This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

TLDR

Not actually interested in discussing this with you any further, because you are just cram reading headlines and skimming some articles and thinking you know everything when I have been following this topic for a couple of years.

It’s not “My beloved snowy hydro”, I am an APA shareholder, snowy is a competitor to our gas pipelines and gas power plants, still though I think it’s going to be a solid piece of infrastructure but I have no dog in the fight.

You will always be able to find negative articles, people were saying the big Tesla battery was going to be a white elephant, and even Tesla itself, uninformed cramming of those articles written by blockheads is not an education.
 
I am 100% certain that Smurf will not learn anything from that 29min video that he doesn’t already know and understand on a deeper level than the people talking.

We understand wind and solar are fantastic and are going to play an ever increasing role, when Smurf says it’s a choice between gas and hydro he is talking about firming, eg filling in the gaps.

Yes batteries will play a part too, but for large scale storage you will need pumped hydro and gas to back the system up, even the podcast you linked says that.

But as I said I am not interested in any further debate with you on it, because the facts are against you, and this is off topic for this thread anyway.
 

Smurf is on the right track, I’m just a bit more optimistic and believe that more and cleaner options will become available in the next few years.

I thought that you listened to the audio. They mention gas as being an interim backup for the supply and storage issues that Australia will be going through as the old coal generators go off line. Also talked about incentivising private industry to build them.

Hydro could have been Australia’s ‘huge’ battery, but a previous government stuffed it by backing the wrong horse & locking our tax dollars into a bottomless pit called Snowy 2.0 (the name should have set off alarm bells).

Tasmania is a hydro scheme designed by nature.

Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'?​


 
In response to comments in another thread, here's a chart showing total wind (green) and solar (yellow) production in the NEM over the past 30 days.

For reference, the daily average over the past 12 months was 142 GWh / day which is almost equal to the 141 GWh yield on Friday 24 June as highlighted for context:



As can be seen, sustained periods of below average yield, with some days seeing very low yields, are a very real occurrence. This isn't simulated data from a modelling exercise - it's the actual real data for all wind and solar presently in the NEM. Wind farms and large scale solar is measured, small solar (household) is scaled up from a sample which is measured.

Daily average from present wind and solar facilities = 142 GWh

Thursday 23 June = 172 GWh
24 June = 141 GWh (almost the daily average over 12 months)
25 June = 147 GWh
26 June = 120 GWh
27 June = 97 GWh
28 June = 127 GWh
29 June = 122 GWh
30 June = 83 GWh
1 July = 76 GWh
2 July = 87 GWh

3 July = 133 GWh
4 July = 140 GWh
5 July = 125 GWh

Whilst some degree of overbuild can be used as a workaround, there are limits to what's practical and economic since ultimately doubling the installed base of wind or solar doubles the cost and that has to be paid 365 days a year in full.

Filling the gap in energy yield is where conventional (on river) hydro, pumped storage (eg Snowy 2.0) and other options such as gas or diesel comes in along with coal so long a that's still around.

That's about energy, a separate issue to peak power. Peak power can also make use of other means such as batteries and short duration hydro storage as a solution but such facilities with running times in the 1 - 8 hour range aren't an option to cover multiple consecutive days of inadequate yield from the wind and sun, indeed they don't really even cover a full 24 hour period.

This chart showing the past 7 days also helps put it into context. It would've been a cold and miserable night on both Tuesday - Wednesday and Wednesday - Thursday if not for other means of keeping the lights on:



Now just in case someone thinks transmission is an alternative, well we do need that but it's not an alternative without storage as a look at what happened in the neighbouring states at the same time will reveal:








It does however work just fine when it's all combined, other forms of generation offsetting the intermittency of wind and solar:

Blue = hydro
Light blue = battery
Orange = gas
Red = diesel
Black = coal
Below the zero line = battery charging and hydro pumping loads



Diesel is a bit hard to see on that chart, since there's not much of it, so here it is by itself. Note the different chart scale:



And here for the batteries. These operate on much shorter timescales, being largely used to "fine tune" supply and demand in real time. Chart resolution is 5 minutes with light blue being charging and dark blue being discharge. I've posted them separately on a state basis to avoid confusion - it's not uncommon to see charging in SA and discharging in NSW simultaneously for example, due purely to local factors, and putting them all on a single chart ends up as just a mess.





 
this is off topic for this thread anyway.
Agreed.

To avoid continuing the debate on this thread, which is specifically about electric vehicles, I've posted a lot of data and charts in another thread here:


In that post you'll find real, actual data for the real wind and solar farms in the grid we have right now which shows what the issues are and aren't.

I've limited it to the NEM for simplicity. That's in no way denying the existence of similar issues elsewhere, it's just to keep the data straightforward.

