The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

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.

I think a lot of people don't realise that a gas turbine is just like a big battery, if you have bulk storage of clean fuel to run it, it is just another big storage medium.
The loonies think because it physically runs and is called a gas turbine, it is a fossil fueled monster.

Here is another article that tells us that the State Governments need to be installing serious storage, when they are spending money to curtail excess renewable generation, rather than spending money installing storage to capture it, be that pumped hydro, electrolysis H2 or even batteries.

As household solar stresses the grid, WA and South Australia will have the power to turn it off

Authorities are moving to gain more control over rooftop solar panels amid a ballooning number of installations that are threatening to overload the grid at certain times.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Humid]

I think a lot of people don't realise that a gas turbine is just like a big battery, if you have bulk storage of clean fuel to run it, it is just another big storage medium.
The loonies think because it physically runs and is called a gas turbine, it is a fossil fueled monster.

Here is another article that tells us that the State Governments need to be installing serious storage, when they are spending money to curtail excess renewable generation, rather than spending money installing storage to capture it, be that pumped hydro, electrolysis H2 or even batteries.

As household solar stresses the grid, WA and South Australia will have the power to turn it off

Authorities are moving to gain more control over rooftop solar panels amid a ballooning number of installations that are threatening to overload the grid at certain times.

www.abc.net.au

So where is the bulk storage of clean fuel?

 

[Macquack]

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.

My over-simplistic solution to overcast weather is to get more solar panels. Obviously, solar panels produce less power in overcast conditions, but they still produce power. I have been off-grid for 4 years and have never needed to charge the batteries apart from the sun. My thinking is to have more panels and less batteries, as the panels are cheaper than the batteries. If you have enough solar panels then your battery capacity only needs to be enough to carry you overnight.

 

[SirRumpole]

My over-simplistic solution to overcast weather is to get more solar panels. Obviously, solar panels produce less power in overcast conditions, but they still produce power. I have been off-grid for 4 years and have never needed to charge the batteries apart from the sun. My thinking is to have more panels and less batteries, as the panels are cheaper than the batteries. If you have enough solar panels then your battery capacity only needs to be enough to carry you overnight.

Congratulations on being off grid. Do you ever need to use say a petrol generator, or is it all solar and batteries ?

 

[sptrawler]

So where is the bulk storage of clean fuel?

Better ask Albo, he is the one pushing it.?

 

[Humid]

Better ask Albo, he is the one pushing it.?

Dumber than your original post

 

[sptrawler]

Dumber than your original post

Well it cant be dumber than you, Albo wants Kurri Kurri running H2 by 2030?.
Maybe try explaining yourself, but I do understand that could strain you.?

 

[Humid]

Well it cant be dumber than you, Albo wants Kurri Kurri running H2 by 2030?.
Maybe try explaining yourself, but I do understand that could strain you.?

The loonies think because it physically runs and is called a gas turbine, it is a fossil fueled monster

 

[Humid]

The few hundred I've worked on are fossil fuelled monsters

 

[Macquack]

Congratulations on being off grid. Do you ever need to use say a petrol generator, or is it all solar and batteries ?

I do have a cheap chinese petrol generator (remote start and fuel injected) of about 7 Kw that I use for MIG welding. I don't want to risk using the inverter.

 

[sptrawler]

The few hundred I've worked on are fossil fuelled monsters

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying and highlights the accuracy of my post.
You obviously fall under the bell shaped curve of the loonies.?
But I'm confident most on the forum, are already well aware of that.
Your posts just continue to confirm it.?
If a GT is fired on green hydrogen, is it not clean generation?
If that hydrogen is stored on site, is it not then a clean form of renewable storage?
Come on try hard, you can get the neurons to fire.
Just tell yourself, your not a piece of meat, with a spanner in your hand, it will take time but eventually you will believe it.?

 

[Humid]

I'll run it past the GE engineer that it's like a battery.....then I'll be drug tested

 

[sptrawler]

I'll run it past the GE engineer that it's like a battery.....then I'll be drug tested

Here you go, it will save you getting a headache.?

I dont think drugs are your problem, lack of grey matter seems to be the issue.?

