- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
They have been using a lot of battery installations in country W.A.
I think the real issues is a smurf says when you have several days of poor generation.
The future of energy generation and storage
- Thread starter Value Collector
- Start date
I think the real issues is a smurf says when you have several days of poor generation.
Check out Marty T & Kris Harbour Natural Building (YouTubers). Certainly different approaches for the off-grid aficionados.
Our world runs on electricity, we Must have it to live, we recently had very little sunshine for 12 of 14 days with very little wind, so we need major generation nearby.
If supply is so bad that a band of cloud can decide whether or not we can buy groceries, fuel etc or whether or not our hospitals have power, then something is dreadfully wrong.
The current answer to any shortfall here is to restrict supply to Tomago Aluminium smelter but if/when the problem worsens why would anyone put an industry requiring reliable power anywhere in Australia
When there are 75000 tourists in town with no power all hell breaks lose, it gets really ugly when tourists can't get a coffee
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,888
I posted real cost estimates for some real projects on page 304 of this thread.
In short, batteries work nicely for short duration peak power but they're simply not an option for long duration storage. So if every day is sunny then sure, batteries can do the job, but even one calm night or cloudy day and down we go. That's fact not emotion.
Where the debate lies is how best to deal with days, and in particular multiple consecutive days, of poor wind + solar yield. That's a real scenario, one that has occurred in Victoria (and other states) every single year for as long as there's been wind and solar on the grid without exception.
On one side of the debate are the advocates for big hydro projects.
On the other side are the advocates for gas / diesel. This side usually also supports hydrogen, although nothing presently being built is using more than a tiny % of hydrogen in the mix in practice (and the equipment manufacturers themselves haven't worked out how to go fully hydrogen yet).
In that context the alternative to the Tasmanian projects is, in practice, an alternative large hydro project interstate or it's fossil fuels. Which brings me to:
Credit where it's due, Bob's done a lot for conservation and for the record I do agree with some of the issues and points he's raised over the years, including some of those opposed to hydro development.
On the other hand his staunch "no dams anywhere, no exceptions" approach isn't at all helpful in any serious attempt to shift the world away from fossil fuels.
In that regard well Bob Brown Foundation commissioning research that finds hydro isn't a good idea is a bit like a business lobby group commissioning research that finds wage rises aren't needed or a union commissioning a report which finds the opposite. It's an entirely predictable finding.
I don't have issues with Bob personally but when it comes to all things hydro, and doubly so if it involves Hydro Tasmania, he's not exactly unbiased.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,662
- Reactions
- 11,963
Hydro looks the best option in the long run, but how do you deal with the Snowy Hydro 2.0 situation ? It should have been producing power in 2024 but now it's 2028 and the cost has doubled to $4.5 billion.I posted real cost estimates for some real projects on page 304 of this thread.
In short, batteries work nicely for short duration peak power but they're simply not an option for long duration storage. So if every day is sunny then sure, batteries can do the job, but even one calm night or cloudy day and down we go. That's fact not emotion.
Where the debate lies is how best to deal with days, and in particular multiple consecutive days, of poor wind + solar yield. That's a real scenario, one that has occurred in Victoria (and other states) every single year for as long as there's been wind and solar on the grid without exception.
On one side of the debate are the advocates for big hydro projects.
On the other side are the advocates for gas / diesel. This side usually also supports hydrogen, although nothing presently being built is using more than a tiny % of hydrogen in the mix in practice (and the equipment manufacturers themselves haven't worked out how to go fully hydrogen yet).
In that context the alternative to the Tasmanian projects is, in practice, an alternative large hydro project interstate or it's fossil fuels. Which brings me to:
Credit where it's due, Bob's done a lot for conservation and for the record I do agree with some of the issues and points he's raised over the years, including some of those opposed to hydro development.
On the other hand his staunch "no dams anywhere, no exceptions" approach isn't at all helpful in any serious attempt to shift the world away from fossil fuels.
In that regard well Bob Brown Foundation commissioning research that finds hydro isn't a good idea is a bit like a business lobby group commissioning research that finds wage rises aren't needed or a union commissioning a report which finds the opposite. It's an entirely predictable finding.
I don't have issues with Bob personally but when it comes to all things hydro, and doubly so if it involves Hydro Tasmania, he's not exactly unbiased.
