Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
basilio said:
Great piece of analysis and research Smurf. It does nail the elephant in the room of realistic simultaneous drops on renewable energy across the country. I can understand why standby gas powered generators seem to be the most realistic solution. As you point out the short term battery options won't cover a week of low power.
Click to expand...
As a bit more comment, what pretty much everyone in the industry agrees on is (in the Australian context):

Wind and solar will be the dominant method of harvesting energy for the purposes of electricity supply going forward. Noting that there's an abundance of interest in owning and building facilities.

Batteries are suitable for short duration storage and there's a reasonable level of interest in them. The Victorian Big Battery has now overtaken the Hornsdale Power Reserve (SA) as Australia's largest battery installation meanwhile AGL has a 250 MW / 250 MWh one under construction in SA right now, Energy Australia has very specific plans for a 350 MW / 1400 MWh one in Victoria at an identified location and Origin also has plans for a battery at a specific site in NSW. Then there's others such as the 500 MW / 1000 MWh Wallerawang 9 battery in NSW and so on. There's plenty of interest both from the established players and new entrants to the industry.

Hydro using relatively straightforward sites unlikely to cause objection, for example disused quarry pits and "turkey nest" dams on hills, are viable for medium term storage (8 - 48 hours). The very nature of them means they're a long lead time, long lasting and bespoke design such that there's far fewer companies interested but nonetheless some progress is being made. Genex has the Kidston one in Queensland under construction for example and AGL have stated they're keen on the idea. Origin gave it a look too.

So on that stuff there's broad agreement.

Where the major differences lie is with long term storage and how to cope with what I refer to as VRE droughts.

In one camp are those who see gas turbines as the solution. They're relatively cheap to build, have a low impact in terms of aesthetics etc so it's not hard to find a location to put them and they work. Bonus that the whole thing is "off the shelf" requiring minimal engineering work apart from the site-specific stuff and being moveable, they could always be relocated somewhere else in future should the local need become obsolete for whatever reason.

In the other camp are the advocates for large storage hydro. The argument basically being that it's a permanent solution that doesn't wear out in any meaningful timeframe and it requires no ongoing fossil fuel inputs once built. Downsides = it's time consuming and expensive to build and there's the environmental aspects both the "real" ones and the ideological opposition that some do have toward any dam anywhere regardless of detail.

In the third camp are those who see some other option that isn't presently viable as the long term solution. Mostly that's either hydrogen as such, it's a hydrogen derivative such as ammonia or it's some sort of synthetic liquid fuel, with properties likely to be similar to diesel or jet fuel, made by extracting CO2 from air, running that through an industrial process and turning it into some sort of flammable liquid. All of those are fundamentally just different fuels that would be burned in a gas turbine or alternatively a boiler (to drive a steam turbine) or large internal combustion engines. They're all combustion-based approaches using standard equipment just running it with a different fuel.

Plus the bit that everyone does agree on - existing hydro and things like biomass will make a contribution but not enough. That's important to note though, what we already have can do part of the job.

Personally my own view is firmly that a scientific approach, not an ideological one, ought be taken to all of this.

Opposing the burning of gas on principle isn't rational if it's the least bad option available.

Opposing any dam anywhere on principle isn't rational if there's no sensible reason to not build one in a particular location.

Take a scientific approach on a case by case basis bearing in mind that there's no option to do nothing and have zero impact, it's a case of what's least bad both environmentally and economically. Noting that if it's still bad as such then supporting it is a case of doing so with the major footnote that better ways need to be sought but, in the meantime, this is the least bad one available.

As a case in point, if we look at Victoria then in rough terms:

Present average electrical load over 12 months = 5339 MW (that's a precise figure)

Size wind + solar to meet that plus a 20% margin and, under the worst case weather, it still generates about 1300 MW on average, leaving a gap to fill of about 4000 MW.

Now I'll point to the existence of a site where a 50m high dam could be built which would flood an area of approximately 11 km2. Integrating with existing run of river hydro stations and a new one to be built, that creates a scheme able to generate over 400 MW on demand, constantly when required, for the specific purpose of filling VRE droughts.

That one scheme would do 10% of the job in the Victorian context.

Now where the problem arises is politics.

Put that forward and someone will scream that evil Smurf wants to put eleven square kilometers of land under water! Think of all those trees, koalas and all the rest that will be effected! You evil person Smurf!

The bit missing from that argument would of course be that:

The land area of Victoria is 227,444 km2

Metropolitan Melbourne occupies 9,992 km2 at present, so over 900 times the area required for the hydro dam. That land was, of course, natural bushland before someone built a city on it.

