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
Sounds like another alternator failure @Smurf1976 , if so it will be out for a long time. Are the units the same as the one that failed a couple of years ago?
It kind of supports what we have been saying about reliability issue with old plant, the new 700MW of GT's will be fast tracked IMO.

Investigation launched into 'catastrophic failure' of Queensland's Callide Power Station

The electricity operator at the centre of Queensland's worst power outage in decades says it is keen to examine the scene of the disastrous fire to find out what went wrong.
www.abc.net.au
From the article:

'Worst-case scenario,' according to union​

Shane Brunker, the district vice-president of the CFMMEU, said it appeared the hydrogen-filled generator or the main turbine had a "catastrophic failure".

"The scenario of a hydrogen-filled generator exploding or failing mechanically causing hydrogen leaks and then also oil leaks, is probably the worst-case scenario in a coal-fired power station," he said.
"All the safety protocols were enacted straight away and it was a very speedy and efficient evacuation.

"My biggest concern is for the 350 direct and indirect employees of that station on their futures now."
 
As an update on the situation in Queensland:

The official word, and I'm quoting from the official information here, is:

Based on an initial inspection overnight, Unit C4 has experienced major damage and failure of the turbine
Click to expand...

Can't get much worse than that really.

Relating to that, the issue that operating data shows unit C3 as having tripped first is a noted issue, noted by CS Energy, AEMO and others, that is unanswered at this stage as to what occurred there. For clarity however, the known physical damage involves unit 4 not unit 3.

CS Energy is 50% owner of Callide C power station, which had the incident, in a joint venture with InterGen. CS Energy 100% owns the Callide B station right next door. CS Energy itself is 100% owned by the Queensland state government.

The immediate plans are to return both B station units and the other, assumed to be undamaged at this stage, C station unit to service. This won't be done without proper inspections etc but at this stage plans are proceeding on the assumption that no damage will be found to the others.

Assuming no damage, the aim is to have one unit started up on 4 June and all three by 8 June 2021.

For the seriously damaged C station machine, nobody's able to say with certainty but the official information from CS Energy is "assume 12 months until we announce otherwise" so that's what everyone, so AEMO, government and other generating companies, are working on the basis of at this stage.

In terms of power supply to the public, there's been no interruption or restriction on use caused by the incident since yesterday evening. Looking at the short term ahead, and assuming nothing else unforeseen goes wrong:

Available supply from sources within Queensland can meet demand within Queensland on each of the next 7 days.

This is also the case in Victoria, Tasmania and SA, supply within the state can meet demand within the state at least over the next 7 days.

NSW forecast available supply is barely adequate to meet NSW demand on 28 May and cannot meet NSW demand on 31 May, 1 June or 2 June. It should be possible to fill the gap in NSW with available supply from SA + Tas + Vic + Qld but overall supply is fairly tight across the NEM but should get through.

The oldest (in operation since 1957) power station in Queensland, Kareeya, has run at constant full output since the incident that being 88 MW from its 4 x 22 MW machines. This is a hydro station and in short, there's no reason to think it won't keep going as long as it needs to. There's a lot of water in the dam, being old isn't necessarily a problem with hydro equipment and so on. It wasn't built to run flat out 24 hours a day but it should be able to keep doing so long enough, it shouldn't be a problem at least in the medium term. It is of course also rather small and of minor consequence - 88 MW at Kareeya versus 1540 MW at Callide. Every bit helps of course....

Mt Stuart is a peaking / backup plant in Queensland fueled with kerosene. Plant capacity is 423 MW and at full output fuel consumption runs at about 1900 litres per minute (that's not a typo, 1900 litres a minute yes). I don't know how much kero they could ultimately get hold of before running out but thus far they haven't expressed any concern. Operating intermittently and at varying output, they've burned ~1.2 million litres since the incident. This facility is owned and operated by Origin Energy (ASX: ORG) and runs on a commercial basis.