Bowen slams Morrison and Taylor for hiding extent of Snowy 2.0 delays
Delays in the government-funded Snowy 2.0 could have big impact on timing of coal plant closures and shape of energy policy.
reneweconomy.com.au
I realise nothing is easy, but shouldn't there be a stop gap solution to cover delays ?
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
Paying the generators an availability allowance is the stop gap solution, W.A does it, Taylor suggested it.Hydro looks the best option in the long run, but how do you deal with the Snowy Hydro 2.0 situation ? It should have been producing power in 2024 but now it's 2028 and the cost has doubled to $4.5 billion.
Bowen slams Morrison and Taylor for hiding extent of Snowy 2.0 delays
Delays in the government-funded Snowy 2.0 could have big impact on timing of coal plant closures and shape of energy policy.
I realise nothing is easy, but shouldn't there be a stop gap solution to cover delays ?
Snowy 2.0 and any other major project has just had a two year covid shutdown hit, a materials supply hit, a shipping disruption hit, a labour shortage hit.
I ordered a new car on March 1 and I recieved an sms today, they are hoping it will be on a ship late August.
My mate ordered a Hyundai i20 on Dec 9 last year, he recieved it two weeks ago.
I would love to hear Bowens plans on speeding things up, I mean let's get realistic, when is he going to actually say what his plan is.
I dont envy his position, but he will soon have to score some runs, rather than criticising.
He needs Snowy 2, he needs Kurri Kurri, he needs to get on with it IMO.
The same problems Taylor had, he has now, so best he grows a pair and gets on with sorting it, they have actually said they are going to achieve more by 2030. So the time for whining is over IMO, times short.
Lets be honest 6 months ago a lot of experts were saying Snowy2.0 wasnt required, I think I heard Labor mention the same at one stage.
Oh and I see Bruce Mountain is again been quoted.Lol
Last edited:
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,662
- Reactions
- 11,963
OK , I'll admit some ignorance here, please be nice.
How do you pay a solar or wind farm to always be available ? They would have to build storage themselves. If that is batteries, Smurf has pointed out that batteries won't cut it when it comes to long generation 'droughts'. Doubtful if private enterprise is going to build pumped hydro.
So you have to keep coal plants running it seems, but are the Greens going to block the availability allowance for coal and gas ?
The more this this thing develops, the more it looks like government needs to step in and actually build things like hydro and gas rather than handing out cash to the commercials.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
Absolutely, but the new Govt has now got the problem the last Govt had, vested interests and ideology.
The privates want to make a profit, the people want reliable power and the elites, greens, woke media personalities want renewables now no matter what the social or economic cost, because they can afford it.
Welcome to the real world Chris. Lol
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,888
In regards to Marinus Link and the Tasmanian projects, suffice to say I have a lot of confidence that Hydro Tas can deliver.
It's very much a "check everything just in case" sort of organisation. Hence whilst not actually perfect, it comes pretty close - the list of major errors over the years isn't zero but it's remarkably short given the sheer scale of infrastructure built in the past and still operated today.
Related to that it's worth mentioning that HT is in the somewhat unusual position of being a government entity that contracts to others, both at the engineering level and in some cases running physical site works for some of the other electricity companies as well as water authorities, the mining industry and various governments. In the relatively recent past it has or is doing work in every Australian state, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Samoa, Fiji, South Africa, India and so on.
One particular project worth mentioning there being a large grid-connected battery, owned by another electricity generating company, in Victoria.
So barring some catastrophic unforeseen I wouldn't be too worried about HT's ability to build things in Tasmania and get it done on time.
Where any risk will exist is with Tas - Vic transmission since the very nature of that means it's highly reliant on the equipment manufacturer getting their part done on time.
Bearing in mind that a go ahead for both ultimately rests with someone being willing to fund it. From Tasmania's perspective well the purpose is to provide supply to Victoria, it's needed to keep the lights on in Melbourne not in Hobart, so there's simply no point proceeding if it can't be done on a profitable basis and that is at present the sticking point. It needs someone willing to pay.
As for Snowy 2.0 delays, my solution to that one probably won't win me too many friends but it's just being pragmatic - coal.
Extending the operation of the existing Eraring power station until completion of Snowy 2.0 would, from a technical perspective, be straightforward. It'll need some maintenance work done on the station to extend it's lifespan but nothing drastic, it's doable.
