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
sptrawler said:
What has that got to do with whether the gas turbines are required?
Click to expand...
In a paper from June 2021, the experts conclude that “there is at best a tiny market for the sort of service that [Kurri Kurri power station] can offer and so it has no prospect of earning anywhere near the revenues needed to recover its outlay”.

This is due to the relatively small demand for gas peaking power as well as the presence of the Colongra gas peaking plant 50 kilometres from Kurri Kurri. Colongra was bought by Snowy Hydro for $234 million in 2015 and is almost identical to Kurri Kurri and already provides much the same service that Kurri Kurri is supposed to.

Maybe just read it
 
It is difficult on the phone, to chase up the info, Im going off the fact that @Smurf1976 has shown that at times this summer generation has been tight, there is a lot of coal generation that is getting cycled hard and there is 2,000MW being retired and no new at call generation going in.
To me it doesnt add up, but hey Labor last year was saying Kurri Kurri wasnt needed, now they are saying it is and going by the media it is more a vote loser than winner.
Maybe @Smurf1976 can explain the situation better. But it sounded as though this summer was tight.
From the article you posted, they really didnt say anything, other than batteries do the same job, which is nonsense, if the renewables output is low the batteries arent charged and pumped hydro isnt chaged, then you need at call generation to not only suplly the load, but also charge your storage.


Schedule for the closure of AGL plants in NSW and SA

AGL has today informed the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) of the schedule for closing its Liddell power station in the Upper Hunter region of NSW and its Torrens A power station near Adelaide in South Australia to provide advance notice of the station closures in accordance with...
www.agl.com.au
 
Last edited:
But you ridicule my 8 year argument ......plenty of politics in this but us dumb taxpayers pay the price
 
Humid said:
But you ridicule my 8 year argument ......plenty of politics in this but us dumb taxpayers pay the price
Click to expand...
Us dumb taxpayers always do.
Also I didnt ridicule your 8 year argument, I didnt understand what it had to do with the gas turbine plant, I still dont. It wasnt meant to offend.
I actually think that some new at call generation, other than coal is probably needed. In W.A we are replacing a lot of old coal generation with GT's. We dont need them, but if we want to shut down coal we do.
Its exactly the same over East, there is a lot of old coal stations running, that dont like being started and stopped twice a day and as more renewables get put in that will happen more and more. That will kill the coal units, much better to have GT's for the times that mode of operation is required.
 
Last edited:
Sticking to the facts and ignoring trivial sources (so not listing backup generators in hospitals, landfill gas and other embedded generators) and excluding intermittent sources the present dispatchable generation fleet in NSW is:

Coal:

Liddell. Original capacity 2000 MW is presently de-rated to 1680 MW with reduction to 1260 MW with closure of unit 3 on 1 April 2022 and complete plant closure in 2023.

Vales Point B - 1320 MW closing in 2029.

Eraring - 2880 MW. Planned to be reduced to 2160 MW in 2030, 1440 MW in 2031 and complete closure in 2032.

Bayswater - 2740 MW closing in the window 2030 - 33.

Mt Piper - 1430 MW closing approximately 2040 but probably vary a bit in practice.

Redbank - 150 MW. This facility is not presently in operation but from a technical perspective could be returned to service with various proposals to do so either burning coal or some other fuel. Whether it ever happens is anyone's guess really.

Gas:

Tallawarra - 440 MW combined cycle closing in 2043.

Smithfield - Has been de-rated from 171 MW to 120 MW with closure of the steam turbine, only the three 40 MW gas turbines remaining for open cycle operation. Closing 2044.

Uranquinty - 664 MW open cycle closing in 2044.

Colongra - 724 MW open cycle. This one's more complex, being fuel limited to a maximum 5 hours operation at full output in any 24 hour period on gas, beyond which fuel supply must switch to diesel. In normal circumstances fuel switching is straightforward but there has been one incident where failure occurred, tripping generation offline and resulting in actual load shedding (blackouts) in parts of NSW at the time. Closure date is nominally 2070 noting this is a rarely used facility.

Liquid fuel plant:

Hunter Valley - 50 MW open cycle gas turbine. Unexpectedly ceased operation in early 2020 and officially permanently closed at midnight 31 December 2021 as uneconomic to return to service.