I'm not a moderator but I think it's sensible to keep this thread focused on EV's themselves and whilst the technical and business aspects of charging them is relevant, how to generate electricity as such is getting off topic in my view beyond a broad acceptance that EV's need to work within the limits of what's possible.
 
I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in.
 
As a brief comment on alternatives that aren't hydro or gas / diesel, the short answer is "sure, if it can do the job no problem".

There's no fundamental reason why anyone's sensibly going to argue against compressed air, hydrogen etc if it can offer a viable alternative.

What it comes down to however is two basic issues:

1. The timeframe is short which makes any major breakthrough unlikely. We're talking about building things that will be in operation in the relatively near future since there's basically an avalanche of coal plant closures coming, indeed it has already started, and there's international pressure to go even faster.

So we're talking about workers on site building things before the next federal election. That's all environmental studies done, all finances sorted out, it's bulldozers on site it's not just someone in an office talking about it. That doesn't leave much time for any major change in technology to emerge - it's possible for some of the later projects we'll need that something else comes along but not likely for the initial ones.

2. As it is we're looking at $320 billion and that's doing it relatively cheaply.

Anyone arguing for something that costs more is going to be seriously scrutinised, indeed even obtaining the money might preclude it regardless of any benefits.

For context the market cap of APA Group is $13.6 billion, AGL is $5.6 billion, Origin is $9.6 billion and so on. So we're already looking at new investment an order of magnitude greater than the market cap of present major players in the industry, the funding of which could well be problematic, so to increase that any further will be a very tough sell. Bearing in mind the pressure is to reduce prices not increase them.

So those two points don't rule out alternatives but they do mean there's a greater requirement than just being workable technically. Time and cost are also very real criteria.
 
Last edited:

Unfortunately, the market capitalisation of Australian governments is negative $346 billion, so one has to ask where is the money coming from ?

With most of the world being financially stuffed at the moment, the only place to look imo are those areas that are making a killing in the current crisis which is coal and gas exports and yet so far our governments (with the exception of Qld increasing coal royalties) haven't made any noises about increasing taxes in this area, probably fearing the political fallout.

They will have to do something about increasing revenue pretty soon or else put other projects like road and rail on hold or the situation in the energy market will only get worse.
 
From the 'Electric cars' thread.

@sptrawler

"I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in."

Is it worth noting that all hydro electric schemes require "surplus" power to pump the the water uphill, so is this surplus going to be available and where will it come from , given that we are running pretty tight in generation right now ?
 

From my understanding, the concept is Snowy 2.0 will pump water using the excess electricity in the system at times of low demand.

Mind you, as it's bloody cold here in Canberra overnight and I run the ducted recycle so I don't freeze in the morning, I alone am probably using that excess electricity. So tough Snowy 2.0.
 
I've had a couple of days of sun in the last month and the wind hasn't been high either in Orange, so there is no surplus power here either.

The 'excess' will probably come from coal or gas.

It would seem that hydro would be suited to areas of high rainfall where the upper dam would be filled by natural runoff which is why Tassie does quite well, other good sites would seem to be more coastal.

 
I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in.

I don't recall saying 'Snowy 2.0 isn't required'. If you look back at my first post I was just highlighting that Snowy Hydro could not generate during the floods, I wasn't attacking it just making a point that we need more options. And that was why I included an informative audio from the ABC (Australia has everything it needs to produce electricity - coal, gas, sun, and wind. Yet we've wound up with energy shortages and huge price hikes. How did we get here - why is our energy system in such a mess? And what can we do to fix it?)

Value Collector jumped on a mistake I made in naming the current Snowy, 2.0 and commenting without listening to the audio.

From there I have pointed out some of the issues with Snowy. Such as the generation problem during major flooding events, and issues when the then Turnbill government announced the Snowy project, a timeline & budget blow out, and a missed opportunity in Tasmania.


Sorry for going so far off topic, but it takes two to tango
 
Scuppered b y the fossil fuel lobby. Don't stand between politicians and buckets of money
 
That's what I was talking about at the beginning of this thread, we need twice as much renewable generation as installed at call generation and three times as much storage.
This is what the general public isn't getting its head around, that is an amazing amount of plant that needs to be put in, add to that the footprint of a 2GW power station is insignificant, 2GW of renewables is a huge amount of solar panels and wind turbines.
When you consider it is going to take 4GW of renewables and 6GW of storage, to replace that 2 GW power station, to me that explains how big the issue is especially when you think that Snowy 2.0 is only 2 GW from memory
 
Very interesting. I wonder how many hydro sites there are in Darwin ?


But I'm sure that there are many other factors to consider.
There is a 30MW hydro on lake Argyle, that they are thinking of building a hydrogen plant next to, so there are plenty of options up North.

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...