The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

The article exposes what we have been saying on here for years, it isn't the lack of will to install renewables it is the transmission limitations and the requirement to re configure it.

The other two bits the masses have yet to work out are:

1. Electrify everything because right now in all states except Tasmania, electricity is actually a fairly minor source of energy so far as consuming devices are concerned. Liquid fuels beat it in every state and in some states gas is a bigger thing too at the point of use.

2. Bulk energy storage, not just a few hours' worth, is a requirement if we're to go fully renewable. It has to be able to cope with substantially higher electricity use than at present and do so on days like today when heating load is high across south-eastern Australia, solar yield is poor and so on.

 

[sptrawler]

2. Bulk energy storage, not just a few hours' worth, is a requirement if we're to go fully renewable. It has to be able to cope with substantially higher electricity use than at present and do so on days like today when heating load is high across south-eastern Australia, solar yield is poor and so on.

Exactly Smurf, today in Perth a cold front going through, not a lot of rain but a bloody cold wind.
12.30pm my 6.6Kw solar is putting out 1.1Kw, meanwhile the A/C upstairs is on and the daughter has hers on downstairs, so no export to charge a battery or pump water.

 

[basilio]

Commercial development of a Hydrogen battery for domestic and commercial use.

Looks expensive at $34k but it is the equivalent price of 3 Tesla powerwalls and will supply the same power. And this unit will last (allegedly) 30 years.

Australian world-first domestic hydrogen battery signs an iconic investor​

The LAVO 40 kWh battery incorporates an electrolyser, groundbreaking UNSW materials science, and Australian fuel-cell technology, in a slick unit that will be market ready in June this year. Gowing Bros last week became an equity investor and LAVO’s first major customer.

Australian world-first domestic hydrogen battery signs an iconic investor

The LAVO 40 kWh battery incorporates an electrolyser, groundbreaking UNSW materials science, and Australian fuel-cell technology, in a slick unit that will be market ready in June this year. Gowing Bros last week became an equity investor and LAVO's first major customer.

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

LAVO: ‘World’s First’ hydrogen battery will be made in Queensland - Hydrogen Central

LAVO: ‘World’s First’ hydrogen battery will be made in Queensland. A Sydney-based company has chosen Southeast Queensland as its new home

hydrogen-central.com

 

[Smurf1976]

Exactly Smurf, today in Perth a cold front going through, not a lot of rain but a bloody cold wind.
12.30pm my 6.6Kw solar is putting out 1.1Kw, meanwhile the A/C upstairs is on and the daughter has hers on downstairs, so no export to charge a battery or pump water.

In the Australian context the hardest problem of the lot to solve, in the context of moving to 100% renewable electricity, is what I call "wind droughts".

They occur primarily during the colder months when solar yield isn't great and overall energy demand is highest.

Worth nothing there I said "energy" for a reason best explained by noting that during winter in Victoria, gas space heating alone accounts for more energy consumption, in the form of gas, than all uses of electricity combined. All uses of electricity by anyone that is, including aluminium smelting, trains and so on not just households.

Tasmania isn't such a problem since, whilst colder, there's a natural synergy between hydro and cold and wet weather, it works rather nicely and even better when the hydro system has massive storage capacity as is the case in Tas. So the fact that electricity has a two thirds share of residential heating, and over 90% of the commercial market, is no surprise and easily done.

Also not such a problem in NT, northern WA and Queensland due to the climate.

Victoria however, and to a lesser extent NSW, SA and southern WA it's a very real issue the solution to which realistically involves bulk energy storage.

 

[basilio]

No surprises here. The Scumo/ Tayor B/S public funded gas fired power station has no legs practically, economically or environmentally. It may not even operate effectively. Lesson 623 on how to ziss public funds into the pockets of potential political supporters.

A $600m gas power plant promised by the Morrison government is not needed and has no prospect of generating enough revenue to justify its cost, according to a new analysis.

A report by Victoria University’s energy policy centre suggested the case for the Hunter Valley plant, to be built by the publicly owned Snowy Hydro with taxpayers’ funds, failed on several grounds.

They included:

• New South Wales already had three “peaking” gas power plants and government advice had suggested there would be hardly any demand for the electricity they provided before 2030;
• the new plant was likely to cost at least 50% more to build than the $600m committed;
• and the proposed site at Kurri Kurri had a limited gas supply, raising questions about whether it would always be available or the plant would have to run on polluting diesel in the future.

Morrison government’s $600m gas power plant at Kurri Kurri not needed and won’t cover costs, analysts say

Little demand is likely for the ‘peaking’ plant before 2030, calling into question the Coalition’s claim it will reduce electricity prices

www.theguardian.com

 

[basilio]

Have to love the title of the report which excoriates the mendacity of the Scumo government.

