- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,037
- Reactions
- 12,596
As long as the hydrogen production process is 'green', yes.
Like i said 90% of the problem IMO, is the media coverage is based on political/ environmental bias and presenting flawed information.
The gas pipelines and gas turbines can be made to carry hydrogen at a later date, it is a great solution and ensures the reliability of supply, to paint turbines as being 'dirty' is crap, if they are run on H2 they are as clean as dispatchable generation gets.
Exactly and Australia is fortunate enough to have the land mass, topography and climate to achieve it, but do the press write that??As long as the hydrogen production process is 'green', yes.
The issue is, you have asked questions, got the underlying facts straight and can make valued judgements regarding generation and dispatch, why can't reporters?Yeah I agree.
Trouble is that there are too many people/businesses pushing their own lines to the detriment of others.
@Smurf1976 said it a long time ago, "anything that works".
This should not be a competition, but a cooperation between different alternatives that are all viable in certain circumstances.
Get the rent seekers out of decision making and turn it back to (unbiased) scientists and engineers.
The issue is, you have asked questions, got the underlying facts straight and can make valued judgements regarding generation and dispatch, why can't reporters?
I agree with what you are saying, but as we have discussed in the past, whether you put in 1 x 150 MW gas turbine ar 4 X 200 units, the stumbling block is getting in anything, as the backlash against building Snowy 2.0 is showing.Something I'll note regarding the issues in NSW, government proposals to build 1000 MW of gas turbines, the 4 Corners report and so on is this:
Government's on about 1000 MW.
AEMO puts the requirement at 154 MW.
That's a considerable difference and in short I'll take AEMO's rather precise figure over the government's big round number any day.
Now back to that 154 MW there are indeed options to plug that gap rather quickly and without building anything that might not be needed long term.
Redbank power station is currently sitting around doing nothing. It's a 151 MW coal-fired plant using fluidised bed boilers which in layman's terms means it has a lot of flexibility in terms of the fuel used. Good quality coal, poor quality coal, sawmill waste etc anything like that will do the job.
It's pretty small for a coal plant, 151 MW isn't much compared to Eraring at 2880 MW, but point is it's already built, it's sitting there right now.
Here it is: https://www.google.com.au/maps/plac...cf03fdc!8m2!3d-32.5800885!4d151.0718822?hl=en
It's a rather humble looking power station yes but zoom out on the map, have a look what's around it and it makes sense.
Now I'm not advocating that we go and build new coal plant. This one however is already there, it's in decent shape and could easily be put back in action. To me that's very much worthy of serious investigation as an option, noting that it fills 98% of the gap as identified by AEMO.
The other part of that is at Broken Hill where 2 x 25 MW oil-fired gas turbines are sitting there (Broken Hill is on the main grid). They're used only for local network support and outages, they're not centrally dispatched by AEMO and thus are not used to supply NSW as such. That means they're almost always not running even during peak demand.
Solution = put them on when supply is tight. Do it manually if need be - start them up and run them.
They're not cheap to operate given they're using liquid fuel but considering how many hours a year they'll actually need to run that's not a big deal really. This is about peak load not running 24/7.
Add Redbank and Broken Hill to things like the large battery installations that AGL and Origin are both planning plus Snowy 2.0 and getting the SA - NSW transmission line built and collectively that's an alternative plan.
The trouble with all of this is far too much political interference on one hand, and far too much political bias in media reporting and this the general public's understanding of it on the other.
That's not to say I'm outright against gas but there's a lot of politics being played in all this and I definitely am opposed to that aspect, the politics.
That's what it is yes - the near term requirement due to Liddell closure.Or it could be the shortfall with the closure of Liddell Power Station, but doesn't take into account the remaining coal stations being closed
But there is talk of other coal station closures being brought forward, wouldn't that have to come into the reckoning, as I would expect that only one gas station would be built and utilise an existing site.That's what it is yes - the near term requirement due to Liddell closure.
The number's precise simply because AEMO's quoted the output of a modeling exercise and hasn't rounded it. That modeling exercise is, of course, itself imprecise although on the other hand it's the same basis they'd be using if they said the shortfall were zero. Whether the modeling approach is right or not's another matter....
What it really comes down to is a simple question.But there is talk of other coal station closures being brought forward, wouldn't that have to come into the reckoning, as I would expect that only one gas station would be built and utilise an existing site.
In principle I'm in the camp which sees that as the preferred outcome.From what I have read the question of how much will be self resolving, as much as possible, the grid will become 100% renewables.
I can see the problem, but from the outside looking in, It appears to me that the States are on the same page, but aren't actually doing much, aside from S.A.In principle I'm in the camp which sees that as the preferred outcome.
Practical problem however is the politics of it all. In short, so long as there's a lack of direction on that front and open conflict even within the same party, the companies are being cautious in how much they spend on new assets.
Worth noting in that context that the divide is more a federal versus state thing than being along party lines.
The Labor states and the Liberal states are on the same page apart from minor detail. They're all advocating renewables. Federal government is where the difficulty arises since they're at odds with the states, Liberal states included.
