This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
Onyer China
 
@SirRumpole the other issue that the major generators have with renewables is, renewable generation doesnt require a specialised maintenance and operational staff, which thermal generation does.
So the edge they had over a new entrant to the market, has been to a great degree removed.
The new entrant will require technical skills for the installation and setting up while commissioning, but very little in house technical staff when it is operational.
So as I said I can well imagine the States having to buy back plant, that is still required for system security and firming purposes.
How the major generators are going to adapt will be very interesting to watch.IMO
Coal plant wont have a look in when the new gas plant is installed, then as renewables and storage increase, the older gas plant wont be financially viable, so everything will look very different by 2030 IMO.
 
Humid said:
Use public money via Snowy Hydro
Gas from Santos Narrabri field
Santos ask Government to subsidise pipeline
Government appointed chair of Snowy Hydro is ex Santos CEO
Click to expand...
Great idea, government owned HEGT gas backup generation for renewables, so that the public can't be held to ransom.
Gas from an established field with reserves, that the government will have say in how the reserves are used, as per the NWS in W.A when Charlie Court built the pipeline to Perth, with guaranteed allotment of gas. Which will no doubt be at a contracted price, as the Government is subsidising the pipeline.
Ex Santos CEO, now on the government payroll, there is no way that Santos can BS about issues.
Sounds like a great plan, sounds like something that wasn't dreamed up on the back of a napkin, what a pleasant change. ?
 
Bit of a change of tune after your 10 years of bangin on about private enterprise should of built the NBN....
hypocrite much
 
Humid said:
Bit of a change of tune after your 10 years of bangin on about private enterprise should of built the NBN....
hypocrite much
Click to expand...
Not at all, the private enterprise telecommunication companies were going to have to build the NBN, as they were going to have to sell higher data speeds as technology moved on.
All that has happened is my ADSL2 internet which cost $30/m, has gone up to $70/m and they provide the exact same service and speed.
Which I was completely happy with and still am, so no net value added but $hit loads of taxpayers money, which goes back to the Labor brain fart on the back of a napkin IMO.

With electricity, it still boils your kettle at the same speed, so there is no net added value to the consumer, so it is difficult to upsell the same product.

This is the problem that you seem to have, understanding one step ahead and I do allow for that by still liking your sensible posts for encouragement and hoping you will start to apply common sense.
But I am losing patience, sometimes I think it would be much easier to just ignore your dribble, but being older I'm hopeful your one eyed focus will dull and a balanced analysis will evolve.
 
Last edited:
You are confusing speed with supply pops
 
sptrawler said:
Spot on Rumpy, it should never have been sold in the first place, people can't manage without electricity so it is an essential service.
Click to expand...
Looking at the National Electricity Market (NEM) well it's no secret that the states in the best position by far are Tasmania and Queensland and those in the worst position are Victoria and SA with NSW in the middle.

Victoria and SA were the first to privatise, NSW did it much later. Queensland mostly and Tas almost entirely still in government hands despite the feds and one other state having pointed at gun at the head of the latter on several occasions.

Ownership is what it is however so unless someone's planning to put it back in government ownership then ways need to be found to make it work.

Biggest problem of the lot is the inability for companies to get answers from government as to what the rules of the game actually are. In the absence of an ability to answer that question, government will find itself carrying most of the risk by default.

From a technical perspective, the big unanswered question is how to fill droughts in wind and solar yield?

Batteries and small pumped hydro schemes are fine to shift energy from midday to 6pm or overnight, they do that no worries, but they're pretty much useless to cover multiple days of poor yields.

That scenario isn't hypothetical, we just had such an incident over the 6 days to and including Thursday last week.

If we're going to 100% renewables, net zero or whatever then with present technology large scale hydro is the only show in town for addressing that in an economic manner. Technically it could be done with hydrogen as an alternative if someone's willing to throw the $ at it.

If we're not going to fully renewable well then natural gas suits business a lot better than hydro does for many reasons. Much shorter construction time, far more "off the shelf" in terms of components and design, can be sited pretty much anywhere, etc. Downside = emissions.

To illustrate the point about this issue of wind droughts here's 12 months' worth of daily wind farm output for the entire NEM. Note the consecutive days of low output which do occur and in particular, those which occur during winter when solar also performs relatively poorly. That is the crux of the difficulty - filling those gaps in and whether to do it with gas, hydro or some other method which isn't presently commercially viable.

Noting in that context that the ability to use existing coal and gas-fired plant to fill those gaps only exists so long as that plant is still in service. There's a few closures 2020 - 23 but an outright avalanche coming in the 2028 - 35 period and it's that which tips the balance, whatever's going to fill those gaps needs to be coming into operation in that period progressively and that doesn't leave much time given how long it takes to investigate, design and build major civil projects.

