The future of energy generation and storage

orr said:

It's obviously a hedge against spot market price spikes. So selling for anything north of $2 doesn't seem to 'financially difficult'.

Click to expand...

Ultimately the need is for average prices around the $85 / MWh (8.5 cents / kWh) mark or less if we're to be internationally competitive. That's for bulk electricity not including distribution costs.

So if we're to average 8.5 cents then there simply can't be too much at 200 cents without blowing the budget.

I mention it simply because economics is the big problem with all this. Finding things that work technically is relatively straightforward.

Finding things that can be built, with a highly paid workforce in a country with all sorts of environmental and safety standards, and which still achieve a lower absolute $ cost than that being done in the likes of China, the Middle East, South Africa or Brazil is much more difficult. Not impossible but it requires a rather firm approach to efficiency.

The US at least has massive scale on its side which helps there.

Europe of course can't do it but they're paying a price for that which isn't pleasant economically.

Sounds ominous.

CEO of Snowy Hydro resigns.

SirRumpole said:

Sounds ominous.

CEO of Snowy Hydro resigns.

Snowy Hydro CEO in shock exit amid hit from crisis

Paul Broad has suddenly quit as chief executive of Snowy Hydro amid an escalation of tensions with Energy Minister Chris Bowen, most recently over Labor’s insistence that the new Kurri Kurri gas plant in NSW uses green hydrogen from day one.

www.afr.com

Click to expand...

Further to this, I just heard an interview on ABC with Bruce Mountain, director of the Victorian Energy policy centre. He said that the conversion of the Kurri Kurri generators to run on hydrogen was "technically impossible" and that the turbines would have to be scrapped and new ones built.

If this is true, it would have been a good idea if our current government had consulted some technical experts before making unrealistic demands.

SirRumpole said:

Further to this, I just heard an interview on ABC with Bruce Mountain, director of the Victorian Energy policy centre. He said that the conversion of the Kurri Kurri generators to run on hydrogen was "technically impossible" and that the turbines would have to be scrapped and new ones built.

If this is true, it would have been a good idea if our current government had consulted some technical experts before making unrealistic demands.

Click to expand...

From the 7 minute mark.

SirRumpole said:

From the 7 minute mark.

https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NU2222V150S00

Click to expand...

SirRumpole said:

Yes I'm finding it slow too. It also refused to load a few times and threw a "unknown database error".

Click to expand...

I haven't had time to listen, because have to head off for duty.
But the first thing that comes to mind is, the gas turbine is the cheap bit, getting the hydrogen supply to it is the real issue, most gas turbines upto about 150MW are skid mounts, so not an issue.
But will listen in about 2 hours time.
Being from W.A and from the outside looking in, it sounds like another reason to duck and weave and not spend money and hope that some other State picks up the tab.?
Maybe some pet project needs extra money?

Interesting article.

sptrawler said:

Interesting article.

Snowy Hydro boss Paul Broad resigns amid tensions with Chris Bowen

Paul Broad, the chief executive of Snowy Hydro, has resigned amid delays and cost blow outs to its controversial Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme.

www.smh.com.au

Click to expand...

Re Kurri Kurri, it would seem to make sense to have a test site running on hydrogen to prove it can be done before going all out with the Kurri Kurri plant.

It's a pity that Bowen like most politicians don't appear listen to experts in the field. If Bowen thinks that Kurri Kurri can burn hydrogen successfully, he should release his technical advice.

@SirRumpole another article on the resignation of the Snowy boss, sounds like ideology Vs engineering.
However, Mr Broad said clashes with Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen were another reason to step aside.

"Issues have arisen obviously between what I think of the world and what Chris Bowen Minister for Energy thinks of the world and, rather than create a drama, I resigned," Mr Broad said.

"I didn't want to put the company in a position where we were seen to be fighting at every level with whatever the government may or may not want to do.

A gas-fired power plant being built at Kurri Kurri in the NSW Hunter Valley was at the heart of the tension.

It is due to start operating next year.
The plant is designed to provide back-up power when the state's electricity grid becomes overloaded and the larger coal fired stations phase out.

It will initially run on a combination of green hydrogen and gas.

During the election campaign, Labor announced the plant could be converted to use green hydrogen.

"While hydrogen is a wonderful opportunity, it is many, many years away from being commercial," Mr Broad said.
"To think you can have hydrogen running into Kurri Kurri when there is no hydrogen being produced in Newcastle just doesn't make any sense."
Another point of contention was Mr Broad's assertion that more gas-fired power stations needed to be built in the Hunter to bridge the gap to renewables.

"The reality is Liddell Power Station is closing, you need more gas-fired power stations, you need lots more of them," Mr Broad said.

The gas-fired plant sits in the Hunter Valley electorate of Paterson.
Paterson MP Meryl Swanson said she had spoken to Mr Bowen, seeking assurances the plant would still be built.

"The minister told me from his own mouth yesterday that it will go ahead, the plant will be happening and there will be an element of hydrogen," she said.

"Paul was really energised that hydrogen could be achieved.