The land area dug up by the Yallourn coal mine alone, just Yallourn and just the mine not including the power station and associated infrastructure, is about 19km2.

And so on.

11km2 is trivial and there's a rational issue with the idea only if something about it is such that it's abnormally important land. If there's an endangered species living there or something like that then that would be a good reason to not build it and I'd be siding with those opposed. Wiping out species to generate electricity is a terribly bad idea.

If not however, if there's nothing being lost apart from aesthetics etc well then I'd argue that getting 10% of the VRE drought filling task done, without using fossil fuels, isn't a bad return for putting less than 0.005% of the state under a lake.

My point there not really being about that specific project, and for the record I'm not being paid to work on it or anything like that, but simply that a calm, rational, scientific approach is needed to all this.

In some cases gas will be the least bad option available but in others, well if there's an option for hydro to be built at a site that isn't an objective problem or to put otherwise wasted biomass (eg crop wastes) to use, thus saving some gas and emissions, well that may well be the better way to go. Pursue those other options where they're available and it won't likely eliminate gas but it would mean needing less of it.

Plus I'll mention the one that most won't - coal.

For most existing facilities it's not an option since they're too old, reaching end of life, and aren't technically well suited to intermittent operation but I'll single out Redbank in NSW as one where it could be done. It's small, only 151 MW, so would only make a minor contribution but it does have some points in its favour.

On the technical side this plant uses fluidised bed combustion, not pulverized fuel as do other coal plants, and in a practical sense that means it can burn pretty much anything and do so "cleanly" in terms of non-CO2 emissions. Stick even the worst coal into it and there won't be clouds of smoke coming out, it can cope with that very nicely. Heck you could put tree bark and lawn clippings in the fuel mix and it'll keep going.

Most of it's also in great shape technically and presently sitting there doing absolutely nothing. It's already built, the money's been spent, the resources and environmental impacts of construction have been incurred and so on. It's a potentially usable facility, that could operate for that specific VRE drought filling purpose, presently doing nothing.

That's another case where I'll argue for a scientific approach. Getting it ready to run and paying someone to keep it sitting there waiting for the call to fire it up may well be a perfectly rational strategy during the coming years simply because it's already built so is "free" in that sense. It's coal yes, but only as a backup to operate for a week here and there - my logic being that the money saved by not building something else could be put to better use (though that notion must of course be tested and verified as true or not true). :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
As a bit more comment, what pretty much everyone in the industry agrees on is (in the Australian context):

Wind and solar will be the dominant method of harvesting energy for the purposes of electricity supply going forward. Noting that there's an abundance of interest in owning and building facilities.

Batteries are suitable for short duration storage and there's a reasonable level of interest in them. The Victorian Big Battery has now overtaken the Hornsdale Power Reserve (SA) as Australia's largest battery installation meanwhile AGL has a 250 MW / 250 MWh one under construction in SA right now, Energy Australia has very specific plans for a 350 MW / 1400 MWh one in Victoria at an identified location and Origin also has plans for a battery at a specific site in NSW. Then there's others such as the 500 MW / 1000 MWh Wallerawang 9 battery in NSW and so on. There's plenty of interest both from the established players and new entrants to the industry.

Hydro using relatively straightforward sites unlikely to cause objection, for example disused quarry pits and "turkey nest" dams on hills, are viable for medium term storage (8 - 48 hours). The very nature of them means they're a long lead time, long lasting and bespoke design such that there's far fewer companies interested but nonetheless some progress is being made. Genex has the Kidston one in Queensland under construction for example and AGL have stated they're keen on the idea. Origin gave it a look too.

So on that stuff there's broad agreement.

Where the major differences lie is with long term storage and how to cope with what I refer to as VRE droughts.

In one camp are those who see gas turbines as the solution. They're relatively cheap to build, have a low impact in terms of aesthetics etc so it's not hard to find a location to put them and they work. Bonus that the whole thing is "off the shelf" requiring minimal engineering work apart from the site-specific stuff and being moveable, they could always be relocated somewhere else in future should the local need become obsolete for whatever reason.

In the other camp are the advocates for large storage hydro. The argument basically being that it's a permanent solution that doesn't wear out in any meaningful timeframe and it requires no ongoing fossil fuel inputs once built. Downsides = it's time consuming and expensive to build and there's the environmental aspects both the "real" ones and the ideological opposition that some do have toward any dam anywhere regardless of detail.