Looking ahead, I see there's some media reports that Queensland's going to be faced with blackouts for years and so on. In short, the truth is that assuming it's only unit C4 which has suffered major damage and the rest can be put back into production then that's not going to be the case. The odd bit of load shedding here and there might be necessary and there might need to be some logistics sorted out (eg getting enough kero to Mt Stuart for example) but it's not going to be blackouts all day every day assuming the other 3 units at Callide can be returned to operation.
 
Last edited:
Politics vs engineering ?

Is the climate change lobby exposing us to more blackouts ?

Has Australia's gas-fired recovery run out of steam before it even began?

Gas has always been considered a transition fuel between coal and renewables. Now, with three major multinationals under pressure to exit or at least scale back production, the transition may have become far more transitory, writes Ian Verrender.
www.abc.net.au
 
Generally it is IMO a reasonable article, the only point I would make issue with, is the journalistic license used when describing coal generation. I'm mean really why ruin a reasonable article, by putting in a completely inaccurate paragraph?

Quote:
It's the opposite. It instead describes one of the fundamental shortcomings of coal-fired electricity generators and the inflexibility of steam engines. You can only turn them down to a certain point – the baseload – beyond which, you have to shut them down. They then take weeks to fire back up.


Absolute nonsense, coal units are taken off and returned to service every night, that is what is causing them to fail. The constant cycling (cooling and heating causes the metal to fatgue).
The rest of the statement is correct, units have a turn down ratio once they are below that it is hard to maintain a stable flame in the boiler, so the unit is cooled down, taken off, then re synchronised in the morning as the load picks up.

The only time a steam unit takes weeks to fire back up, is after a major overhaul, when all the supporting system have to be de-isolated and re commissioned.
It is a shame these reporters can't help themselves and have to put their bent on the issues, the problem is the inaccuracy of that statement means their whole article is tarnished.
It does them no favours, as anyone with a modicum of power generation understanding, would be able to blow away the author's credibility just on that issue alone.
It shows the author was either supplying biased info, or the author doesn't understand his subject, either way it doesn't further the cause IMO.
 
Last edited:

Well, I won't argue with you on the technicalities of coal stations, I"m sure you are right, the thing that interested me was the climate change evangelists infiltrating themselves onto the boards of large companies and making decisions for ideological reasons rather than seriously considering the engineering consequences of what they were proposing.

Does anyone seriously think that batteries can supply anything more than a couple of hours at most or simply fill in the gaps when the wind drops or the sun goes behind a cloud ?

If there is weeks of rain or prolonged drop off in wind velocity, it's up to coal , gas and hydro to fill in the gaps over a longer period.

Unless I've got it all wrong and there are some magic renewables out there that can provide despatchable power on call.
 
All true, but ATM the CC agenda has centre stage and as smurf says renewables can especially in Australia do it, the only thing is how much time as money you throw at it.
The whole issue is being cast in a black or white, right or wrong, light, it isn't as though Australia isn't going to go renewables, we are.
The real issue is doing it in a way that works, not just being stupid about it, as we have already said and the CC say renewables are cheaper, add to that the coal isn't being operated as intended and it is a given coal is finished.
So it can't be shut down tomorrow, because we need it, that leaves putting in cleaner generation and more renewables and storage.
When the renewable and storage exceeds the system requirement the gas units will sit on standby, I can't get my head around what the media is complaining about, other than whipping up another storm in a teacup.
With regard the make up of company boards, that is going to end badly, as they become less and less competitive due to self inflicted wounds.
In Australia the same issues are arising as union run super funds get larger and larger, they have more and more say in how a company operates, when as you say they may have very little knowledge and or have ulterior motives.
 

I can't get my head around what the media is complaining about, other than whipping up another storm in a teacup.

I completely agree.

Interesting thing is that most of the media see the term "gas turbine" and think they have to run on gas when they could run on either hydrogen from electrolysis or biofuel which can be "grown" and is therefore renewable as well as a lot of other fuels.

There seems to be a media knee jerk reaction to anything associated with fossil fuels.

A lot of media people should get some education.
 