Broken Hill - 50 MW (2 x 25 MW) open cycle gas turbine. Closing 2026.

Eraring - 40 MW open cycle gas turbine fuelled by diesel. Closing 2032. Note that the plant is technically capable of constant full load operation however regulations restrict operation to a maximum of 200 hours per annum due to air pollution.

Hydro:

Guthega - 66 MW and part of the Snowy scheme but effectively separate to the rest apart from being one of the water sources for Murray 1 & 2 (which are electrically in Victoria not NSW). The power station has minimal water storage capacity, and cannot access the main Snowy storages, thus operating according to flows at the time.

Tumut 1 - 330 MW and the first use of water released from Lake Eucumbene in a northerly direction. Part of the Snowy scheme.

Tumut 2 - 286 MW and re-uses water discharged by Tumut 1 upstream.

Tumut 3 - 1800 MW and reuses discharge from Tumut 2. Unlike the other two, Tumut 3 is not capable of sustained operation at full output, since it uses far more water than is released from Lake Eucumbene via Tumut 1 & 2 and thus draws down Talbingo Reservoir when in operation. It's strictly a peaking plant only and incorporates 600 MW of pumping capacity, for use as pumped storage from Jounama Pondage (immediately below the power station), to aid that use.

Snowy 2.0 - 2040 MW under construction and discharges in to Talbingo Reservoir thus increasing the ability for Tumut 3 to operate at high output in addition to generating 2040 MW (6 x 340 MW machines) itself.

Jounama - 14 MW. Generates from water released from Jounama Pondage, that which isn't to be pumped for re-use, into Blowering Reservoir. Notable feature - when Blowering Reservoir is at high level the power station is completely surrounded by water and effectively its own island with only the top of the structure visible and the rest under water. See photo here: https://www.geotech.net.au/images/speasyimagegallery/albums/14/images/03.jpg

Blowering - 80 MW with operation determined primarily by water release for irrigation not by the need for electricity. Water discharged from the Snowy scheme into NSW all ends up in Blowering Reservoir. Hume Dam (58 MW), Copeton (21 MW) and Wyangala (22.5 MW) plus various smaller hydro facilities in NSW operate on the same basis, they're for irrigation and electricity's just a by-product.

Shoalhaven - 240 MW pumped storage scheme able to discharge constantly at full load for up to 28 hours at a time.

Biomass:

Broadwater - 38 MW biomass fuelled plant. Has no announced closure date.

Condong - 30 MW biomass fuelled plant. Has no announced closure date.

Battery:

Wallgrove Grid Battery - Nominal life sees it close in 2036. Capacity is 50 MW / 75 MWh.

Totals:

Total existing plant = 15123 MW (excluding plant already closed or mothballed)

Plant closing between 2022 and 2033 = 8710 MW

Snowy 2.0 under construction = 2040 MW

That leaves a gap of 6670 MW of firm, dispatchable generation required. Plus whatever additional is required on account of growth in demand noting the push to "electrify everything" and move away from the use of petrol, diesel, gas etc for transport and heating purposes.

With a related issue on the energy, as distinct from power, side in that most remaining capacity, that which isn't closing, is energy constrained or is storage only. Eg Colongra using gas (without diesel), Tumut 3, Shoalhaven and any current or medium term future battery has a very limited running time without needing a rest or recharge thus requiring that a major expansion of energy input (eg wind, solar or another means) also take place.

Overall as a project it's not a total rebuild but it's a major task overall.

My personal view is I'd favour a fully renewable option but realistically it will not happen, there's no chance of that, the political will just isn't there. Technically it could be done but in practice won't happen, gas will be part of the mix going forward that's a given and diesel will play some role too.
 
sptrawler said:
Maybe @Smurf1976 can explain the situation better. But it sounded as though this summer was tight.
Click to expand...
This summer has thus far seen actual load shed in Queensland due to lack of available supply with 331 MW voluntarily cut on the 1st of February. Had that not been done, it would simply have been cut by force instead so the "voluntary" aspect is a bit like saying you voluntarily pay tax or you voluntarily followed directions given by police. T

here's no real choice, it's just everyone being polite by asking nicely and avoiding the use of actual force but ultimately if supply's inadequate then load is being cut be that "voluntarily" or otherwise.