Filling energy gaps is a separate issue to meeting peak demand but, and this is a key point, will in practice partly make use of the same equipment. Whatever's built to fill energy gaps will also cover a decent chunk of the peak demand, the rest being filled by batteries and other short term storage in a fully renewable scenario.

We just had 5 days of consistent low wind across the NEM and that's by no means the longest experienced, June last year saw 8 days. Hence the need for either some longer duration storage or continued reliance on whatever fuel as backup.



It can be even more extreme when viewed at a state by state level (which has relevance given that transmission between states does have limited capacity):





Charts show wind generation only. It's those multi-day gaps that batteries or small pumped hydro can't fill and which leads straight to gas or large scale hydro.
 
Last edited:
Humid said:
You are confusing speed with supply pops
Click to expand...
I think I explained that in my post, what I think I'm confusing is your ability to apply normal thought processes, above conditioned responses.
Obviously keeping it short and simple, is what you can cope with, so be it. ?
I grew up with dealing with mechanical trades, so not a problem, dealing with people who have understanding difficulties just takes patience.
So what don't you understand, about the difference between the internet data speed and electrical supply?
I will try and explain it in a 5kg hammer and a 30cm crescent terms. ?
 
Last edited:
That small excerpt IMO sums up the problem, even you smurf don't see the logics, Rumpy did.
If we have to go to renewables, which everyone agrees has to happen, the first step has to be firming up supply.

This can't be done by coal, therefore coal is gone, it is just not viable anymore.

But we do need at call generation available through the transition period, that is obvious even to @Humid, so HEGT gas turbines can fill the void when renewables aren't available.

Then at a later date when renewables are plentiful enough to produce hydrogen, the HEGT's can run on that hydrogen to produce electricity, so it is another form of storage for renewables.

My apologies smurf, it wasn't written that way as a slight on you, but more as an explanation to others i wont mention.
 
The government supplying infrastructure that the private sector wouldnt is pretty much the NBN as is the case with this power station but you keep dribbling old man
 
Humid said:
The government supplying infrastructure that the private sector wouldnt is pretty much the NBN as is the case with this power station but you keep dribbling old man
Click to expand...
Why do you post everything twice? do you have a speech impediment, or you just like longer posts, that you can't write yourself?

By the way, you still didn't explain how internet data, is any way related to electricity in the house, might be a small thing to you but would explain why you have a one party mindset. ?

AS I SAID, IF THE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES WANTED TO SELL YOU HIGHER SPEEDS, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO UPGRADE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE EXCHANGE TO THE PREMISE.
WITH ELECTRICITY, IT STILL COMES THROUGH THE SAME AS IT DID 50 YEARS AGO AND PROBABLY WILL BE THE SAME IN 50 YEARS TIME.
IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, SOMEONE IS PAYING YOU WAY TOO MUCH.
BUT PROBABLY EXPLAINS WHY YOU VOTE LABOR REGARDLESS. ?
Young Muppet.
 
Last edited:
According to you theres no difference in internet speeds .....not on your atari 2600 anyway
 

Humid said:
Oh yeah look up bandwidth too you dinosaur you might learn something
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, right after you look up 240v 50hz, muppet.lol
You certainly are an example of why everyone is worried about the decline in our educational standards.
It doesnt bode well for our grandchildren, who are expected to glean knowledge from your generation.lol
What has bandwidth, got to do with the NBN?
Jeez FFS.
 
sptrawler said:
That small excerpt IMO sums up the problem, even you smurf don't see the logics, Rumpy did.
If we have to go to renewables, which everyone agrees has to happen, the first step has to be firming up supply.
Click to expand...

The problem I'm seeing is perhaps best explained by noting some specific detail.

Energy Australia has a pretty well developed proposal for ~350 MW of open cycle gas turbines at Tallawarra B.

I don't like the name of it, since there were previously two other power stations at the site known as Tallawarra A & B so it's potentially confusing from an historical perspective, but putting aside that pedantic detail it's a real proposal for a new gas-fired power station in NSW.

Meanwhile AGL has a proposal for 250 MW at a site near Newcastle (NSW) which would be dual fuel gas / diesel plant. Now here's where the difficulties start.

Both companies put their plans on hold in October 2020 following the release of the NSW state governments energy road map which passed into law in December. In short, the basic problem is projects can only compete for funding if the state's target for energy security is breached and these two particular projects are specifically excluded thus putting them at a financial disadvantage.

More here: https://www.afr.com/companies/energ...mbroiled-in-political-wrangle-20210212-p5722p

Meanwhile AGL are uncommitted on whether to install open cycle gas turbines, internal combustion engines, or nothing at all given the circumstances. Basic comparison:

OCGT:
Lower fuel efficiency = higher emissions
Lower capital cost
Longer lifespan before major overhauls
Could convert to hydrogen at some future time

Internal combustion:
Higher fuel efficiency = lower emissions
Higher capital cost
Requires more maintenance
Cannot convert to 100% hydrogen though could use some

Note that AGL also has a viable pumped hydro site on land it already owns in NSW and proposed battery installations in NSW.