"For him I think it was a matter of cost and time and that's something that whoever comes into this role is still going to have to tackle."

sptrawler said:

@SirRumpole another article on the resignation of the Snowy boss, sounds like ideology Vs engineering.

Snowy Hydro boss says 'clash of ideas' with Energy Minister sparked resignation

Paul Broad says he is disappointed to be leaving Snowy Hydro after falling out with Chris Bowen over a gas plant in the NSW Hunter Region.

www.abc.net.au

However, Mr Broad said clashes with Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen were another reason to step aside.

"Issues have arisen obviously between what I think of the world and what Chris Bowen Minister for Energy thinks of the world and, rather than create a drama, I resigned," Mr Broad said.

"I didn't want to put the company in a position where we were seen to be fighting at every level with whatever the government may or may not want to do.

A gas-fired power plant being built at Kurri Kurri in the NSW Hunter Valley was at the heart of the tension.

It is due to start operating next year.
The plant is designed to provide back-up power when the state's electricity grid becomes overloaded and the larger coal fired stations phase out.

It will initially run on a combination of green hydrogen and gas.

During the election campaign, Labor announced the plant could be converted to use green hydrogen.

"While hydrogen is a wonderful opportunity, it is many, many years away from being commercial," Mr Broad said.
"To think you can have hydrogen running into Kurri Kurri when there is no hydrogen being produced in Newcastle just doesn't make any sense."
Another point of contention was Mr Broad's assertion that more gas-fired power stations needed to be built in the Hunter to bridge the gap to renewables.

"The reality is Liddell Power Station is closing, you need more gas-fired power stations, you need lots more of them," Mr Broad said.

The gas-fired plant sits in the Hunter Valley electorate of Paterson.
Paterson MP Meryl Swanson said she had spoken to Mr Bowen, seeking assurances the plant would still be built.

"The minister told me from his own mouth yesterday that it will go ahead, the plant will be happening and there will be an element of hydrogen," she said.

"Paul was really energised that hydrogen could be achieved.

"For him I think it was a matter of cost and time and that's something that whoever comes into this role is still going to have to tackle."

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Bad news when technical people clash with politicians.

Bad news for the technical people that is.

I'm not an engineer, I don't know, but I tend to take the side of people who actually have to make the things work.

SirRumpole said:

Re Kurri Kurri, it would seem to make sense to have a test site running on hydrogen to prove it can be done before going all out with the Kurri Kurri plant.

It's a pity that Bowen like most politicians don't appear listen to experts in the field. If Bowen thinks that Kurri Kurri can burn hydrogen successfully, he should release his technical advice.

Click to expand...

SirRumpole said:

Interesting.

Bad news when technical people clash with politicians.

Bad news for the technical people that is.

I'm not an engineer, I don't know, but I tend to take the side of people who actually have to make the things work.

Click to expand...

Politicians make a promise, come hell or high water they have to try and make it happen, just the way it is. Unfortunately it either backfires, or cost a lot more than it should have, sounds as though trucking in H2 might be the go.

SirRumpole said:

Further to this, I just heard an interview on ABC with Bruce Mountain, director of the Victorian Energy policy centre. He said that the conversion of the Kurri Kurri generators to run on hydrogen was "technically impossible" and that the turbines would have to be scrapped and new ones built.

If this is true, it would have been a good idea if our current government had consulted some technical experts before making unrealistic demands.

Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on the specifics of this one but to the best of my understanding the basics are:

Up to 15% hydrogen is dead easy in terms of burning it. Just needs a source of hydrogen but no problem feeding it into the turbine.

Up to 30% hydrogen is doable but requires additional work to be done.

The manufacturer, Mitsubishi, isn't able to offer anything beyond that 30% level. Some competitors will say they can do 50% or even 100% or whatever but read the fine print and there's a lot of "subject to" or "with further development" attached to that.

A lot of it could be compared to advertising flights to whatever city along with pictures of all sorts of tourist attractions in and near that city. Thing is, none of those attractions are included in the price of the flight and for that matter a hotel isn't included either. All that is extra and may or may not actually be available - a tourist who turns up in Melbourne in February can't watch the AFL Grand Final no, it doesn't work that way.

Whether it will ever be practical to retrofit a >30% hydrogen option to equipment supplied today is an unknown that nobody can answer at this time. A lot will depend on what manufacturers are willing to offer. It's one thing to offer it with new equipment but in the context of retrofits, how far back do they go? Do they offer it for something built in 2020? 2010? 2000? Can we go and retrofit the three turbines at Dry Creek power station (Adelaide metro area) from 1973? Probably not, the line has to be drawn somewhere, but it's anyone's guess at this stage how that all pans out.

Noting that, as a clarification, running on (say) 15% hydrogen is an instantaneous value. That is, it means a maximum 15% hydrogen in the gas mix when it's running. It doesn't mean it can just be run on hydrogen alone for 15% of the time and turned off the other 85%. It's a maximum value when it's actually running that can't be exceeded - to be safe any practical operation will aim to be slightly lower, around 13% has been suggested by others, to avoid any risk of exceeding 15% during rapid load changes etc.

