof society wants it to be) which will on average run at 7215 MW and there's the problem.

Having enough capacity to reliably meet the peak is good engineering but it's poor economics to invest more $ in order to produce minimal extra revenue. That's the dilemma and so long as it's competing companies making the decisions, they're basically forced to look at the $ side first and foremost. End result is we end up with capacity that's barely adequate - that's the most financially appropriate outcome despite being far from optimum from an engineering perspective. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Having enough capacity to reliably meet the peak is good engineering but it's poor economics to invest more $ in order to produce minimal extra revenue. That's the dilemma and so long as it's competing companies making the decisions, they're basically forced to look at the $ side first and foremost. End result is we end up with capacity that's barely adequate - that's the most financially appropriate outcome despite being far from optimum from an engineering perspective.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll have to say it again, supply of essential services and the private sector are not a good mix. We don't let private companies run the education system entirely or the health system entirely, there is a government presence to provide competition. Sure there is Snowy Hydro but I can't see private enterprise building despatchable power when renewables are easier and require less investment.

The corporations will take the road to faster and bigger profits , but that is not what is needed in the national interest.
 
Saw an article today (I think on ABC) which suggested that energy consumption will rise sharply this summer with far more people working from home and using air con.

Just something to keep in mind ..
 
On a slightly different tangent, but the technology can be used in gas turbines, airbus is pursuing H2 fueled aircraft design.
www.airbus.com

Airbus reveals new zero-emission concept aircraft

Airbus has revealed three concepts for the world’s first zero-emission commercial aircraft which could enter service by 2035. These concepts each represent a different approach to achieving zero-emission flight, exploring various technology pathways and aerodynamic configurations in order to...
www.airbus.com www.airbus.com
 
basilio said:
Saw an article today (I think on ABC) which suggested that energy consumption will rise sharply this summer with far more people working from home and using air con.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of different thoughts there at the moment.

Higher total consumption - probably yes, seems likely given homes occupied more.

Peak load - much harder and may even go down since there won't be the same degree of a spike with workers returning home at ~6pm and turning the cooling on to run flat out. If it's already on during daytime then that shouldn't occur to the same extent.

Higher average load with a lower peak would of course suit the industry very nicely so perhaps some wishful thinking (ie bias) there but as a concept it does seem plausible to occur. There will certainly be plenty of close attention paid on the first properly hot weather we do get on a working weekday this season. There's a lot of theories but most will at this stage acknowledge there's uncertainty as to how it plays out in practice.

One thing that has definitely been noticed across the electricity, gas reticulation and water (including sewage) industries is that consumption has been delayed. In simple terms it seems that people are getting up later and going to bed later or at least that they're showering etc later. Weekend peak, especially the morning one, is always later and to partial extent the weekday peak has moved toward that weekend pattern during the height of the lockdowns.

Data thus far shows that residential load has increased, commercial load has decreased, and temperature sensitivity has increased. That is, a 1'C change in temperature is resulting in a greater change in electricity consumption than it did pre-pandemic. As would be expected, this is more pronounced in locations where electricity has a higher market share for space heating and where heating requirements are more substantial (so Tas and NSW especially, less so in other states where either heating use is lower or non-electric heating is widely used). Compounding that has a been a colder than average winter in terms of heating degree days across much of the country. :2twocents
 
Here is the next NBN IMO, taxpayers being asked to pay for the installation of batteries, so that power generators can make more money by reducing numbers .
If it is in the generators interest, to replace fossil fueled generation with renewables, which in turn improves their bottom line.
Why shouldn't they supply subsidised batteries as part of their offering, as mobile phone carriers do with handsets. I believe AGL is doing just that, with their car and home battery plans and it is the way forward IMO.
I can understand the taxpayer putting in bulk storage e.g Snowy 2.0 and the Tassie battery, but at household level I feel the generators should also contribute, it is advantageous to them as they require the storage to compliment their renewables.
www.theage.com.au

Power giant EnergyAustralia urges battery focus in federal plan

One of the nation's largest power suppliers says supporting battery installations will be key to Australia's energy plan.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
From the article:

One of the nation's largest power suppliers, EnergyAustralia, says subsidising battery installations would be the best way for the federal government to invest in the future of the power market while lifting the economy out of COVID-19.

As the Morrison government looks to gas to drive the post-lockdown recovery, EnergyAustralia's head of customer markets Mark Collette has called for a greater national focus on accelerating the transition to renewables by matching the recent boom in rooftop solar panels with household and commercial batteries, capable of storing surplus energy created during the day.

EnergyAustralia, which runs coal, gas and renewable energy assets supplying 2.4 million customer accounts, said incentive schemes in the past have helped drive a boom in solar panels' uptake as increasingly climate-conscious customers seek to reduce their carbon footprint. Mr Collette said 250,000 EnergyAustralia customers had signed up to the company's free carbon-neutral energy plans, offsetting 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and demonstrating that customers were eager to make a difference where possible. However, cost barriers have so far contributed a slower uptake of household batteries compared to solar, he said.