In the third camp are those who see some other option that isn't presently viable as the long term solution. Mostly that's either hydrogen as such, it's a hydrogen derivative such as ammonia or it's some sort of synthetic liquid fuel, with properties likely to be similar to diesel or jet fuel, made by extracting CO2 from air, running that through an industrial process and turning it into some sort of flammable liquid. All of those are fundamentally just different fuels that would be burned in a gas turbine or alternatively a boiler (to drive a steam turbine) or large internal combustion engines. They're all combustion-based approaches using standard equipment just running it with a different fuel.

Plus the bit that everyone does agree on - existing hydro and things like biomass will make a contribution but not enough. That's important to note though, what we already have can do part of the job.

Personally my own view is firmly that a scientific approach, not an ideological one, ought be taken to all of this.

Opposing the burning of gas on principle isn't rational if it's the least bad option available.

Opposing any dam anywhere on principle isn't rational if there's no sensible reason to not build one in a particular location.

Take a scientific approach on a case by case basis bearing in mind that there's no option to do nothing and have zero impact, it's a case of what's least bad both environmentally and economically. Noting that if it's still bad as such then supporting it is a case of doing so with the major footnote that better ways need to be sought but, in the meantime, this is the least bad one available.

As a case in point, if we look at Victoria then in rough terms:

Present average electrical load over 12 months = 5339 MW (that's a precise figure)

Size wind + solar to meet that plus a 20% margin and, under the worst case weather, it still generates about 1300 MW on average, leaving a gap to fill of about 4000 MW.

Now I'll point to the existence of a site where a 50m high dam could be built which would flood an area of approximately 11 km2. Integrating with existing run of river hydro stations and a new one to be built, that creates a scheme able to generate over 400 MW on demand, constantly when required, for the specific purpose of filling VRE droughts.

That one scheme would do 10% of the job in the Victorian context.

Now where the problem arises is politics.

Put that forward and someone will scream that evil Smurf wants to put eleven square kilometers of land under water! Think of all those trees, koalas and all the rest that will be effected! You evil person Smurf!

The bit missing from that argument would of course be that:

The land area of Victoria is 227,444 km2

Metropolitan Melbourne occupies 9,992 km2 at present, so over 900 times the area required for the hydro dam. That land was, of course, natural bushland before someone built a city on it.

The land area dug up by the Yallourn coal mine alone, just Yallourn and just the mine not including the power station and associated infrastructure, is about 19km2.

And so on.

11km2 is trivial and there's a rational issue with the idea only if something about it is such that it's abnormally important land. If there's an endangered species living there or something like that then that would be a good reason to not build it and I'd be siding with those opposed. Wiping out species to generate electricity is a terribly bad idea.

If not however, if there's nothing being lost apart from aesthetics etc well then I'd argue that getting 10% of the VRE drought filling task done, without using fossil fuels, isn't a bad return for putting less than 0.005% of the state under a lake.

My point there not really being about that specific project, and for the record I'm not being paid to work on it or anything like that, but simply that a calm, rational, scientific approach is needed to all this.

In some cases gas will be the least bad option available but in others, well if there's an option for hydro to be built at a site that isn't an objective problem or to put otherwise wasted biomass (eg crop wastes) to use, thus saving some gas and emissions, well that may well be the better way to go. Pursue those other options where they're available and it won't likely eliminate gas but it would mean needing less of it.

Plus I'll mention the one that most won't - coal.

For most existing facilities it's not an option since they're too old, reaching end of life, and aren't technically well suited to intermittent operation but I'll single out Redbank in NSW as one where it could be done. It's small, only 151 MW, so would only make a minor contribution but it does have some points in its favour.

On the technical side this plant uses fluidised bed combustion, not pulverized fuel as do other coal plants, and in a practical sense that means it can burn pretty much anything and do so "cleanly" in terms of non-CO2 emissions. Stick even the worst coal into it and there won't be clouds of smoke coming out, it can cope with that very nicely. Heck you could put tree bark and lawn clippings in the fuel mix and it'll keep going.

Most of it's also in great shape technically and presently sitting there doing absolutely nothing. It's already built, the money's been spent, the resources and environmental impacts of construction have been incurred and so on. It's a potentially usable facility, that could operate for that specific VRE drought filling purpose, presently doing nothing.

That's another case where I'll argue for a scientific approach. Getting it ready to run and paying someone to keep it sitting there waiting for the call to fire it up may well be a perfectly rational strategy during the coming years simply because it's already built so is "free" in that sense. It's coal yes, but only as a backup to operate for a week here and there - my logic being that the money saved by not building something else could be put to better use (though that notion must of course be tested and verified as true or not true). :2twocents
Click to expand...
Another great post Smurf thanks.