Coal supply to Eraring is also not impossible to fix for reasons most easily explained by saying there's an abundance of coal readily available 50km from the plant by road. Coal being a solid, and one that requires no special handling, well there's plenty of dump trucks around and surely some could be obtained to haul coal to the power station. Bearing in mind we're not talking about having to road haul the whole lot, just enough to fill the gap between what the local mine is supplying and what the station needs. It's doable, just needs actually doing.
Eraring is owned by Origin and whilst I can't speak for them, I'd be surprised if they weren't willing to come to an arrangement with government to keep it running. The economics are problematic but technically up to a decade could be stretched out of it from the present, so through to ~2032, and that easily covers completion of Snowy.
Why Eraring? Simply because it's already built and it does the job as a temporary solution. There's zero lead time.
Technical specs of the existing Eraring station being:
4 x nominally 660MW steam units using coal as fuel. They can be pushed to 720MW each if needed, though not in practice run beyond 700MW unless the situation is desperate.
1 x 40MW gas turbine. This is fired with diesel only, and is normally not run but can be if required.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
And then you get ideology and virtue signaling, overriding common sense, I wonder if this will come back to bite them on the butt?Eraring is owned by Origin and whilst I can't speak for them, I'd be surprised if they weren't willing to come to an arrangement with government to keep it running. The economics are problematic but technically up to a decade could be stretched out of it from the present, so through to ~2032, and that easily covers completion of Snowy.
Why Eraring? Simply because it's already built and it does the job as a temporary solution. There's zero lead time.
Technical specs of the existing Eraring station being:
4 x nominally 660MW steam units using coal as fuel. They can be pushed to 720MW each if needed, though not in practice run beyond 700MW unless the situation is desperate.
1 x 40MW gas turbine. This is fired with diesel only, and is normally not run but can be if required.
Between Vic not looking for gas, NSW trying to look greener than Kermit and the Feds trying to look like they have a plan, rather than just a target, I think the grid will fall into a heap over East.
Why the NSW and Victorian Govt's didn't do a joint buy out, to shore up their renewable transition, may be an interesting question eventually.
NSW government knocked back Origin offer to sell Eraring power plant
Advisors believed the company was “socially responsible” and would not shut the plant down in 2025 if the market needed the supply. They were wrong.
The NSW government considered a pitch to buy the loss-making Eraring Power Station in secret talks with Origin Energy last year. But the deal fell apart amid government concerns that underwriting a plan to keep the coal-fired power station open longer could “crowd out” other investments in energy.
After negotiations failed Origin announced the closure of Eraring in 2025.
Meanwhile in W.A, the push toward clean energy continues, in the recent article W.A eventually to install 4.4GWof batteries and some pumped hydro.
Inside Synergy’s bittersweet race from coal to clean
For Synergy boss David Fyfe, closing two coal-fired power stations is bittersweet: the end of an era for Collie but the start of a seven-year race to build cleaner more flexible power.
Synergy chief executive David Fyfe said the long-expected mid-June announcement was a bittersweet moment for a business that has people who “bleed coal”.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
Well Origin energy busted for not being nice to customers who dont pay their bills,this will be interesting.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
A lot of interesting info starting to come out.
www.abc.net.au
From the article;
More than $12 billion of investment in new transmission lines should begin "as urgently as possible" to ensure electricity supply is secure in the coming decade, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
The five projects — HumeLink, VNI West, Marinus Link, Sydney Ring and New England REZ Transmission Link — are all currently being assessed for regulatory approval or should begin that process soon.
HumeLink would connect electricity generated by Snowy 2.0 to the grid, while Marinus Link is vital for Tasmanian pumped hydro and wind-power projects to connect to the mainland.
The five priority projects are in addition to another seven transmission links already under development.
"Australia is experiencing a complex, rapid and irreversible energy transformation," AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman said in a statement.
Transmission upgrades are needed to allow renewable energy and storage facilities scattered around the country to connect to the grid, and to accommodate "two-way" flow from storage facilities and rooftop solar.
Coal-fired power stations planning to close ahead of schedule are adding to the pressure to modernise the electricity grid quickly.
"The future of Australia's energy is a matter of great national urgency," the report states, noting that 100 per cent of electricity on the east coast could — at times — be provided by renewable energy as soon as 2025.
Figures in the ISP suggest it will take $320 billion of investment from both the public and private sector to fully transform the electricity grid, including by providing new power generation and storage, between now and 2050.
Mr Westerman also said he was hopeful state and territory governments would speed up their transition to renewable energy sooner rather than later.