Why doesn't Energy Australia offer its customers, with home solar panels a discounted battery, maybe it could be incorporated with the transfer of the feed in tarrif to Energy Australia, rather than to the distribution network? i.e in W.A Synergy.
 
This announcement by China will spin the energy generation and storage story on its head.

China's carbon pledge will require complete inversion of existing system
Country will need to kick addiction to coal and build eye-watering amount of wind and solar capacity

China’s President Xi Jinping stunned climate action observers in a speech at the United Nations general assembly last week with a pledge to reach “peak carbon” before 2030, and drive down emissions to virtually zero by 2060.

...Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, said China’s commitment to go carbon neutral before 2060 “sends a strong signal that the reality of the climate crisis”.

“However, actions speak louder than words,” she said. “There are two key questions next: how will China ensure that its actions match its commitments? And second, will Washington join in?”

China’s pledge emerged days after the EU toughened its own 2030 climate targets, raising the chances of a powerful economic coalition between the two that would cover a third of the world’s carbon emissions.

... China offered no details of how it would achieve the ambitious carbon-neutral target, but the action required would set in motion powerful geopolitical and economic shifts which hold important implications for the future of fossil fuels, low-carbon technologies and climate diplomacy.

The single largest reduction in emissions on record would require nothing less than a complete inversion of China’s existing energy system, one that promises to reverberate across global energy markets.
www.theguardian.com

China's carbon pledge will require complete inversion of existing system

Country will need to kick addiction to coal and build eye-watering amount of wind and solar capacity
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
China's position on moving rapidly to zero emissions will have a huge impact on Australia's energy industry

Q+A: Australia’s fossil fuel industry will collapse within 20 years, Mike Cannon-Brookes says
Atlassian billionaire tells Q+A panel China’s move to become carbon neutral by 2060 spells doom for Australia’s coal and gas production

www.theguardian.com

Q+A: Australia’s fossil fuel industry will collapse within 20 years, Mike Cannon-Brookes says

Atlassian billionaire tells Q+A panel China’s move to become carbon neutral by 2060 spells doom for Australia’s coal and gas production
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
I suspect China's motivation is more economic and political than genuine concern for the environment, it is after all a plan to stop burning coal about the time they run out of coal to burn and would be massively reliant on imports, but nonetheless the writing is on the wall for the fossil fuel industries most certainly.

From an Australian perspective the problem isn't about how to keep the lights on (though that's an issue) so much as it's about how to replace a circa $100 billion a year industry in the form of coal and gas exports. Services and cottage industry stuff won't cut it there and realistically whatever the ultimate solution, I'd be willing to bet that we're going be using a lot more electricity as part of it both to replace the end use of fossil fuels (cars, water heating etc) and to power whatever new export industry is developed.

At the risk of reopening old wounds (which I'd rather not do.....), there's nothing particularly new about any of that. It is after all the same basic view that those on the pro-electricity side of the various debates have held since the 1970's - we're going to need more not less, and the alternative "low energy" option of exporting unprocessed raw materials isn't a good one in the long term. :2twocents
 
Torrens Island 'A' power station (located in SA, owned by AGL) units 2 & 4 are now permanently out of operation and no longer available to run.

Last operation of unit 2 was on 20 March 2020.

Last operation of unit 4 was on 17 September 2020.

Both now officially shut as of 30 September and no longer registered with AEMO for operation.

Units 1 and 3 at the same facility are identical to the above and still operating though not for much longer. Unit 1 shuts next year, unit 3 shuts in 2022.

Technically, both are 120 MW steam units with gas (originally oil) fired boiler. So technically pretty much identical to the former Bell Bay (Tas) or Kwinana A & B (WA) stations for those familiar apart from some relatively inconsequential differences in site layout etc. Construction started 1963 and the units entered service progressively 1967 - 1970.

Torrens Island B station right next door and also owned by AGL comprises 4 x 200 MW and is expected to remain fully operational into the 2030's.

Practical effect of losing 240 MW isn't much, since the overwhelming majority of the time generation isn't fully utilised, but at times of very high demand and low wind speed it may well be the straw which breaks the proverbial camel's back.

Photo of 'A' station below. 'B' station is immediately to the right and looks much the same. For scale, the chimney height is 160m. Cooling of the plant uses sea water - the water visible at the bottom left is indeed the sea.

1601459491750.png
 
With an excess of renewables and the expertise to build gas plants, surprised Liquid Air Batteries are not discussed more in Australia.

Gas plants are pretty expensive to build, but surely the cost comes down (even in Australia) if there are no hydrocarbons?

 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
520
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top