I'm a non technical person in this area but I'll put my non technical views and will be grateful for your technical response. My view is that hydro is great if done in the right way in the right areas. There are dams around that could be raised and existing hydro facilities that could be extended which would save a lot of time in EIS procedures, and I'm sure there are sites that could be developed with minimal environmental impact. Hydro is the best long term solution for a number of reasons in appropriate areas

Trouble is that this all takes decades to do with Greenie's fighting it all the way. Until then, something needs to be established and you have pointed out the advantages of gas turbines precisely. Its not a case of either hydro or GT's imo , while people keep arguing about dams, GT stations can be built and they will there in case hydro options are rejected for whatever reasons.

Of course the Greens will still complain about GTs but their arguments can be countered by pointing out that they could be r un on GREEN hydrogen.

BTW, how difficult is it to run GTs on different fuels ? Is it just a case of running the fuel through filters or do the internals of the turbine have to be modified for different fuels ?
 
Last edited:
For those interested, Simon Holmes a'Court , clean energy advisor will be in the National Press Club today

ABC24 12:30.
 
SirRumpole said:
Er yeah, Elon makes batteries doesn't he ? :)
Click to expand...
Don't worry Rumpole, @Humid hasn't grasped, that two different devices can carry out the same function.
He doesn't understand that a generator on standby to supply the load, is performing the same function as a charged battery sitting on standby to supply the load.
lateral thinking isn't his strong point, as is obvious by his posts, a generator can't do the same as a battery.?

Imagine if engineers thought like him, buildings would not have lifts, because they have stairs and as humid says no two things can do the same job. ?
"what do you mean put in a lift to get people up and down, that's what stairs do and a lift isn't a stair, so it can't work ".

What a muppet imagine being the boss, dealing with this all the time.?
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
Trouble is that this all takes decades to do with Greenie's fighting it all the way.
Click to expand...
The problem there, as with most politics from all sides, is of being rusted on to a position rather than being pragmatic about the way forward.

Hence my view that the only real solution there is to leave the politicians out of it. Put the electrical stuff in the hands of engineers and put the conservation type issues in the hands of a proper, independent body of suitably qualified people. Have someone suitable who isn't wedded to either discipline to oversee the whole thing and ensure everything's being given proper consideration.

SirRumpole said:
how difficult is it to run GTs on different fuels ?
Click to expand...

It depends.....

Diesel, kerosene, LPG, natural gas are all pretty straightforward as "conventional" hydrocarbon fuels.

Adding 10% or so hydrogen to the gas mix is generally accepted as being OK. Even household gas appliances are tested with varying gas composition and should be able to cope with that.

To burn something like pure hydrogen, in practice nobody's likely to do it without the turbine manufacturer having designed and tested a modification. That really comes down to risk - if it went wrong somehow and the end result is someone's dead well nobody wants to be fronting up in court and saying they just did it without any proper processes being followed.

It'll be a case of manufacturers doing tests, coming up with approved modifications if required and so on.

In the context of old equipment that's near end of life, in practice it won't be done. It'll be current and recent production models where the focus is likely to be, nobody's going to put R&D effort into something from 1980 at this point. Etc. :2twocents
 
Sounds like another coal power station biting the dust, as we have been saying these closures will be forced on the owners, they just aren't designed for the work they are being made to do. Gas turbines are, let's hear the naysayers now go on about Kurri Kurri, you won't hear apologies either, they will just move on to the next windmill tambourine's and drums banging. ?

www.smh.com.au

Origin Energy to bring forward closure of Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant

Origin Energy will close the 2880-megawatt Eraring generator at Lake Macquarie in NSW in 2025, seven years earlier than scheduled.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Origin Energy has brought forward plans to close Australia’s largest coal-burning power station to 2025, seven years earlier than scheduled, as the rollout of clean energy across the country accelerates.
of clean energy across the country accelerates.
The power and gas giant has handed in notice to authorities that it intends to shut down the 2880-megawatt Eraring generator at Lake Macquarie in NSW after the required notice period of three and a half years, saying “rapidly changing” energy market conditions have hammered the plant’s viability.
reneweconomy.com.au

AGL signs contractor for Liddell demolition, as it juggles closure units

AGL signs up contractor to advise on closure and demolition of Liddell coal generator, and fast-tracks closure of one unit because it is not reliable.
reneweconomy.com.au reneweconomy.com.au

So @Smurf1976 how much is that to be retired by 2025, wow that's only 3 years away, looks like we were on the money. How long have we been saying that these coal plants will retire early, because they are being flogged to death. ?


