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
SirRumpole said:
I'm sure Smurf will be along soon.

As far as wind turbines go I believe they have adjustable blades that keeps them turning at the correct rpm.

Solar cells have inverters that convert dc to ac.

There ended my humble lesson.
Click to expand...
There you go Rumpy, how is that, give us ten. ?
 
That is just so good @Smurf1976 , it will take many a deep thought process and much googling to even get past the best bits, for most.
Mate you are magic.
@basilio and @rederob really need to read that post, they are very interested in the transition to renewables and to get an up to date snapshot of issues is great. Thanks smurf
Wish I could give you five stars .
 
Last edited:
After three days the fire is out, I wonder how much water was thrown on that, which actually probably would have made matters worse in an electrical fire. The batteries are now probably knackered? I wonder who pays for the flucked batteries?
looks like this summers demand peak operation, may be re scheduled, unless there are some spares.
This is exactly why timelines are difficult to meet, I wonder if the press will make a big issue of it? I don't think so.
Lucky Scomo didn't promise it for the summer peak.

Blaze at Tesla Big Battery extinguished after three days

About 150 firefighters and more than 30 fire trucks and support vehicles were at the blaze over the weekend as crews tried to bring the blaze under control.
www.theage.com.au
From the article:
The Victorian Big Battery, with a capacity of 300 megawatts and 450 megawatt-hours, is three times bigger than the initial size of billionaire Elon Musk’s Tesla big battery built in South Australia in 2017.
Owned and operated by French renewable energy giant Neoen, the battery was scheduled to begin operating before this summer’s peak demand period.

Neoen Australia’s managing director Louis de Sambucy said the fire at the site has “subsided” by Friday evening. He said emergency services remained at the site with Tesla staff and contractors to monitor the temperature decline of two affected battery packs.
But it wasn’t until about 3pm on Monday that firefighters were able to declare the blaze under control. The Country Fire Authority later confirmed it had been extinguished.
About 150 firefighters from the authority and Fire Rescue Victoria were on the scene over the weekend, as well as more than 30 fire trucks and support vehicles.
The CFA said some firefighters and fire trucks would remain at the Moorabool site for 24 hours in case the fire reignited.
Crews would monitor the damaged units by taking thermal temperature readings every two hours, the authority said.
Authorities had warned of toxic smoke billowing from the site on Friday. Victoria’s Environment Protection Authority has been monitoring air quality at the site over the weekend, and determined it was “good” by Monday afternoon.

A Victorian government spokeswoman said the Country Fire Authority, Energy Safe Victoria and WorkSafe Victoria would work with Neoen and Tesla to do a “full and comprehensive” investigation of the fire.
“This will span investigations into the basis of the fire, how it started and to ensure the site is safe as a workplace,” the government spokeswoman said.

“The battery has been disconnected from Victoria’s energy grid, and the Australian Energy Market Operator has advised there is no impact on our energy security.”
The Victorian Big Battery is one of several battery projects that have been announced in recent months.






https://www.theage.com.au/
 

Smurf, is there any redundancy to the transmission lines and connectors? For eg, if I dive down into Bass Straight and cut the cord, will Victoria go blank if we're running off their hydro?
 
As I understand it the role of synchronous condensers (SCs) is well understood, and there is a requirement in Australia on new connecting generators to 'do no harm' to the security of the power system in relation to any adverse impact on the ability to maintain system stability or on a nearby generating system to maintain stable operation.
A problem with this requirement that I am not sure has been resolved is that it leads to an overbuild of SCs as each new RE project is assessed on a standalone basis, and this necessarily increases the total cost of energy. My view is that a smarter approach would be for transmission network service providers to be fully responsible for system strength (inertia) and be able to charge a fee (on a pro rata basis) to new RE projects based on generating capacity. Such a framework would actually simplify the establishment and approval of RE projects while simultaneously placing this element of grid system security with its natural owners.
 