So two real issues here:

1. Management of these companies wants some clarity as to what the national plan actually is with emissions. This would enable better decision making as to which approach best fits technically and financially.

2. The companies aren't at all happy with the apparent political game being played with all of this and just want some certainty about it all.

My concern here in no way argues against the requirement for dispatchable generation, I've been on about the looming need for that for a very long time now and the deadline is fast approaching, but it's the process of going about it I dislike. I can certainly see why the companies aren't happy with the way it has gone and are sitting on their hands so far as investment is concerned.

Financially, well I do see some cause for optimism, the situation will be resolved eventually, but the share price of AGL and Origin hasn't exactly been going up lately that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely @Smurf1976 , but they all know that a new build power station, in a limited market with more and more renewable penetration, will end up being a stranded asset.

So that leaves the private sector wanting a guaranteed offtake contract, if they build it, or the government building it and eventually wearing the loss as a cost for supplying a public service.
So it boils down to which is the cheaper outcome, subsidising and underwriting the private sector to build it and run it, or build it themselves.

I think the later will work out cheaper, as eventually the HEGT's will be only on standby most of the time.
When that happens, private will still want a return for availability, if it is government owned it doesnt require a profit margin.
Big difference IMO.
 
I suspect you're right but it would be a lot easier for everyone if government just came out and said yep, that's what we're doing.

That would then leave the various companies to focus on wind, solar, batteries and so on rather than putting time and significant $ into proposals which are doomed to go nowhere.
 
I think the time when that is said, is fast approaching, I wouldn't be surprised if that is sprung during the election campaign as it shows a responsible path to renewables.
My guess is Labor will come out with targets and promises, but will be short on the how to, I hope not but time will tell.
I just think this is all a lot further down the track, than we are being told and the media is focused on social issues which drive emotion but has very little effect on how the majority of voters vote, it is just BBQ chatter.

I think the government had to give the private operators sufficient time, so as not to be seen as using taxpayers $'s to compete against the private sector, the deadline was placed a long way ahead and none of the private companies were interested in building the 1,000MW gas plant.
That gives the government the right to build it on the grounds of system security and social responsibility, therefore the private companies can't ask for compensation at a later date, when the plant comes online and starts hitting their bottom line.

If the government built the plant too early, it could have left them in a compromised situation, by not having enough power and having to go cap in hand to the private generators for assistance in meeting the load.
With Snowy 2.0 and the HEGT's coming online later this decade, it sounds as though that issue, is no longer going to be a problem.
Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

It looks like things are going exactly to plan @SirRumpole, GT's that can be converted to H2 burners, as we said.
The Feds have put a scare up the private's, they will become shop fronts unless they get on the front foot, with the Energy Australia GT's and the Feds backup GT's the change over to renewables should be stress free IMO.
My guess is AGL will now propose the 1,000MW GT plant, rather than have to compete against the Feds and Energy Australia, otherwise they will lose a massive amount of market share.
Like I said, I think we are a lot further down the track than is being let on, under promise and over deliver. Albo had better have the thinking cap on IMO, or he will be playing catch up footy.
All just my opinions.

Plans announced for Australia's first net-zero hybrid power station

EnergyAustralia announces plans to build a new power station capable of using both hydrogen and natural gas, with the NSW and federal governments to contribute $83m.
www.abc.net.au

From the article:
EnergyAustralia has announced plans to build a new power station that will be capable of using hydrogen and natural gas.
The New South Wales and federal governments have contributed $83 million to the 300-megawatt plant on the edge of Lake Illawarra, south of Wollongong.

The Tallawarra B power station will sit alongside the company's existing Tallawarra A 435-megawatt gas plant.

The project will be fast-tracked to be operational by 2023–24 in a bid to help ensure reliable electricity supplies to the grid once the Liddell coal-fired 500-megawatt plant in the Hunter Valley closes.

"We are leading the sector by building the first net-zero emissions hydrogen and gas capable power plant in NSW," said Energy Australia Managing Director Catherine Tanna.

"What's particularly exciting is that further engineering studies will see if the amount of green hydrogen can increase, which will further support the Port Kembla Hydrogen Hub."Our new open-cycle, hydrogen and gas-capable turbine will provide firm capacity on a continuous basis and paves the way for additional cleaner energy sources to enter the system."
 
Last edited:

I don't know too much about the technology of gas turbines except that they can burn a variety of fuels if sufficiently modified.

We produce a lot of sugar cane , so why we don't have a viable ethanol industry is beyond me.

Not as clean as hydrogen, but it is renewable and a replacement for land transport fuels as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
709
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
461
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
615
Dona Ferentes
ASK - Abacus Storage King
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
finicky
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...