Beyond fairly limited amounts, the companies have thus far been reluctant to get caught up in the battle and are holding back investment. Problem is, the clock's ticking on the remaining life of existing plant and that's coming to the pointy end rather quickly hence the threats, panic and so on.
It's not so much a case of arguing for one policy or another but of needing the political battle to come to a halt and to achieve some certainty regarding policy.
I can see the problem, but from the outside looking in, as W.A hasn't the same issues, It appears to me that the States are on the same page, but aren't actually doing much, aside from S.A.
There seems to be a lot of noise coming from the states, but not much action and from what I read the States also seem to have minimal accountability or responsibility for the outcome, if it goes pear shaped.
Plants are being closed and or closure being brought forward and there is very little happening to cover the projected shortfall.
If the States want to be in charge of their section of the network, they should be demanding the operators show how they are going to cover that perceived shortfall, not just give lip service and hope it works out.
Again from just reading, it appears the Federal Government is the only one actively concerned about the problem and has told the private operators, who own the States generating equipment, either one of you guys installs some dispatchable power or we will.
From a logical position, if the States want to go full renewable, they should be saying we are going to cover the problem by installing x,y &z renewable generation and storage facilities.
It is ok for the States to say we want to go renewables, and do nothing, then when the manure hits the fan blame the Federal Government who in reality are the only ones doing anything (again except for S.A).
Like I said it is like everything else these days, everyone wants to tell you what to do, but do sod all themselves and take no responsibility, or accountability for the outcome. The States need to man up, or hand it over to the Feds, rather than sniping from the side lines. As was shown through the pandemic, they can stand on their own two feet when they have to and tell the Feds this is our turf, yet when a bushfire, or a media furore gets out of control, it is run to daddy.
Time the States grew up, they sold off the assets and spent the money, grow a pair and if you want renewables to replace them put them in, then a gas plant wont be required.
Like I've said just my opinion and being from W.A I don't actually give a rats either way.
Absolutely, but now we are moving into a period where the whole electrical system dynamics are changing, there may not be room for big single generation utilities in the future.I may have said it before, but I"ll say it again.
The problem started when the Howard/Costello government basically forced the States to sell their power assets to private enterprise due to the asset recycling scheme.
Prior to that the States were competing with each other to offer the lowest power prices they could so they could attract business and industry to their State, and we had some of the lowest power prices in the world. Now we have some of the highest.
States owned the generators, the distribution network and the billing so they could cross subsidise and offer the best deals.
Now we have a complete stuff up, no one knows who is responsible for building generators, distribution or billing , States, Federal, private all just arguing with each other instead of getting on with it.
Power is an essential service, it's ultimately the government's job to deliver, never mind the ideological bull$hit about "market forces", either the Feds take it over or it's given back to the States like it was before.
A great example of ideology stuffing things up for the consumers, but of course those responsible won't admit it.
The companies are holding back investment, because there is no ROI with fossil fuel and the very distinct possibility of stranded assets, so they need to invest in renewables, the Feds have said they want to get to carbon zero as fast as possible.Beyond fairly limited amounts, the companies have thus far been reluctant to get caught up in the battle and are holding back investment. Problem is, the clock's ticking on the remaining life of existing plant and that's coming to the pointy end rather quickly hence the threats, panic and so on.
It's not so much a case of arguing for one policy or another but of needing the political battle to come to a halt and to achieve some certainty regarding policy.
The big problem is actually illustrated by your comments, specifically:what certainty are we looking for?
the Feds have said they want to get to carbon zero as fast as possible.
He has his LNP hat onThe big problem is actually illustrated by your comments, specifically:
Presumably that's what they're saying in WA?
In the eastern states they want gas, a "gas-fired recovery" as they call it, not zero emissions.
What the industry wants is a clear policy.
At present there's several companies which have specific proposals for new fossil fuel, pumped hydro and battery development. Some of those have gone as far as having obtained all required planning approvals, all equipment has been specified, contractors identified and so on. So those projects are "shovel ready" to go.
That they're not being built thus far largely comes down to uncertainty as to what government wants with all this. Few are keen to risk blowing their money if it turns out that government decides they built the wrong thing.
The issue needs to stop being a political "point of difference". Come up with a policy and get on with building things which fit within it, no politics required.
Like that one.MAGA
make australia gas again
Ah I see the point, what I was focusing on was just the electrical grid from a generation perspective, i wasn't thinking from an industrial consumer perspective.The big problem is actually illustrated by your comments, specifically:
Presumably that's what they're saying in WA?
In the eastern states they want gas, a "gas-fired recovery" as they call it, not zero emissions.
What the industry wants is a clear policy.
At present there's several companies which have specific proposals for new fossil fuel, pumped hydro and battery development. Some of those have gone as far as having obtained all required planning approvals, all equipment has been specified, contractors identified and so on. So those projects are "shovel ready" to go.
That they're not being built thus far largely comes down to uncertainty as to what government wants with all this. Few are keen to risk blowing their money if it turns out that government decides they built the wrong thing.
The issue needs to stop being a political "point of difference". Come up with a policy and get on with building things which fit within it, no politics required.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?