A good point Rob, it may be a problem to orchestrate the requirement, as the stability of the system will change with the introduction of new plant, yet the SC would probably be required remote of that plant.
Therefore I would guess it will be as you say, the responsibility of the overseeing body, to monitor and constantly change the requirement of the locations and size of the SC's and static reactors required.
Charging the generators an access charge, may well already happen.
 
sptrawler said:
A good point Rob, it may be a problem to orchestrate the requirement, as the stability of the system will change with the introduction of new plant, yet the SC may be required remote of that plant.
Click to expand...
That's partly what I am getting at. It makes no sense to me that a local generator needs to build inertia for a distant system. As I said, transmission network service providers (TNSPs) seem to be natural owners of this element of system security.
sptrawler said:
Therefore I would guess it will be the responsibility of the overseeing body, to monitor and constantly change the requirement of the locations and size of the SC's and static reactors required.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that only occurs because TNSPs are absolved from ensuring security of electricity supply to end use customers.
 
kennas said:
Smurf, is there any redundancy to the transmission lines and connectors? For eg, if I dive down into Bass Straight and cut the cord, will Victoria go blank if we're running off their hydro?
Click to expand...
It depends.....

There are certainly areas where supply relies on a single transmission line for which there is no backup, there's one line and that's it. Port Lincoln and surrounds plus the York Peninsula are among examples in SA plus others such as Broken Hill in NSW and various in other states.

That said, there's a couple of diesel-fired gas turbines at Broken Hill, plus wind and solar connected there as well, which amount to a backup to the transmission line rather than a backup of the line. Much the same at Port Lincoln with three small diesel-fired gas turbines and wind. So a backup of sorts, just not in the form of an actual transmission line. Plenty of situations however where there's no backup, it's a single line and that's it.


What matters at the overall state or multiple states level however isn't the existence of direct like for like backup to any individual part of the system but rather, the ability of the system overall to withstand individual failures without the lights going out.

For example three lines run between Victoria and SA but they're not really a backup since they're all used. That is, capacity is 820 MW between them under ideal conditions. Take any one of them out of service and now there's less capacity.

What matters in that scenario of taking those lines out is whether supply can be maintained in both SA and Victoria without them. That then gets into some serious assessment of the probabilities:

Probability that one line fails is x.

Probability that two lines fail is not zero but it's a fair bit lower than x.

Probability that one line fails plus y amount of generation also isn't available at the same time is y.

Plus we now need to factor in wind and solar generation plus of course consumption at the time.

Back to Victoria well connection to Tasmania is really just another source of supply. If it fails then from a Victorian perspective the question, apart from purely economic issues, is about whether other sources of supply can meet demand?

Chance that Basslink fails is x.

Chance that Basslink fails + there's high demand at the time is y.

Chance that some other supply source also fails is z.

Chance that there's no wind is some other figure.

And so on.

So there's no direct backup to transmission between Tasmania and Victoria, it's a single link without redundancy, but whether any failure actually matters comes down to the whole of system capability at the time.

In practice Victoria (and NSW and SA) are in a situation where there's not really enough capacity from a strictly technical perspective. It just needs the stars to line up and down we go. Take any random significant source of generation out (breakdowns etc) + it's a heatwave + not much wind = problem.

That's ultimately a political and economic decision rather than one that's determined by anything technical given that more generation of whatever sort could be built if the decision was made to do so. Noting that in the context of peak demand an interconnection with somewhere else (eg second cable to Tasmania and development of pumped storage in Tas) or a storage system such as a battery (eg the Victorian Big Battery presently being commissioned albeit with an unplanned fire incident), can be considered as generation.

Strictly speaking a battery isn't generation but in practice it achieves the same end result of adding peak supply capacity provided that there's real, actual, generation surplus to requirements at off-peak times with which to charge the battery. Or in other words batteries are a solution only up to a point, they can make better use of other generation, but so long as that's the case they do indeed add to peak capacity.

So if Vic - Tas transmission fails then whilst it's all or nothing, there's only one cable between the two states, the impact on supply to consumers depends on the ability of other sources to meet demand. A blackout or two during peak demand times in Victoria would certainly be a possible result. The same would however occur if any other supply source to Victoria fails, noting that Tas - Vic transmission isn't the largest single thing that could fail indeed it's quite some way down the list. There are 7 generating units in Victoria that are individually slightly larger, and there's more than one major substation that's more critical.