Note that implementing that cut doesn't mean there's then an abundance of supply for everyone else, it only restored it to just scraping through:


That's a cut & paste of the real market notice issued at the time.

Meanwhile a few months ago same in NSW:


Looking at the supply side of that incident in NSW, at 17:15 so right in the middle of it all 4 units at Liddell were on so with actual output as measured of 1406.6 MW

Without those there would have indeed been load shedding on that occasion, the only question being the forced versus voluntary nature of it.
 
IMO full renewables is too expensive for the private sector to justify on ROE and for the Govt it would mean being heavily involved competing against the private sector, if they put in the renewables.
From the Govt point of view the gas option is a win/win, it still allows the private sector to put in the renewables, but gives the Govt certainly of supply for a relatively cheap price.
Also working in conjunction with Snowy 2.0, it gives the renewables some breathing space, until enough renewables are in place to effectively feed the load and charge the ever increasing storage.
 
And on the other end of the spectrum
FromThe (other) ABC news
Talk is cheap, building them is not.
Macron is up for re-election, and note that construction will not start for another6 years.
Mick
 
The Clean Energy Council has released an overarching plan of how Australia can move swiftly and efficiently to clean, renewable energy economy. Nothing new here but it does note all the issues raised in this thread..

Nine policies to transform Australia​

As Australia’s federal election looms, the Clean Energy Council has released a set of nine policy suggestions to realise not only Australia’s decarbonisation, but its potential as a clean energy superpower. The suggestions range from electrifying everything, allocating $1 billion to transition coal communities, and setting hydrogen blending targets for gas networks.
February 8, 2022 Bella Peacock

Clean Energy Council

Share​


Ahead of the federal election, industry peak body the Clean Energy Council has released its Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future: Federal Election Policy Recommendations which outlines policy paths for the next federal government to deliver on Australia’s emission reduction commitments and realise the advantages of our natural renewable resources.

The Clean Energy Council’s vision was delivered in the form of a nine-point plan. I will go into more detail on the proposed policies, but as a taster each of the nine pathways could be summarised as:
  1. Electrify Australia
  2. Incentivise Australians to switch to clean energy
  3. Upgrade electricity networks
  4. Organise workforces and supply chains
  5. Fund coal communities’ transitions
  6. Accelerate Australia’s energy market reforms
  7. Fund clean energy innovation
  8. Decarbonise industry
  9. Fund hydrogen to achieve maximum export potential
In short, the plan seems to move in chronological priorities, promoting the internal delivery of an 100% renewable electricity grid within the decade, while then setting up the foundations to build hydrogen capacity primarily as an export industry in the longer term future.

The Clean Energy Council (CEC) estimates Australia will need to add at least 30 GW of solar and wind to replace coal generation by 2040. To power an ‘all-electric Australia’ – meaning switching household appliances, cars, industry etc to electric models – would require renewable energy production in Australia to increase 20 fold.

Nine policies to transform Australia

As Australia’s federal election looms, the Clean Energy Council has released a set of nine policy suggestions to realise not only Australia’s decarbonisation, but its potential as a clean energy superpower. The suggestions range from electrifying everything, allocating $1 billion to transition...
www.pv-magazine-australia.com
 
basilio said:
In short, the plan seems to move in chronological priorities
Click to expand...
A point often forgotten is that there's no reason to not do everything at once.

There are some situations where A has to happen before B but to very considerable extent that's not the case. A and C and E can all happen at once and, since it's different people physically doing them, it's not a problem to do so.

Case in point - we can build new houses as all-electric starting right now, that's a completely separate task to changing the means of generating that electricity. It's different organisations involved and, apart perhaps from doing work on their own home, there's basically no tradie who works in power stations and on housing construction, it's different people involved so it's not a case of competing for resources.

Likewise it doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. Installing a heat pump water heater or example has benefits despite the same house still burning fossils to heat the lounge room or cook dinner. Etc. There's no law precluding owning an EV and calling into a servo to buy 5 litres of petrol for the lawnmower. And so on. Every step forward is of benefit, it's not an all or nothing situation.
 
sptrawler said:
Also @basilio if they need 30 GW of solar wind, they need 60 GW of storage to compliment it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.. When grids are interconnected as they are across Australia the flow of power across wind and solar and pumped hydro over the Eastern States offers substantial insurance against reduced power output.