At last the green light for the S.A/ NSW HV interconnector, this should really improve access for renewables to the grid.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05...nector-gets-approval-from-regulator/100177928
From the article:
A $2 billion electricity transmission line which is expected to deliver long-term cheaper power in both South Australia and New South Wales has been given the green light.

Key points:​

  • The interconnector is expected to connect Robertstown in SA with Wagga Wagga in NSW
  • It is expected to drive up prices during construction but lead to significant long-term savings
  • ElectraNet is set to make a final investment decision in coming days
The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has granted final regulatory approval for the interconnector, which was proposed by transmission companies in both states.

The interconnector is expected to connect Robertstown in South Australia's Mid North with Wagga Wagga in New South Wales, via Buronga.

The line will also have an added connection to Red Cliffs in Victoria.

 
Indeed and that nonsense is so extreme that it basically flags the author as completely ignorant on the subject.

It's in the same category as saying that all alcohol is beer or putting Mount Gambier on a list of major cities. It says nah, this is all getting a bit silly.

The crux of it is that a power system based around coal, gas, oil, nuclear, biomass, hydro, geothermal, intermittent renewables + storage or any combination can work reliably so long as it is adequately designed, well maintained and correctly operated.

It can also be said that a power system based around any of those can and will fail if it is not adequately designed, maintained or operated.

It's having an adequately designed and properly run system that determines the outcome there, not what technology it is based on.
 
sptrawler said:
At last the green light for the S.A/ NSW HV interconnector, this should really improve access for renewables to the grid.
Click to expand...
I'm holding off the celebrations until ElectraNet also makes the final commitment to it.

In theory that's a done deal but given the incredibly long saga surrounding this, the project dates back to the late 1990's when it faced considerable opposition, I won't count any chickens at least until I can see the eggs. That should be within days however.

It will certainly be a major help assuming it does get built however, it's been very high up the priority list of projects for a long time now.
 
As background:

SA - NSW interconnector capacity to be 800 MW.

Existing SA - Victoria capacity is 650 MW on two AC circuits plus 220 MW on a single DC circuit however due to other constraints these don't quite add and the limit in practice is 820 MW between them.

Further, a specific issue exists with the DC line in that it connects to a region of Victoria which is at times electrically constrained. This has the practical effect of requiring flows on this line which make perfect sense due to that constraint but which make no sense at all in terms of a whole of state perspective.

For example, as of right now the limit on transfer SA > Vic via that line is 146 MW due to those constraints.

It's not uncommon in practice that renewable generation in SA goes to waste due to inability to get it out of the state. For large scale wind and solar it's fairly common but there's been one incident where household solar systems were intentionally forced off as well (the large scale wind and solar having already been forced off at that point). More capacity between SA and anywhere else directly addresses that.

Another issue is that the 2 x AC lines to Victoria form the only AC connection between SA and the rest of the grid. That creates a scenario where having either line out of service means that failure of the other will result in immediate AC separation of SA and the rest of the grid.

A far fetched scenario? Unfortunately not indeed it has actually occurred in the past. Just needs one line to be out of service for maintenance then there's a fault on the other and that's it, instant grid separation without warning. There's also the risk that both lines are on the same physical towers - relevant given that there was an actual structural collapse of towers in early 2020 which immediately disconnected both AC lines, separating SA from Victoria, and also shoved the Alcoa aluminium smelter onto the SA grid effective immediately.

Also it's not uncommon that transmission NSW - Victoria is at the limit during peak demand periods in summer meanwhile SA - Vic is nowhere near the limit. That being so, an SA - NSW line becomes a backdoor Vic - NSW route for additional capacity as well.

So there's multiple benefits to building a new line SA - NSW.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong @Smurf1976 , but the route the transmission line takes, is through an area where a lot of current and future solar/wind farms are proposed but currently are limited due to poor transmission infrastructure in the area?
 
I think I said a while back, that batteries will be the next thing to be subsidised, it makes sense.
 
sptrawler said:
Correct me if I'm wrong @Smurf1976 , but the route the transmission line takes, is through an area where a lot of current and future solar/wind farms are proposed but currently are limited due to poor transmission infrastructure in the area?
Click to expand...
In short, yes.

