The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

I tend to think it is difficult to make rules retrospective, but royalties on all resources should be reviewed and adjusted annually, the iron ore royalties were set in the 1960's and now are obviously no longer suitable. All resources should have be adjusted to the market, same as the price the companies get for their resource is, it should be a percentage of the current market value of the product not a specific dollar amount. From memory I read iron ore royalty is 25cents a ton, which was set in the 1960's, it should be something like 5%.

 

[mullokintyre]

So, after the Feds admitting that we will in the short term need to pay the gas/coil/oil fired generators to keep them available for the times when renewables/batteries are providing insufficient power, the Victorian government has refused to do so.
From AFR

Energy users and thermal power producers have blasted Victoria’s point-blank refusal to allow payments to coal and gas generators to help avoid blackouts, pointing to its secret deal with EnergyAustralia to support the Yallourn brown coal power station.

With the Energy Security Board warning about the implications of a “renewables droughts” in winter months – when there is not much solar production and the wind may not blow much for days – industry said it would be crazy to rule out established generation in any future capacity mechanism.
Both heavy energy users and conventional generators said they would prefer a nationally consistent approach to the capacity mechanism, rather than let states opt in or out of certain fuel sources, such as coal and gas, for political purposes.

Several industry sources are describing Victoria’s stance as “hypocritical” and “totally inconsistent” given the confidential, back-room arrangements struck last year that in some way provide support to ensure EnergyAustralia’s Yallourn generator in the Latrobe Valley runs until mid-2028.

“It’s ironic in the extreme that the only government that has done a deal with a coal-fired power station to date to stay on is the one that doesn’t want to pay them to stay on,” said Andrew Richards, chief executive of the Energy Users Association of Australia, which represents large energy users such as BlueScope Steel and Orica.

Politicians, the scourge of the earth.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

Victorian greens have introduced a bill to the Victorian Parliament that would ban the connection of gas to new housing developments from 2025.
from the Guardian

The Victorian Greens will introduce a bill to parliament to impose a ban on all new gas connections to homes within three years, with the requirement for residences to be connected to the network to be scrapped in the meantime.

The party’s leader, Samantha Ratnam, will introduce the Planning and Environment Amendment (Transition From Gas) Bill 2022 in the upper house on Tuesday as part of the Greens platform ahead of the November state election.


If passed, the bill will scrap the existing requirements for residential developments to connect to the gas network “where available” and plumbing regulations requiring solar water heaters to be gas-boosted. It will also ban all new gas connections from 2025.

Gas is usually described as having about half the emissions of coal when burned, though studies have found its impact on the climate is greater than this once methane leaks during extraction and transport are factored in.


Victoria is the country’s largest consumer of gas, with more than 2m homes using it for heating, hot water and cooking. Burning gas produces about 16% of the state’s total emissions, with residential users responsible for almost two-thirds of those emissions.

So, if they got rid of all the domestic usage, it would decrease the states emissions by 10%.

Brunswick MP Tim Read, the Greens climate spokesperson, said electrifying homes is cheaper, more energy efficient and better for Victorians’ health than gas.

“We’re not suggesting that it’s necessary or feasible to shift off gas all at once,” he said. “But the absolute first thing we should be doing is drawing a clear line and saying ‘let’s not extend the gas network’.”

The problem is, if all of those homes switched to electricity for heating, the demand would shoot up at a time when solar generators are producing less power.
there has been nothing mentioned as to how that problem is going to be overcome.
This week an 80 year old Brick making company, Advanced Bricks in stawell closed because of the crippling cost of gas.
From ABC News

Mr Collins said the company, one of the town's biggest employers, went from paying $6-to-$8 a gigajoule of gas to more than $37 a gigajoule overnight, and that no other gas retailers were able to supply the brickworks because Energy Australia was the only other retailer that had access to the gas pipeline.

"The assertion by (Victorian) Premier Andrews and (federal) Minister Bowen that heavy industries can transition to renewable energy is complete and utter fantasy," he said.