The opportunity of using electric cars as a virtual battery bank is also on the table. The rise of community power banks is there as well. So certainly there will be some big battery banks in the equation but there will many ways to

I noticed that FGM are proposing massive battery banks to supplement their wind/solar project. This will be essentially a closed system so they need to do all the balancing. At this stage they are developing the plans which will be implemented over the next 7-10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there are running changes to the technology they use as various hydrogen, solar, battery and pumped hydro technologies mature and become more economic.
 
sptrawler said:
All this time all these discussions, still no change. ?
Click to expand...
Indeed SP. In the last few years we have seen the reality of what is happening with renewable energy generation and the range of actual and possible back up power options. I thought it was becoming far clearer that simply stating one needed 200% more battery storage than power supply was no longer axiomatic if indeed it ever was.

Anyway these analysis offer practical and pragmatic engineering approach to the issue. The headline is cheeky. The explanation quite sound. The power systems already embed much redundancy and back up capacity.

How much "backup power" is needed for solar and wind? - SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Answer: None. Not if the utility is planning correctly! Ok, that was a smart-aleck answer. But I’ve got a point: When people talk about a “backup,” they tend to think of a…
cleanenergy.org

How much storage and back-up do high renewable grids need?

According to a new CSIRO and ENA report, not nearly as much as the naysayers would have you think.
reneweconomy.com.au
 
What is happening now with our National Power grid. The analysis totally undermines the ScoMo government push for a gas fired recovery. Pure BS.

The continued rise of renewables came as gas generation declined across the country to its lowest level in more than 15 years.

In New South Wales (NSW), gas provided just 1.5% of the state’s power while in South Australia (SA), gas generation fell to its lowest level in more than two decades.

Renewables provided SA with more than double the power generated from gas with renewables generating 66% of the state’s electricity while gas only accounted for 34%.

Climate Council senior researcher Tim Baxter said Victoria had experienced the biggest jump in renewable energy generation of anywhere in Australia in 2021, increasing 30% last year.

“On the flipside, gas provided less than 2% of the state’s power,” he said. “That’s a whopping 39% fall from the year before, and the biggest drop in gas use of any mainland state over the same 12-month period.”

Renewables reach new highs in NEM as fossil fuels slump to historic lows

Renewable energy production reached record highs in Australia in 2021 with new data from the Climate Council revealing clean technologies including rooftop solar and utility scale PV supplied five times more power into the nation’s largest electricity grid than gas.
www.pv-magazine-australia.com
 

Batteries can supply only a few hours of power at most.

If you get weeks of overcast weather which can happen any time you need something that can start up and shutdown quickly and run as long as you need them.

Gas turbines , whether powered by gas, hydrogen, diesel, ethanol or other suitable fuels are such devices.

We may rarely need them, but we still buy insurance policies for our houses and cars, they are there in case...
 
How many batteries does it save having 660MW of gas turbines sitting there, that can run as long as you require them?

Answer, it saves heaps of batteries, Victoria's new "big Battery" can provide 450MW for 1 hour.

The proposed gas turbines can provide 660MW for as long as required and if run on green hydrogen can do it cleanly.

Also the batteries have a finite life which will be much shorter than the Gas Turbines, especially if they are operated infrequently.
 
So far as renewables and storage is concerned, a chart:

This is a daily chart for Victoria over the past 12 months to and including Sunday 13 February 2020 showing wind (green) and solar (yellow) generation only. The solar figures include the estimated total production from small (rooftop) systems as well as large solar farms.



Looking at that chart, I draw attention to the periods of multiple consecutive days of low yield:

23 - 30 April inclusive (8 days)

11 - 14 June inclusive (4 days)

5 July - 10 July inclusive (6 days)

Those are what I and a few others are calling VRE droughts (Variable Renewable Energy - wind and solar) and looking back over the entire history of wind and solar in the National Electricity Market, we get a similar situation each and every year without exception, there's always at least one so they're not unexpected.