Your wasting your talents, you should audition for the muppet show, your a natural.?
Your the only guy i've seen who can put his foot in his mouth, with a steel cap safety boot on.?

Hydrogen-Fueled Gas Turbines | GE Vernova

Learn more about GE Vernova's leadership in the use of hydrogen in gas turbines, and what it will take to reach a 100% hydrogen future.

www.ge.com

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

Without intending to sound elitist, a big part of the problem is that the debate has become dominated by the technically ignorant.

That's not aimed at anyone on this forum and it's not to say the general public etc aren't welcome. Just that if anyone's going to argue the case for one way or another way, on any subject, then it's pointless if they don't even comprehend what they're actually arguing for or against.

There's some very sharp people on what I'll refer to as the non-political "green" side of the debate just as there are on what I'll generically refer to as the "engineering" side of the debate. Noting that I'm using those as terms of convenience and not as a reference to the Greens political party or those who necessarily are engineers although it does include them.

More than a few discussions have taken place out of public view with issues explored from different perspectives, options looked at and so on and that's all pretty easy when there's no media attention, there's no politics, there's no war being fought and so on.

So long as everyone understands it and is acting in good faith then it comes down to competing value judgements. One person holds the view that the priorities are A, B, C and D in that order whilst someone else says no actually they consider the priorities to be D, B, C and A in that order. And so on. It's a case of differing opinions as to what's important but nobody who's aware of the facts is going to argue with what building a dam or operating gas turbines actually involves. It's a question of which they'd prefer and why.

Looking at the actual, specific issues there:

Financial cost: Some see it as top priority, others see it as important but "close enough is good enough". I've never come across anyone who said it was totally unimportant, everyone does seem to grasp that society doesn't have unlimited resources and so on and that regardless of all other considerations, energy does need to be affordable.

Supply reliability: There's a few at the green end of the spectrum who hold a view that it's unimportant but they're a definite minority. Even among the "green" side most see supply reliability as a key criteria, typically on the basis that failure would bring major repercussions politically and thwarts the "electrify everything" objective to reduce emissions. Unsurprisingly engineers tend to put supply reliability at the top of the list and see it as non-negotiable.

Conservation: Unsurprisingly some diverse views but broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say that most on the engineering side do "get" the point about nature, wilderness, National Parks and so on although obviously those on the green side tend to be more tied in with it. Where the differences tend to arise is where it sits - some see it as the most important issue of the lot whilst others, unsurprisingly the engineers but also including quite a few on the "green" side of the debate, see it as something that can be compromised within reason if legitimately necessary in order to meet other objectives they see as more important, specifically:

Climate change: There's the odd total denial from the engineering side, but broadly most seem to accept the idea that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere won't be without consequence and that it seems a rather dangerous experiment to be doing given there's no backup plan if it turns out badly. FWIW more than a few on the engineering side see it as an extremely high priority, concern is by no means something unique to those at the green end.

National security: Incidentally and perhaps surprising, if there's one thing where greens and engineers tend to agree it's that depending on imported fuel comes with rather large risks and is best avoided. There's the odd "won't happen" argument, which interestingly tends to come from the engineering end of the table, but broadly most do seem to see that as a very definite issue. It could be summed up by saying there's a recognition that geopolitics is a real thing that can change quickly such that peace today is no guarantee of what happens tomorrow but given the consequences of supply disruption, reliance on imports is best avoided.

Take the politics away and there's a lot of common ground and understanding with the differences coming down to value judgements as to what's the most important.

As a case in point, well there's one particular project which would involve building an approximately 1000 MW hydro station to be used for the primary purpose of filling VRE droughts, noting that being storage based it would have the ability to operate at constant full output during those periods then sit there filling up the rest of the time. It's in an area with reasonably reliable rainfall and has enough storage to cope with variations. It would also incorporate a much smaller dam and reservoir immediately downstream of the power station to permit pumped storage operation as short duration storage as well thus avoiding the need for duplication of its capacity for that routine function.

Just one problem - it's in a conservation area so can't be built.

A value judgement but given the land area affected, it's less than 1% of the conservation area to my understanding, versus the scale of benefit my view is it's worth a very serious look from an unbiased scientific perspective.