The general vicinity of Mildura is attractive for solar in particular for a number of reasons:

1. The solar resource is good.

2. Land isn't expensive.

3. Proximity to a substantial established town, Mildura's population being over 30,000 people.

4. Roads are more than good enough to get equipment etc to the area from either Adelaide, Melbourne or a regional area.

Electricity transmission, or rather the relative inadequacy of it, has been the bottleneck thus far.
 
It's interesting really.

Right across Australia there are multiple renewable energy projects being developed in almost every environment. Home Solar everywhere. Large scale wind farms. Large scale solar projects. Snowy 2. Battery banks for stabilising supply both large. medium and small. New interconnectors to transfer power across the country. Huge renewable energy projects being planned to make Australia renewable energy super power and transform our industrial base to producing and exporting green hydrogen.

It is also crystal clear that economically firmed renewable energy is cheaper than than coal of gas fired power. We have already overtaken what seemed to be ambitious objectives and every indication is that with any sort of encouragement we could move very, very quickly to a totally renewable energy system. The sticking points of dealing with intermittencies in supply have known solutions which are being addressed.

And yet this Federal Government is doing all it can to throw sand in the gears of this renewable energy drive and instead support the stranded remnants of a fossil fuel generation.

It makes me so xucking sick...
 
Hey Bas, don't hold your breath for a change of Government changing the outcome, because the logical way is the way both sides will do it.

Labor in new dispute over whether to back gas

The split over future gas developments in the Northern Territory is a new sign of disunity on climate change and whether Australia should phase out fossil fuel.
www.smh.com.au
From the article:
Labor MPs have split over a federal plan to open up new gas reserves in a new sign of disunity on climate change and whether Australia should phase out fossil fuel.

The debate included significant interventions from former leader Bill Shorten and former resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon to back policies that opened up gas reserves to supply energy for households and business.

While they lost their bid in the caucus room, their debate became a test of caucus opinion on energy policy in a discussion about the need for gas and the party’s official target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The outcome of the debate was a formal vote, sought by Labor resources spokeswoman Madeleine King and passed on the voices, to reject a motion brought by independent MP Zali Steggall to stop the $50 million federal funding for Beetaloo Basin projects.

The objections to Ms King’s move surprised some caucus members because the Labor policy platform accepts the need for gas and does not seek to block new projects including fracking.
Labor MPs have also been at odds in recent weeks over federal government proposals to spend $600 million on a gas power plant at Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley.
While Mr Fitzgibbon and fellow Labor MP Meryl Swanson have welcomed that spending, energy spokesman Chris Bowen opposed the move.
Mr Shorten made a significant intervention, one caucus member said, because he chooses carefully when to speak on issues.

The former leader told the caucus that Labor promised to support the opening up of the Beetaloo Basin at the last election
 
Update on Callide:

Unit 1 will now return to operation on 11 June.
Unit 2 on 21 June.
Unit 3 on 22 June.

As for unit 4, well it'll be quite a while to rebuild it. They're still saying 12 months but I doubt you'll find anyone willing to place bets there. A 420MW steam turbine isn't something you just pick up off the shelf at your local hardware store....
 
For those unfamiliar with what all this stuff looks like inside, time lapse video shows major overhaul of Callide unit 3 (not the one that failed but the one next to it) a couple of years ago:

 

It seems to me as a non engineer hat the main problem here is storage.

The only viable option appears to be pumped hydro, the limited storage capacity of batteries cannot cover for long periods of wind/solar unavailability.

However, pumped hydro takes decades to build and become operational and governments have to stump up the cash as they are national infrastructure and private companies just won't do it.

The economics of gas turbine stations are terrible, only running for 2% of the time but so are the economics of what these plants really are ie insurance policies.

We all spend thousand on insurance premiums for house and cars and mostly it's dead money unless for the rare event when they are needed.

The convenience of having the availability of generation that can start at short notice and run for long periods on a variety of fuels is obvious to me anyway.

I don't think that this gas plant is such a daft idea as you make out.
 
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...