I am sure the 23 people who worked in the business will be able to retrain to get some of the thousands of jobs on offer in Stawell.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

So, after the Feds admitting that we will in the short term need to pay the gas/coil/oil fired generators to keep them available for the times when renewables/batteries are providing insufficient power, the Victorian government has refused to do so.
From AFR

Politicians, the scourge of the earth.
Mick

That is going to be the biggest problem, Premiers not agreeing and some being lifters while otbers will be leaners. It sounds like Dan wants others to put in the firming capacity, while be puts in the renewables, saves him having to contribute to the transition bit.
I dont know how the other States will like that, but who knows at least they are doing something, if they had put their hands up a while ago, it would have saved the taxpayers having to pay for Kurri Kurri.
I just hope they all pull their weight and it works out well for the East Coast.

 

[Eager]

^ Victoria is in the unfortunate position of having the highest % of households connected to gas, therefore its people have the most to lose when the market goes bad. If renewables and storage was already at a higher %, the impact being felt now would be less. So, Dan is actually on the right path.

As an aside, when the dearly-beloved-by-some Hazelwood coal-fired clunker closed over 5 years ago leaving its pit idle, it exposed the unreliability of nearby Yallourn mainly due to its age but also because of the inability of the company to stop the river diversion levee running between sections of its mine from collapsing. As we speak, the disused Hazelwood mine is accepting flow from the Morwell River to prevent any chance of downstream flooding in the Yallourn mine, while they figure out how to fix the levee, or indeed, if it's worth fixing. In other words, if Hazelwood mine was still supplying its 50+yo power station and not mitigating flooding at Yallourn, then Yallourn would probably be mothballed anyway due to flooding.

 

[Smurf1976]

Victoria is in the unfortunate position of having the highest % of households connected to gas, therefore its people have the most to lose when the market goes bad. If renewables and storage was already at a higher %, the impact being felt now would be less. So, Dan is actually on the right path.

Trouble is, it's a completely self-inflicted situation.

To this very day the Victorian state government all but forces new homes to connect to gas and has over the years has directly handed taxpayer funds to the industry as well.

It's a love affair with gas that goes back decades and which has lead Victorians into an outright trap of successive state governments' direct making by not simply encouraging but actively forcing the use of gas despite having no long term plan in place to ensure supply.

Try building without gas in Victoria and it's not totally impossible but it requires jumping through some hoops most certainly. End result is it's only the determined few who do it, the overwhelming majority of all new homes end up being connected to it (except those which are specifically exempt obviously).

Then the electrical infrastructure installed in new sub-divisions and all sized on the basis of zero allowance for electric cooking, water heating or EV charging.

To be fair, we've got some of the later in SA as well but thankfully not on the same scale as Victoria.

 

[IFocus]

Trouble is, it's a completely self-inflicted situation.

To this very day the Victorian state government all but forces new homes to connect to gas and has over the years has directly handed taxpayer funds to the industry as well.

It's a love affair with gas that goes back decades and which has lead Victorians into an outright trap of successive state governments' direct making by not simply encouraging but actively forcing the use of gas despite having no long term plan in place to ensure supply.

Try building without gas in Victoria and it's not totally impossible but it requires jumping through some hoops most certainly. End result is it's only the determined few who do it, the overwhelming majority of all new homes end up being connected to it (except those which are specifically exempt obviously).

Then the electrical infrastructure installed in new sub-divisions and all sized on the basis of zero allowance for electric cooking, water heating or EV charging.

To be fair, we've got some of the later in SA as well but thankfully not on the same scale as Victoria.

Really? Hasn't Victoria stopped all gas exploration?

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf is a big renewables fan, as most of us are, but timelines are the enemy.

My reasons are really quite simple.

Oil and gas are both hugely problematic in terms of the quantities available, where they're found and so on. Use enough of them and it leads to war and I mean that literally. Be dependent on countries that at best have radically different cultures, at worse outright hate us, and it's going to end seriously badly at some point. There's been enough strife over the past century due to oil and gas as it is without adding more to it.

There's also the economic problem. Far from needing a carbon tax, gas needs the opposite. It needs ongoing subsidies to be even remotely affordable to consumers. That point is yet to sink into to the feds I think.

Coal well at least there's plenty of it and it doesn't cause too many wars. It does however ultimately wreck the planet if we burn enough of it.