Others will disagree, arguing that the conservation aspect is more important and that a National Park or similar area is non-negotiable as to its uses which don't include submerging it under a man-made reservoir.

For those opposed on principle, I'll then point out that fossil fuels are the alternative at least right now, it's one or the other, and that's my underlying reason for arguing it's worth a serious, unbiased look to see if it's a less bad alternative.

Note that I'm not arguing for or against. Just pointing it out as one example of something that could be done and which involves a conflict of one value versus another and arguing that it should be considered in view of all the issues and alternatives noting that there's no perfect option, building or not building both come with an impact just a different one.

Trouble is, whilst I'm drawing attention to both sides of an argument there, in the real world tribal politics makes that impossible. End result = constant argument and slow progress.

 

[Humid]

Here you go, it will save you getting a headache.?

I dont think drugs are your problem, lack of grey matter seems to be the issue.?

Your wasting your talents, you should audition for the muppet show, your a natural.?
Your the only guy i've seen who can put his foot in his mouth, with a steel cap safety boot on.?

Hydrogen-Fueled Gas Turbines | GE Vernova

Learn more about GE Vernova's leadership in the use of hydrogen in gas turbines, and what it will take to reach a 100% hydrogen future.

www.ge.com

But your laughing at Albo .....pick a side

 

[sptrawler]

But @Smurf1976 where is the fun, without a bit of inter discipline ribbing.?

 

[sptrawler]

But your laughing at Albo .....pick a side

At last, the penny has dropped, well done.
Buy youself an icecream.?
Im agreeing with Albo, you were saying it couldnt be done.?
You obviously didnt even know gas turbines could run on hydrogen and you work on them, how sad is that??

 

[sptrawler]

My over-simplistic solution to overcast weather is to get more solar panels. Obviously, solar panels produce less power in overcast conditions, but they still produce power. I have been off-grid for 4 years and have never needed to charge the batteries apart from the sun. My thinking is to have more panels and less batteries, as the panels are cheaper than the batteries. If you have enough solar panels then your battery capacity only needs to be enough to carry you overnight.

The thing is Mac, you have probably trimmed you electrical consumption down to the bone, the general public wont do that so their usage patern will be much different to yours.
My son has gone off grid, they are having interesting adjustments.?
They are saving for a second battery, the battery is charged by morning, the battery is down by the next morning.
But 3 teenage kids.?

 

[Humid]

At last, the penny has dropped, well done.
Buy youself an icecream.?
Im agreeing with Albo, you were saying it couldnt be done.?
You obviously didnt even know gas turbines could run on hydrogen and you work on them, how sad is that??

No you said they are like batteries and you throw emojis round like a peanut ?
Your making a fool of yourself
How old are you 14

 

[Smurf1976]

My over-simplistic solution to overcast weather is to get more solar panels.

At the household scale or for remote sites and so on that's the practical workaround.

Indeed it's exactly what one of the big hydro operators does for its own off-grid solar powered devices used for monitoring and in a few cases control of headworks and so on. It's all just oversized so that it works during the worst case weather.

Big energy companies aren't adverse to solar no - they'll use what makes sense, it's a pragmatic decision not an ideological one. Just had to get brightly coloured ones made to stop campers and others stealing them out in the bush back when panels were fairly expensive.

Doing that for the whole of Victoria (or elsewhere) becomes a monumental exercise however if you consider that, with a shift away from gas for space heating etc, we'll have demand going up at the exact same time solar yield goes down.

If yield is 20% of average, and demand is 150% of average at the same time, well that's a 7.5x overbuild and comes with two basic issues:

1. The impact of that scale of constructing wind farms, solar farms and so on isn't zero although that's unlikely to be a show stopper with proper planning. Will raise some debates and so on though.

2. Who pays? Bearing in mind that someone still has to pay, in full, for the full system not just that which is used.

Second point is the big one. Small scale then sure, just write that off and consider it part of the cost, but if we're talking about installing plant with an average yield of 40 GW, in order to get 8 GW reliably (averaged over 24 hours at minimum VRE yield) during the worst period in winter, well who pays for it?

That's the problem which leads to looking at ideas of storing the energy via some means be it hydro, hydrogen or whatever. How to keep the cost down to an affordable level.