The particularly difficult problems being that they occur at times of high demand, the week 5 - 11 July was Victoria's second highest consumption week for the year exceeded only slightly by the week of 24 - 30 January 2020.

If we include the use of gas, on the assumption that there's a desire to shift that to electricity, then that relationship is even stronger with winter by far the highest consumption season and also the one where VRE droughts occur. Noting that gas dominates the space heating market in Victoria.

THAT is the elephant in the room with all this. How to cope with a week or so of terribly low yields which just happens to coincide with, if we assume a shift to electric heating from gas, the absolute peak of consumption.

Now before anyone says "but that's only Victoria Smurf, it won't happen in the other states at the same time" unfortunately it does. In the context of the NEM, the only state that didn't see low yields at the exact same time was Queensland although even it was below average just not drastically so.










That the lights stay on is because:



It's not a coincidence that the period of highest hydro output is the same period as lowest wind + solar output in multiple states. That's completely intentional.

And gas:



And whilst on a smaller scale, diesel ramped up at the same time too:



That there is the greatest challenge with all of this.

Storing energy on a short term basis, using the midday sun to run lights at night, is straightforward and very doable. It's the energy equivalent of investing during a bull market - it's not that hard to make it work.

It's coping with the week of poor yields which also sees a jump in consumption that's the hard bit.

It wouldn't be impossible to do it with hydro, from a purely physical perspective it's doable, but the big problem can be summed up quite briefly by saying that there are over 20,000 sites for pumped storage and the fall into two categories:

1. A very large number of individually small sites that store typically 3 GWh each although it does vary.

2. A very small number of individually large sites storing tens, hundreds or even thousands of GWh.

Now to get 8 hours of storage the sites in the first category are very doable. Take a 2 GWh site, install 250 MW of generating capacity and it runs for 8 hours.

Trouble is, if you want 200 hours out of it well now you can only install 10 MW of capacity and that kills the economics stone dead beyond belief. Go down that track and the problem is that, based on AEMO's calculations of 19GW of firm non-constrained capacity required, it's simply cost prohibitive to do it with lots of tiny schemes. They work if you're going to develop them for 8 or 10 hours storage, but not if you want a week's worth since the cost is just too high given the number required.

That leaves the large sites which, due to scale of economy, are far cheaper per GWh stored. One big dam versus a hundred or more "turkey nest" dams - the big one wins hands down. There are sites where 1000 MW or more can be installed at a single location quite easily.

Just one elephant ready to squash the table and all those sitting around it there and I think we all know what that one is - those big sites are mostly in National Parks or other similarly designated areas yes.

That's the primary reason nobody's going anywhere near that one. If we're going to build big dams in National Parks etc then that'll have to come from the Prime Minister, there's zero interest in the industry in starting a war on that scale. Even state Premiers generally won't go anywhere near the concept.

Hence the universal assumption that gas will remain part of the mix going forward with the only question being about the detail of what that gas actually is. Some of it will be natural gas, some will be diesel simply because it's so easy to store as a backup. But longer term there are certainly thoughts that hydrogen could be the gas used and that coal gasification might also play a role.

Personally I'd argue more toward renewables and that a scientific, not political, process ought to be the determinant of whether or not a dam can be built at any given location. There are certainly places that should be left untouched, wilderness has a very real value, but likewise the need to move away from fossil fuels is real and urgent and not everywhere that a big dam could be built is genuinely worthy of protecting.

Politically however nobody's going near that one at least not right now. Gas is the path of least resistance and the one that will be chosen. Hence AEMO and even the existing hydro operators are all working on that basis, gas is part of the mix going forward since politically it's hard to see any other option gaining traction in reality.

All charts posted sourced from OpenNEM
 

Attachments

  • 1644816614867.png
    123.1 KB · Views: 3
  • 1644816342793.png
    57.5 KB · Views: 3
  • 1644816320410.png
    87.4 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:

I think a lot of people don't get the distinction between gas (natural gas as a fuel) and gas turbines which produce a gas from burning a fuel which may be but doesn't have to be natural gas.

Once people get the idea that they can also run on hydrogen or bio-fuels then maybe the Greenies won't scream as much whenever they hear the word gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
716
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
469
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...