Which brings me to another point - scale.

Building large single pieces of infrastructure has a key advantage in that there's a very substantial scale of economy with all this. Indeed Basslink was built at 478 MW largely for that reason - anything much smaller wasn't economic to build at all.

Much the same reason why it's no surprise that the state which had the smallest coal industry, SA, has been the first to see it end. Small scale meant higher costs.

The downside of course is that large single pieces of infrastructure mean a lot is lost if it fails. One incident and you've lost rather a lot of supply, thus necessitating a higher level of total system capacity in order to cope with such occurrences.

So there's a balance point there on the economic side plus some hard technical limits as well beyond which scale can't be increased without posing a threat to the entire system if (when.....) failures occur.

Taking Victoria as an example, the largest individual generating unit is 580 MW and that's 5.57% of all time peak demand and about 9.1% of average demand. Those figures aren't a problem hence why it was built.

If that 580 MW individual unit were in SA however then from a purely technical perspective that would be hugely problematic. Average load is about 1500 MW, peak is 3400 MW and losing that 580 MW suddenly (if it fails) would place the entire system at risk there and then. It's just too big a loss to easily keep the rest stable so such a facility, if it were built in SA, would need to use multiple smaller machines to get around that problem. Downside is higher cost to build and also higher cost to operate.

So there's a technical upper limit on scale but apart from that it's an economic decision. Larger means cheaper per unit of production but at the expense of needing more total capacity in order to cope with outages. Individually large supply sources aren't a problem as such, subject to the hard technical limits, so long as the overall system is equipped to cope with failure.

Looking ahead, well there's a proposal to build two new cables across Bass Strait at 750 MW each, thus bringing the total transmission capacity up to 1978 MW. Associated with that is the development of new pumped storage capacity in Tasmania.

Now in case anyone's wondering as to the logic behind that, why not just build pumped storage in Victoria instead and save the cost of transmission, the reasons are really quite straightforward. Tasmania can beat the other states on cost even with the cost of transmission included. That's the Hydro Tasmania claim and the CSIRO's estimates have come to the same conclusion. Add in the relatively limited interest from anyone else in actually doing it plus the fact that multiple such schemes will be needed anyway (so there's room for more) and that makes it very likely the Tasmanian projects and associated transmission will proceed.

The new cable route is planned to be quite some distance away from the present one by the way. A worst case scenario of a sinking ship landing on it won't be able to get them all at once. As such, risk of a cable failing isn't really much different to the risk of any other generator failing apart from the detail of how to fix etc but the broad scale is comparable. Marinus Link 1 & 2 at 750 MW each versus 580 MW for the largest present generator in Victoria, 720 MW is the largest in NSW and 750 MW is the largest in Queensland so the cables are comparable with existing plant scale.

A bigger risk across Bass Strait would be gas. Whilst it's a fairly minor fuel in Tasmania, it all comes through a single pipeline and there's zero backup of any kind in terms of supplying actual natural gas into the state. Some end users have backup arrangements using other fuels (eg diesel) but there's no backup for gas itself physically.
 
It was an excellent piece of observation and analysis. Bottom line is that going renewable is not rocket science and that practical solutions are well within technical and financial capacity.

On any analysis a decisive planned move to a decentralised renewable energy plus storage energy system will radically improve our environment, health, manufacturing industry and finances.
 

Hopefully the CCP aren't reading ASF as they now have a blueprint on how to knock out SE Australia's electricity grid. 5 x ICBMs and a remote sub with clippers and we're toast.
 
The bigger picture that Smurf has outlined in his recent posts has been the issues of risk management with regard to the critical infrastructure of our energy grid.

As Smurf and other engineers on ASF are well aware "once-upon-a-time" engineers had overall responsibility for building and maintenance of this infrastructure. It was over engineered. There was built in redundancy. There was the elemental understanding that by definition extreme events would inevitably result in critical outages across the board. For example a heat wave will stress power plants, transmission lines, increase loads with foreseeable consequences.