"That is why we are calling for urgent action and investment on renewables, on firmings — so dispatchable capacity and transmission — so that the energy is there at the lowest cost and most reliable form for Australians when coal fired power stations do close," he said.
Urgent investment in key projects needed to shore up electricity supply, energy market operator says
More than $12 billion of investment in new transmission lines should begin "as urgently as possible" to ensure electricity supply is secure in the coming decade, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator.
www.abc.net.au
More than $12 billion of investment in new transmission lines should begin "as urgently as possible" to ensure electricity supply is secure in the coming decade, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
The five projects — HumeLink, VNI West, Marinus Link, Sydney Ring and New England REZ Transmission Link — are all currently being assessed for regulatory approval or should begin that process soon.
HumeLink would connect electricity generated by Snowy 2.0 to the grid, while Marinus Link is vital for Tasmanian pumped hydro and wind-power projects to connect to the mainland.
The five priority projects are in addition to another seven transmission links already under development.
"Australia is experiencing a complex, rapid and irreversible energy transformation," AEMO CEO Daniel Westerman said in a statement.
Transmission upgrades are needed to allow renewable energy and storage facilities scattered around the country to connect to the grid, and to accommodate "two-way" flow from storage facilities and rooftop solar.
Coal-fired power stations planning to close ahead of schedule are adding to the pressure to modernise the electricity grid quickly.
"The future of Australia's energy is a matter of great national urgency," the report states, noting that 100 per cent of electricity on the east coast could — at times — be provided by renewable energy as soon as 2025.
Figures in the ISP suggest it will take $320 billion of investment from both the public and private sector to fully transform the electricity grid, including by providing new power generation and storage, between now and 2050.
Mr Westerman also said he was hopeful state and territory governments would speed up their transition to renewable energy sooner rather than later.
"That is why we are calling for urgent action and investment on renewables, on firmings — so dispatchable capacity and transmission — so that the energy is there at the lowest cost and most reliable form for Australians when coal fired power stations do close," he said.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,888
Yep.
People really need to get their minds around the idea of what's required.
In truth, $1 billion is a rounding error, it's loose change when it comes to this stuff.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
What I can't get my head around, is the amount of money that needs to be spent, to install the amount of renewable generation and storage required.
Then I think of the amount of consumers, who have to give the renewable generators a return on their capital, to make the investment worthwhile financially. I just can't see where the profit is going to come from to encourage the investment, when there is so much excess capacity going to be needed.
My guess is the low hanging fruit gets snapped up by the private sector, but when that has gone, it will end up being the taxpayer to install the generation of last resort and I don't think it will be renewables.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,662
- Reactions
- 11,963
What I can't get my head around, is the amount of money that needs to be spent, to install the amount of renewable generation and storage required.
Then I think of the amount of consumers, who have to give the renewable generators a return on their capital, to make the investment worthwhile financially. I just can't see where the profit is going to come from to encourage the investment, when there is so much excess capacity going to be needed.
My guess is the low hanging fruit gets snapped up by the private sector, but when that has gone, it will end up being the taxpayer to install the generation of last resort and I don't think it will be renewables.
Probably the low hanging fruit is domestic solar and wind but integrating it into the grid is beyond the wit of private companies imo, it has to be on an nationwide basis with State and Federal governments coordinating the strategy.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,589
It certainly will be interesting IMO, the solar farms and wind farms, that get built first will mop up the readily available market, that the coal generators leave behind.
But because we need twice as much renewables generation as we need, to supply the load and secondly to charge the storage, there will be a lot of generation and storage built that is only required for minimal times. So I can't see the private sector wanting to be building plant, that doesn't earn money for a lot of the time, then if the Governments have to pay them for availability they will have to build a lot of storage.
I just can't see how electricity bills are going to get cheaper.
It will be fascinating to watch how they navigate through all this.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,662
- Reactions
- 11,963
I wonder if this https://www.sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioelectricity/ has been considered seeing we are a large sugarcane producer.
Another bit of info on sugar cane, which has been studiously ignored by Governments, is that it is the only fuel that is actually positive when used to create ethanol.
Wheat is really quite negative in as much as more than one barrel of oil is used to create one barrel of ethanol
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,662
- Reactions
- 11,963
The US uses corn which is a waste of a good food crop imo.
For sure, it uses more than a barrel of oil to make one barrel from corn but it is much better than wheat.
It also drives up the value of corn, making it dearer for people to buy for food.