The Kurri Kurri Power Station: charging taxpayers for hot air

This paper examines the merits of the $600M Kurri Kurri Power Station proposal announced by the Federal Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction on 19 May 2021.

Report by Professor Bruce Mountain, Dr Steven Percy and Ted Woodley. June 2021



Download the report (6.4mbs) by clicking on the image (left).

 

[sptrawler]

I guess the headline says it all Bas.

Morrison government’s $600m gas power plant at Kurri Kurri not needed and won’t cover costs, analysts say​

Since when has a public service, covered costs? Muppets feeding muppets IMO.

That is why it is called a public service, it is there because the public need it for their wellbeing, it isn't there to make a profit.
Some people are stealing oxygen IMO.

 

[Humid]

I guess the headline says it all Bas.

Morrison government’s $600m gas power plant at Kurri Kurri not needed and won’t cover costs, analysts say​

Since when has a public service, covered costs? Muppets feeding muppets IMO.

That is why it is called a public service, it is there because the public need it for their wellbeing, it isn't there to make a profit.
Some people are stealing oxygen IMO.

The moment they are privatised

 

[sptrawler]

The moment they are privatised

It won't be privatised, because it won't make money, if it isn't built the privates will run the coal generators until they fall over and the system with it.
It isn't rocket science, renewables are cheaper to build and operate, but they require a massive amount of storage to back it up, until that is built the at call generators are required.
The problem is they are making sod all money, because they are on for the morning peak, then taken off as the renewables come in, then have to be put back on for the evening peak. This is causing huge thermal stress problem and a huge wasted fuel cost bring them on and taking them off, so the privates don't want to spend any money on them.
So there is every likelyhood the system will become more and more unreliable, brand new firming capacity which is cleaner and more flexible is required.
You have a mech background one would think you could get head around it, I can understand Bas not having a clue, but your industrial background should make it easy for you.
From a personal perspective i really don't care one way or the other, but from a technical perspective it makes absolute sense, I don't think it will be the last gas turbine station that the government has to build, as the coal generators will become less and less viable.
The privates will bring forward the closing of the stations IMO, they will just become loss making albatrosses on the companies.

 

[Humid]

It won't be privatised, because it won't make money, if it isn't built the privates will run the coal generators until they fall over and the system with it.
It isn't rocket science, renewables are cheaper to build and operate, but they require a massive amount of storage to back it up, until that is built the at call generators are required.
The problem is they are making sod all money, because they are on for the morning peak, then taken off as the renewables come in, then have to be put back on for the evening peak. This is causing huge thermal stress problem and a huge wasted fuel cost bring them on and taking them off, so the privates don't want to spend any money on them.
So there is every likelyhood the system will become more and more unreliable, brand new firming capacity which is cleaner and more flexible is required.
You have a mech background one would think you could get head around it, I can understand Bas not having a clue, but your industrial background should make it easy for you.
From a personal perspective i really don't care one way or the other, but from a technical perspective it makes absolute sense, I don't think it will be the last gas turbine station that the government has to build, as the coal generators will become less and less viable.
The privates will bring forward the closing of the stations IMO, they will just become loss making albatrosses on the companies.

Well I answered your question....its just you didnt like the answer

 

[basilio]

Had a read of the report. The Executive Summary is very incisive. The rest just joins the dots into a damming picture. And they have a very clear understanding of the industry.

The main conclusions in this paper are:

1. The Government’s claim that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has substantiated the need for KKPS to fill a 1,000 MW supply gap when Liddell closes in 2023, is not true. AEMO forecasts no shortfall of dispatchable generation in NSW. In addition, recent battery and generation commitments since AEMO’s latest study have further increased the supply surplus.

2. KKPS is inflexible and slow to respond, taking 30 minutes to reach full capacity from start-up (even slower than Snowy Hydro’s existing Colongra gas generator). Its inflexibility will render it useless in most circumstances in the coming 5-minute settlement market (October 2021). For this reason also, the claim that KKPS will reduce prices is tenuous.

3. Peak Residual Demand (the Operating Demand less renewable generation) is declining sharply. If AEMO’s coal closure and storage expansion assumptions are correct, there is no demand for long duration peaking gas generation in the period to 2030. Consistent with this, AEMO’s Integrated System Plan (ISP) envisages that NSW’s peaking gas generation will together produce electricity for just 4 hours per year in the period to 2030 (in the Central Scenario) or 13 hours per year (in the Fast Change scenario).

4. Using AEMO’s build cost assumptions (and the demonstrated build cost of gas generators) KKPS is likely to cost at least 50% more than the $600 million that the Government has provided in the 2021/22 budget.