This reality has been ignored in the purely economic approach to infrastructure stability. The opportunity and necessity of the current rebuild of our energy infrastructure is to recognise the increase stresses global heating is putting on systems and develop technologies and systems that can survive.
 
kennas said:
Hopefully the CCP aren't reading ASF as they now have a blueprint on how to knock out SE Australia's electricity grid. 5 x ICBMs and a remote sub with clippers and we're toast.
Click to expand...
The information's publicly available to anyone for the record.

Whether or not it ought to be is another question.....
 
Funny about wondering how vulnerable Australia would be to a few well placed ICBMs

A few weeks ago I was reading a story on the shortage of computer chips for cars computers whatever. I then fully realised that computer chip manufacturing is an extremely delicate and expensive high tech operation. I believe there are 3 major plants in the world in Sth Korea, Taiwan and China that supply the majority of chips that basically run every single thing we use.

Be a pretty sad day if something dramatic happened to these plants .. IMV our glittering technological world has more than a few swords of Damocles hanging overhead.
 
There will only be two, if China occupies Taiwan, also as far as I know the really top end chips aren't built in China.
 
In terms of security etc, all this stuff used to be far more open to the public.

There was a time years ago when Hydro Tas ran regular public tours of Gordon Power Station in particular indeed they ran multiple times every day such was the level of public interest.

There was even a special bus built for that purpose. Full size bus with a steering wheel at both ends to avoid the need to turn it around underground (Gordon power station is underground).

There's a video of the tunnel journey (not in the yellow bus however) here. It's not very exciting but it's rather narrow yes.
Various others too. Eg the front door at the manned stations was simply simply left unlocked and anyone who wanted to could simply park out the front, wander in, follow the signs to the office and find someone to show them around.

Other states much the same. Not sure of the exact figure but a truly massive number of people visited the old (now closed) Yallourn stations A, B, C, D and E over the years. Not sure exactly how many but it was a huge number of people went through back in an era when the general public was far more interested in how things are made etc than seems to be the case these days.

So there's a lot of people who'd have a pretty good idea as to what's where and so on.
 
Yes @Smurf1976, when I did my apprenticeship at Muja A/B the gatekeeper was the security and the first aid dept, also there was only one station clerk, how things change.
 
New Zealand introduces rolling blackouts, as demand exceeds supply.

North Island hit by rolling outages after electricity demand reaches 'all-time high'

Transpower said it did not have enough generation to maintain the demand.
www.newshub.co.nz
From the article:
Areas across the North Island have been plunged into darkness on Monday night after demand for electricity reached an all-time high.

Transpower, which owns and operates New Zealand's national grid, said in a statement posted to social media earlier Monday evening it did not have enough generation to maintain the demand.

"Insufficient generation has been made available to meet demand and manage a secure system.

"As a result, Transpower in our capacity as managers of the power system (the system operator) has asked the distribution companies to reduce load across the country.

"Different companies will do this in different ways, some manage via load control on hot water, some manage via customer disconnections."
The situation was expected to be resolved by 9pm when peak demand passes.

WEL Networks, which operates in the Waikato area, said the outages will not impact individual customers for more than four hours.

"As a precautionary measure, all medically dependent customers are advised to action their back-up plans or go to Waikato Hospital if required.


"We thank you in advance for your patience and understanding, and we will keep you updated."
Unison, which operates the electricity network that serves the Hawke's Bay, Taupo and Rotorua regions, shared the following message:

"Unison is currently responding to a Transpower request for electricity lines companies nationwide to reduce load on the national grid
"This means that we are having to conduct a series of rolling power outages across our networks in Hawkes Bay, Taupo and Rotorua.

"We fully understand that these outages are frustrating and inconvenient, especially given the current cold snap hitting our regions. We will do all we can to minimise the duration of these outages and apologise for any inconvenience."
 
Meanwhile they're having some trouble in South Africa:



This was a fully operational power station prior to the incident, it's not a demolition site, indeed it's only been in service since 2015 to my understanding.

Unit capacity is (or was.....) 794MW using steam from a coal-fired boiler with six identical units in the station commissioned progressively 2015 - 19.

Hydrogen explosion caused by human error apparently.

It's not my photo obviously, just one that's being circulated of the incident.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
711
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
467
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...