Renewables, whilst not totally benign with their environmental impact but they don't cause wars, they don't threaten to end life on earth, they're also cheaper. Unless you're being sponsored by a fossil fuel company then they've a lot going for them.

I say that knowing that a 100% renewable system could be built, it's very doable, but for political reasons won't actually be built at least not anytime soon.

 

[Smurf1976]

Really? Hasn't Victoria stopped all gas exploration?

Not sure about exploration but they're still pushing consumers to use the stuff.

There's a plan to import LNG to Port Kembla (NSW) for supply to both NSW and Victoria.

There's also a separate plan to import LNG to Adelaide and connect that both locally and to the pipeline which runs to south-west Victoria.

Says it all.

 

[SirRumpole]

My reasons are really quite simple.

Oil and gas are both hugely problematic in terms of the quantities available, where they're found and so on. Use enough of them and it leads to war and I mean that literally. Be dependent on countries that at best have radically different cultures, at worse outright hate us, and it's going to end seriously badly at some point. There's been enough strife over the past century due to oil and gas as it is without adding more to it.

There's also the economic problem. Far from needing a carbon tax, gas needs the opposite. It needs ongoing subsidies to be even remotely affordable to consumers. That point is yet to sink into to the feds I think.

Coal well at least there's plenty of it and it doesn't cause too many wars. It does however ultimately wreck the planet if we burn enough of it.

Renewables, whilst not totally benign with their environmental impact but they don't cause wars, they don't threaten to end life on earth, they're also cheaper. Unless you're being sponsored by a fossil fuel company then they've a lot going for them.

I say that knowing that a 100% renewable system could be built, it's very doable, but for political reasons won't actually be built at least not anytime soon.

I totally agree that we should not build a network around gas, its not a renewable source after all, but I wonder if the political will is there to build big storage like pumped hydro, I hope it is but the delay on Snowy Hydro 2.0 shows its not going to be an easy path. Added to that the Greens have never been fans of hydro so are likely to cause delays on any new projects.

Can we do 100% renewables without both gas and hydro in the medium term ? It would be great if we could and I'd like to hear your ideas on how we could do that.

 

[Smurf1976]

Can we do 100% renewables without both gas and hydro in the medium term ? It would be great if we could and I'd like to hear your ideas on how we could do that.

Some real world storage cost figures.

Most projects are confidential but some which are in the public domain as follows are sufficient to illustrate the basic options for storage.

Note that these are all cost estimates for projects not "as built" actual costs and since my point is to compare overall technologies and scale, no allowance has been made for things like interstate transmission where required. Obviously that applies to an individual project and needs to be factored in when evaluating that option but it doesn't apply to the overall generic concept of batteries versus hydro, large scale versus small scale, etc which is the point here.

Broken Hill battery (AGL) capacity 50 MW / 50 MWh at an estimated cost of $41 million. So $820 million per GWh or $0.82 million per MW.

Loy Yang battery (AGL) capacity 200 MW / 200 MWh at an estimated cost of $150 million. So $750 million per GWh or $0.75 million per MW.

Bells Mountain pumped hydro (AGL) capacity 250 MW / 2 GWh at an estimated cost of $800 million. So $400 million per GWh or $3.2 million per MW.

Cethana pumped hydro (Hydro Tasmania) smaller development 600 MW / 7 GWh at an estimated cost of $900 million. So $128.6 million per GWh or $1.5 million per MW.

Cethana pumped hydro (Hydro Tasmania) maximum development capacity 750 MW / 15 GWh at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. So $100 million per GWh or $2 million per MW.

Note for Cethana that it's possible to build the smaller development initially, then expand it to the large one with further work and nothing being wasted. So a two stage, or even three stage if the power and energy expansions were carried out separately, development approach is possible.

Snowy 2.0 (Snowy Hydro) capacity 2000 MW / 350 GWh at an estimated cost of $5.1 billion which is $14.57 million per GWh or $2.55 million per MW. Note this project is contentious with regard to cost estimates.

All of the storage options require that energy from some external source, likely to in practice be wind and solar, is available to store.