5. KKPS has been proposed as a source of long duration dispatchable capacity. But KKPS will have a limited supply of gas and its back-up diesel will be prohibitively expensive (and polluting). KKPS, like Colongra, is unlikely to be capable of running (at capacity) on gas for more than about five hours and it will then will take a day or so for its gas supply to recharge. Even adding its diesel, it will not be able to run continuously for around 40 hours.

We conclude that there is at best a tiny market for the sort of service that KKPS can offer and so it has no prospect of earning anywhere near the revenues needed to recover its outlay.

 

[Humid]

I guess the headline says it all Bas.

Morrison government’s $600m gas power plant at Kurri Kurri not needed and won’t cover costs, analysts say​

Since when has a public service, covered costs? Muppets feeding muppets IMO.

That is why it is called a public service, it is there because the public need it for their wellbeing, it isn't there to make a profit.
Some people are stealing oxygen IMO.

Did the power generator you worked for make a profit Homer?

 

[sptrawler]

Did the power generator you worked for make a profit Homer?

Until I retired, ? yes.

Really though they don't when you consider the amount of money they have to spend, like in W.A the NW shelf, SECWA had to contract to buy more gas than they could use, then had to convert Kwinana Power Station to run on gas. Add to that the cost of the pipeline and gas reticulation of Perth etc and the cost is enormous, then the cost of installing and maintaining transmission lines and supplying electricity via diesels in small outback towns and charging the customers the same price as Perth pay.
It really is something, that in my opinion, should never have been privatised over East.
Because you have to install a lot more electrical infrastructure than you actually need, to ensure you have a margin of safety, reliability and redundancy.
That model doesn't work when you have to make a profit.

 

[Knobby22]

Until I retired, ? yes.

Really though they don't when you consider the amount of money they have to spend, like in W.A the NW shelf, SECWA had to contract to buy more gas than they could use, then had to convert Kwinana Power Station to run on gas. Add to that the cost of the pipeline and gas reticulation of Perth etc and the cost is enormous, then the cost of installing and maintaining transmission lines and supplying electricity via diesels in small outback towns and charging the customers the same price as Perth pay.
It really is something, that in my opinion, should never have been privatised over East.
Because you have to install a lot more electrical infrastructure than you actually need, to ensure you have a margin of safety, reliability and redundancy.
That model doesn't work when you have to make a profit.

As young engineers, having to deal with them, we used to joke that SEC stood for slow easy comfortable as they could be sleepy to deal with but miss them compared to today where half the workforce are on contract and they are always undermanned. I do miss those days.

I do think they are more efficient but feel all the efficiency gains go to the overseas owners.

Also as you say SP, the authorities planned what they needed 20 years in advance but now it is all subject to political will which has at best a 5 year horizon.
(talking about the infrastructure guys, not generation or retail).

 

[sptrawler]

Yes Knobby, I think generation is the same these days.
I can understand the governments selling the infrastructure, because they can then use the money to fund other required infrastructure, without raising taxes.
The problem comes when like is happening now in the Eastern States, a disrupter enters the market( renewables) which makes the market players a lot less viable.
If the generators were public owned the stranded assetts wouldnt be such an issue, because it is just government loss, now with it being privately owned the privates end up with the stranded uneconomical assetts and dont like it, so get the media involved to sway public opinion.
Just same crap, different day. Comes under the heading of, it sounded like a great idea at the time.
But it does highlight why electricity really should be classed as an essential service and kept in public hands. Im just greatfull W.A isnt in the same boat.
All just my personal opinion.

 

[sptrawler]

As young engineers, having to deal with them, we used to joke that SEC stood for slow easy comfortable as they could be sleepy to deal with but miss them compared to today where half the workforce are on contract and they are always undermanned. I do miss those days.

I do think they are more efficient but feel all the efficiency gains go to the overseas owners.

Also as you say SP, the authorities planned what they needed 20 years in advance but now it is all subject to political will which has at best a 5 year horizon.
(talking about the infrastructure guys, not generation or retail).

The big difference between government and private I have found and I have worked for both, in heavy industry and generation, is that government tend to over engineer and replace things before they fail.
With private, most equipment is replaced or repaired when it fails and things are engineered to the specification.
This is generally due to one being driven by a social obligation and not a lot of cost obligation, whereas the other is driven by a production and cost obligation rather than a social one.
Both parties are made up of the same committed employees and managers, just different priorities, one isn't better than the other.
Some things are better done by government, other things are better done by private IMO, these are usually differentiated by whether it is an essential service or a cost driven service.
For example the SEC would build a power station years before it was needed, that doesn't work if you are a business, your production has to meet your demand any extra is essentially wastage and a holding cost on your balance sheet.
How inept would the government look if in 5 years there were rolling blackouts on the East coast for 2 years, while Kurri Kurri is built because it actually was required and the government says oh well the media and its experts said it wasn't needed or cost effective OMG.
If the media and experts are prepared to underwrite any resultant loses and public disruption caused because Kurri Kurri isn't built, well that's fair enough, as long as they put down money in trust until 2030.
Talk is cheap, until the crap hits the fan, then the ar$e covering starts. ? I've been in a situation where everything is black (on several occasions) with no electricity, people don't like it, if it happened for an extended period or on a regular basis it would get very ugly very quickly.
Just my opinion.