Maybe you could chip in @Humid how long did you say it takes to build a gas power station, the size of Kurri Kurri, oh hang on that's right they wont need it.?
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
Don't worry Rumpole, @Humid hasn't grasped, that two different devices can carry out the same function.
He doesn't understand that a generator on standby to supply the load, is performing the same function as a charged battery sitting on standby to supply the load.
lateral thinking isn't his strong point, as is obvious by his posts, a generator can't do the same as a battery.?

Imagine if engineers thought like him, buildings would not have lifts, because they have stairs and as humid says no two things can do the same job. ?
"what do you mean put in a lift to get people up and down, that's what stairs do and a lift isn't a stair, so it can't work ".

What a muppet imagine being the boss, dealing with this all the time.?
Click to expand...
sptrawler said:
Sounds like another coal power station biting the dust, as we have been saying these closures will be forced on the owners, they just aren't designed for the work they are being made to do. Gas turbines are, let's hear the naysayers now go on about Kurri Kurri, you won't hear apologies either, they will just move on to the next windmill tambourine's and drums banging. ?

www.smh.com.au

Origin Energy to bring forward closure of Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant

Origin Energy will close the 2880-megawatt Eraring generator at Lake Macquarie in NSW in 2025, seven years earlier than scheduled.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Origin Energy has brought forward plans to close Australia’s largest coal-burning power station to 2025, seven years earlier than scheduled, as the rollout of clean energy across the country accelerates.
of clean energy across the country accelerates.
The power and gas giant has handed in notice to authorities that it intends to shut down the 2880-megawatt Eraring generator at Lake Macquarie in NSW after the required notice period of three and a half years, saying “rapidly changing” energy market conditions have hammered the plant’s viability.
reneweconomy.com.au

AGL signs contractor for Liddell demolition, as it juggles closure units

AGL signs up contractor to advise on closure and demolition of Liddell coal generator, and fast-tracks closure of one unit because it is not reliable.
reneweconomy.com.au reneweconomy.com.au

So @Smurf1976 how much is that to be retired by 2025, wow that's only 3 years away, looks like we were on the money. How long have we been saying that these coal plants will retire early, because they are being flogged to death. ?


Maybe you could chip in @Humid how long did you say it takes to build a gas power station, the size of Kurri Kurri, oh hang on that's right they wont need it.?
Click to expand...
I'm just doing the math now .....it's complex
 
Smurf1976 said:
The problem there, as with most politics from all sides, is of being rusted on to a position rather than being pragmatic about the way forward.

Hence my view that the only real solution there is to leave the politicians out of it. Put the electrical stuff in the hands of engineers and put the conservation type issues in the hands of a proper, independent body of suitably qualified people. Have someone suitable who isn't wedded to either discipline to oversee the whole thing and ensure everything's being given proper consideration.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that would be the solution in an ideal world.

Realistically , will polilticians cede power to someone else, even those who know more than they do about technical issues ?

Turnbull tried that and look what happened to him.

I hope it can be done by an enlightened government at some time. :cool:
 
SirRumpole said:
I totally agree that would be the solution in an ideal world.

Realistically , will polilticians cede power to someone else, even those who know more than they do about technical issues ?

Turnbull tried that and look what happened to him.

I hope it can be done by an enlightened government at some time. :cool:
Click to expand...
I think this announcement to close Eraring early will put a cat among the pigeons, this is some serious dispatchable generation being removed, nearly 4GW in 3 years, that is serious.
From @Smurf1976 earlier post:

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.

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

New dispatchable generation going in Kurri Kurri 660MW, there will be some hand wringing going on, maybe Origin is looking for some availability money to leave Eraring in service?

You never know, this might be the test the renewables need.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
I think this announcement to close Eraring early will put a cat among the pigeons, this is some serious dispatchable generation being removed, nearly 4GW in 3 years, that is serious.
From @Smurf1976 earlier post:

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.

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

New dispatchable generation going in Kurri Kurri 660MW, there will be some hand wringing going on, maybe Origin is looking for some availability money to leave Eraring in service?

You never know, this might be the test the renewables need.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the regulations are.

Is there any requirement for a supplier to replace the generation that they take out with an equivalent amount of new generation ?

If not, that's a serious deficiency in the rules imo.
 
there is talk that origin may be looking for a sale of the plant to get it off its books.
So why announce the early closure of the plant and thus reduce its book value?
Having not held origin for about ten years, I am unfamiliar with their financials, but the last time I did hold it it was north of 12 bucks.
Just reached half that figure now.
Seems they are experts at destroying shareholder value.
Mick
 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
520
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top