Some others which are not storage projects but are of relevance for comparison:

Barker Inlet power station (AGL) has actually been built, location being the outskirts of Adelaide. The plant uses internal combustion engines and was built with a budget of $295 million. Would be a bit higher now due to inflation given that figure is 4 years old. Capacity is 210 MW and is set up to run natural gas and diesel noting that it's technically possible to use fuel oil as an alternative in the same engines with relatively minor modification (that option hasn't been installed in practice). At $40 / GJ for natural gas, fuel cost is approximately $300 / MWh generated. Cost per unit of capacity, adding a bit for inflation, $1.5 million / MW.

Tallawarra B (Energy Australia) is an open cycle gas turbine which is being built in NSW at present with an estimated cost of $381 million. Capacity is 316 MW and will be set up to run natural gas or diesel. At $40 / GJ for natural gas, the fuel cost is approximately $380 per MWh generated. Cost per unit of capacity $1.2 million / MW.

Barker Inlet and Tallawarra B both use an existing site already owned by the company so there's no land cost component and nor is there any significant transmission cost involved with either.

Another project, which has not actually been built, is a large on-river dam and associated power station. I'll decline to name the company or location other than to say it's for connection to the NEM. Costs are current estimates based on detailed site investigation. Being a large dam on a river and storing a very large volume of water, the project would likely be controversial if proposed.

A number of development options are possible but the most likely is to produce 1200 MW intermittently for the specific purpose of filling VRE (wind + solar) "droughts", that is when multiple consecutive days of low yield occur, with operation of the station limited to nominally 5 weeks at constant full load each year so a 10% capacity factor. Total energy stored when full = 2450 GWh. Cost estimated at $1390 million so $0.57 million / GWh or $1.16 million / MW. Operating cost is negligible.

In summary and looking at all that:

Batteries are attractive for short duration peak power but they are cost prohibitive for bulk energy storage.

When it comes to bulk energy storage using hydro, there's a pretty clear relationship that increasing scale lowers the cost per GWh stored but tends to increase the cost per MW of peak power for an otherwise identical project. That being so, a mix of different scales has value.

On river dams storing large volumes of water are highly attractive economically as a means of filling sustained lulls in wind + solar but likely to be extremely controversial on environmental grounds.

Gas is an expensive means to generate electricity. Even using efficient plant, $300 / MWh for fuel alone, without including the cost of the power station, is extremely high.

In terms of construction lead times:

Batteries and gas are both pretty quick especially if built at an existing power generation site. Tallawarra was only announced last year for example and already has major items of equipment on site being installed.

Hydro projects it varies but broadly speaking, anything involving a large dam on a river or involving major tunnelling allow a full decade to build it. Even the small projects in practice will typically end up at 4 years or so.

Other technologies such as compressed air, hydrogen and so on shouldn't be ruled out but at this point in time they aren't in the category of being commercial, proven approaches. We know it's possible, the technology's there, but there's too little practical experience to put firm costs on it.

One thing to note however is that natural gas is, in terms of its chemical composition, 80% hydrogen whilst diesel is about 65% hydrogen. Beware of "greenwashing" based around this. There's a reason for saying that.....

 

[SirRumpole]

I wonder how these projects are going.

EnergyAustralia ponders world’s largest seawater pumped hydro energy storage plant

Major power firm EnergyAustralia is studying the feasibility of building a huge pumped hydroelectric energy storage project in the Spencer Gulf of South Australia.

www.energy-storage.news

 

[IFocus]

Not sure about exploration but they're still pushing consumers to use the stuff.

There's a plan to import LNG to Port Kembla (NSW) for supply to both NSW and Victoria.

There's also a separate plan to import LNG to Adelaide and connect that both locally and to the pipeline which runs to south-west Victoria.

Says it all.

"In 2012, an administrative moratorium was placed on all onshore gas exploration and development in Victoria. This was in response to community concerns and meant a temporary hold on onshore gas exploration permits and retention leases, and a suspension on approving any new applications while the moratorium was in place."


Now doing an about face.

Restart of onshore conventional gas industry in Victoria

Victorian legislation allowed for the restart of onshore conventional gas exploration and production from 1 July 2021.

earthresources.vic.gov.au

 

[Belli]

A link to Geoscience which may be of interest to you @SirRumpole.