 

[sptrawler]

Had a read of the report. The Executive Summary is very incisive. The rest just joins the dots into a damming picture. And they have a very clear understanding of the industry.

The main conclusions in this paper are:

1. The Government’s claim that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has substantiated the need for KKPS to fill a 1,000 MW supply gap when Liddell closes in 2023, is not true. AEMO forecasts no shortfall of dispatchable generation in NSW. In addition, recent battery and generation commitments since AEMO’s latest study have further increased the supply surplus.

2. KKPS is inflexible and slow to respond, taking 30 minutes to reach full capacity from start-up (even slower than Snowy Hydro’s existing Colongra gas generator). Its inflexibility will render it useless in most circumstances in the coming 5-minute settlement market (October 2021). For this reason also, the claim that KKPS will reduce prices is tenuous.

3. Peak Residual Demand (the Operating Demand less renewable generation) is declining sharply. If AEMO’s coal closure and storage expansion assumptions are correct, there is no demand for long duration peaking gas generation in the period to 2030. Consistent with this, AEMO’s Integrated System Plan (ISP) envisages that NSW’s peaking gas generation will together produce electricity for just 4 hours per year in the period to 2030 (in the Central Scenario) or 13 hours per year (in the Fast Change scenario).

4. Using AEMO’s build cost assumptions (and the demonstrated build cost of gas generators) KKPS is likely to cost at least 50% more than the $600 million that the Government has provided in the 2021/22 budget.

5. KKPS has been proposed as a source of long duration dispatchable capacity. But KKPS will have a limited supply of gas and its back-up diesel will be prohibitively expensive (and polluting). KKPS, like Colongra, is unlikely to be capable of running (at capacity) on gas for more than about five hours and it will then will take a day or so for its gas supply to recharge. Even adding its diesel, it will not be able to run continuously for around 40 hours.

We conclude that there is at best a tiny market for the sort of service that KKPS can offer and so it has no prospect of earning anywhere near the revenues needed to recover its outlay.

Keep that thought princess, I will remind you of it at a later date, but no doubt you will have moved on to another windmill don quixote.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

What if the Callide unit doesn't come back, that was catastrophic damage, I know you don't understand that, but it is like you repairing your lawn mower for $1,000 , or just saying sod it I don't want to run it anyway. And just write it off.
You really have to dislocate yourself from the, I want it so it will happen if I shout loudly, to the what is realistically possible.
Muppet talk only works, until the muppets have to run the show, then those who are swimming naked are shown up. To coin a phrase.

Your whole assumptions are based on ridiculous media posts, that when you are sitting in the dark, your neighbours will be saying, but Bas you said it will be all good.

 

[sptrawler]

Now for another problem that will bring forward the closure of coal plants, that the muppet media don't take int account.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/alinta-calls-for-canberra-coal-lending-role/news-story/b2091c6708eb6737e695c2b5059be7dc&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21suffix=414-b
Why would Canberra(taxpayer) be the coal bank, much better to build a high efficiency gas plant, to hold the coal plants to account IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

A lot comes down not just to cost but who pays it.

Those who'll spend money to avoid a supply shortfall are, broadly speaking, not the same people who'll suffer if one occurs.

Same issue exists with emissions. The cost of climate change, and the cost of avoiding it, are largely involving two different groups of people. Not totally but largely.

No secret that I'm not a huge fan of building gas turbines though but, to be fair, no doubt there's plenty who'd be none too keen on my alternative approaches.

 

[Smurf1976]

As young engineers, having to deal with them, we used to joke that SEC stood for slow easy comfortable as they could be sleepy to deal with but miss them compared to today where half the workforce are on contract and they are always undermanned. I do miss those days.

Risk.

Purely from my own observations, government owned wants low risk and accepts low financial returns as the consequence of that. To the extent risk remains, it's internalised so far as possible with a firm "show must go on" approach.

Private wants higher returns and accepts greater risk as part of that with that risk then passed on to, in practice, a mix of consumers and insurers.

From a purely personal perspective, well I expect that by the time I'm dead the longest hours I'll ever have put in at work will have been for government not private. Government tends to be more laid back on average but when trouble strikes the workers do go to extremes that the private sector baulks at.