Ocean Energy

Ocean energy is classified as tidal energy, wave energy and ocean thermal energy.

www.ga.gov.au

 

[sptrawler]

Ocean Energy

Ocean energy is classified as tidal energy, wave energy and ocean thermal energy.

www.ga.gov.au

With regard ocean energy, I think this new underwater generator being developed in Japan has a lot of potential off the South coast of Australia.
The Southern ocean Antarctic circumpolar current is one of the strongest in the world as it doesn't have any land mass to affect its naturall path.

Japan’s Big Boy Deep-Sea Turbine Will Harness the Power of Ocean Currents

The 330-ton subsea generator will be up-and-running sometime in the 2030s.

www.popularmechanics.com

Southern Ocean Circulation

The Southern Ocean encircles Antarctica, dividing the polar regions from the warm tropical ocean. It is home to the world's strongest ocean current, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and is the primary location where ancient, deep ocean water is upwelled to the surface. The Southern Ocean...

earthsciences.anu.edu.au

As we say on this thread, it wont be a one size fits all, but a mix of all available technologies.
As @Smurf1976 says the renewables can be done, it is just a matter of time.

 

[sptrawler]

"In 2012, an administrative moratorium was placed on all onshore gas exploration and development in Victoria. This was in response to community concerns and meant a temporary hold on onshore gas exploration permits and retention leases, and a suspension on approving any new applications while the moratorium was in place."


Now doing an about face.

Restart of onshore conventional gas industry in Victoria

Victorian legislation allowed for the restart of onshore conventional gas exploration and production from 1 July 2021.

earthresources.vic.gov.au

The thing is, the community may have bigger concerns now?
It certainly is going to be interesting over the next 8 years, especially if it is legislated to reach a 43% reduction, from what I've read we were already going to get to about 35%, but the further this moves on the harder the reductions will be come by.
It is just a great time in our history, the next 20-30 years will be like a whole new industrial revolution IMO.

 

[mullokintyre]

With regard ocean energy, I think this new underwater generator being developed in Japan has a lot of potential off the South coast of Australia.
The Southern ocean Antarctic circumpolar current is one of the strongest in the world as it doesn't have any land mass to affect its naturall path.

Japan’s Big Boy Deep-Sea Turbine Will Harness the Power of Ocean Currents

The 330-ton subsea generator will be up-and-running sometime in the 2030s.

www.popularmechanics.com

Southern Ocean Circulation

The Southern Ocean encircles Antarctica, dividing the polar regions from the warm tropical ocean. It is home to the world's strongest ocean current, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and is the primary location where ancient, deep ocean water is upwelled to the surface. The Southern Ocean...

earthsciences.anu.edu.au

As we say on this thread, it wont be a one size fits all, but a mix of all available technologies.
As @Smurf1976 says the renewables can be done, it is just a matter of time.

Every time I see wave energy mentioned, I think of the disaster that was Carnegie.
Mick

 

[Belli]

A lot of technical and engineering issues to be addressed though. Maybe it is nice and serene (?) 50 meters below the surface but then there will be the challenge of getting the energy from there to shore with stuff that is sufficiently robust to withstand confused seas and the associated destructive energy.

And there is location. Somehow I don't think the residents of Bondi would eb overly happy if there was a need to build stuff within their eyesight despite it being the most suitable place. Ya know what I mean. Also if a suitable site is 3,000 ks in the middle of nowhere, transmission lines, etc.

I've no doubt the boffins are working on these and other aspects.

 

[sptrawler]

Every time I see wave energy mentioned, I think of the disaster that was Carnegie.
Mick

Yes I never bought into that idea, something bobbing up and down on the surface, with a pull chain attached just didn't row my boat (so to speak).
I think the Japanese idea of a submerged turbine, relying on a fairly constant flow medium, has a lot more merit, but salt water and long lasting metallic equipment does seem to be an oxymoron as the two IMO are mutually exclusive.

 

[SirRumpole]

I wasn't really thinking of wave or tidal power, the first project mentioned in the article I quoted was seawater pumped hydro, where seawater was pumped up a cliff on the coast and allowed to fall back to the sea producing power.

That seems a logical fit with wind power catching offshore winds to pump the water up, and doesn't have to worry about such things like evaporation or constructing the lower reservoir.