Adding there that with the exception of some specific industrial processes, 10% hydrogen (90% natural gas) is theoretically safe for practically any use. Any normal cooktop, heater, hot water etc in household or commercial use should run on it just fine without modification. So adding 10% hydrogen to the natural gas network is a workable approach, only exception being certain industrial uses.

So far as the politics and so on is concerned, well I know quite a few who'll agree that in theory running on 100% hydrogen seems possible and they'd be more than happy to be part of any project regarding research, building prototype or demonstration plants and so on.

To commit to a full scale power station though, I can't imagine too many engineers being willing to sign on the dotted line right now if they're going to be held to budgets and timeframes. Possible exception if one of the big manufacturers is willing to back it as a showpiece for their own capabilities and take on the risk indeed that seems a reasonably likely scenario for the SA hydrogen project. Fair chance someone seriously big will take on some risk in return for using it as a showpiece of their capabilities.

SirRumpole said:

it would seem to make sense to have a test site running on hydrogen to prove it can be done before going all out with the Kurri Kurri plant.

Click to expand...

Personally I've long been keen on the idea of building a 30MW plant, a single gas turbine, running on 100% hydrogen and locating it in one of the 5 largest state capital cities.

Reason being 30MW is big enough to be real and considered as a small but definitely proper power station but it's small enough to not matter too much technically or financially if it has problems. 30MW tripping off the grid is a blip, it won't put the lights out, but it's just big enough to legitimately call it a power station so far as the public and media are concerned.

City or nearby location in one of the big 5 simply to access the existing base of workers, industrial workshops and so on that can be engaged as required to support the project plus being accessible in order to hold open days for the media, politicians and ultimately general public to see it once all the technical aspects are fully sorted.

Do that, get a 30MW plant fully sorted, then there's a firm basis to cost and plan larger scale projects.

Note - it could be built smaller than that. Reason for the 30MW is simply to avoid claims it's pointless, insignificant and so on - 30MW is small but it's undeniably a power station.

Smurf1976 said:

Personally I've long been keen on the idea of building a 30MW plant, a single gas turbine, running on 100% hydrogen and locating it in one of the 5 largest state capital cities.

Reason being 30MW is big enough to be real and considered as a small but definitely proper power station but it's small enough to not matter too much technically or financially if it has problems. 30MW tripping off the grid is a blip, it won't put the lights out, but it's just big enough to legitimately call it a power station so far as the public and media are concerned.

City or nearby location in one of the big 5 simply to access the existing base of workers, industrial workshops and so on that can be engaged as required to support the project plus being accessible in order to hold open days for the media, politicians and ultimately general public to see it once all the technical aspects are fully sorted.

Do that, get a 30MW plant fully sorted, then there's a firm basis to cost and plan larger scale projects.

Note - it could be built smaller than that. Reason for the 30MW is simply to avoid claims it's pointless, insignificant and so on - 30MW is small but it's undeniably a power station.

Click to expand...

Make sense to have at least one test before running roward building something that might not work on a grand scale..
I am always extremely scared of the leaky aspect of H2.
And sometimes wonder how much H2 will actually be burnt vs leakedseeped thru in the atmosphere in all these schemes.
For both efficiency and obviously safety:
my understanding is that adding smelling agent like in natural gas might not work in the leaks i am worry about for H2.Anyone knowing this domain?

qldfrog said:

Make sense to have at least one test before running roward building something that might not work on a grand scale..
I am always extremely scared of the leaky aspect of H2.
And sometimes wonder how much H2 will actually be burnt vs leakedseeped thru in the atmosphere in all these schemes.
For both efficiency and obviously safety:
my understanding is that adding smelling agent like in natural gas might not work in the leaks i am worry about for H2.Anyone knowing this domain?

Click to expand...

From a quick Google search: not reassuring...

Just FYI.

I wonder how much Digitalis is in the UK these days? ?

qldfrog said:

Make sense to have at least one test before running roward building something that might not work on a grand scale..
I am always extremely scared of the leaky aspect of H2.
And sometimes wonder how much H2 will actually be burnt vs leakedseeped thru in the atmosphere in all these schemes.
For both efficiency and obviously safety:
my understanding is that adding smelling agent like in natural gas might not work in the leaks i am worry about for H2.Anyone knowing this domain?

Click to expand...

In a lot of ways, the H2 story isn't about whether it can work or whether it leaks or not, if it doesn't work the whole renewables clean energy argument falls on its butt especially in the short to medium term.
Without H2 as a fossil fuel substitute, well there isn't really anything else other than nuclear that can do the heavy lifting, even if everything goes battery(which is ridiculous IMO) the amount of extra renewable energy required to keep everything charged and running would be astronomical IMO.

sptrawler said:

In a lot of ways, the H2 story isn't about whether it can work or whether it leaks or not, if it doesn't work the whole renewables clean energy argument falls on its butt especially in the short to medium term.
Without H2 as a fossil fuel substitute, well there isn't really anything else other than nuclear that can do the heavy lifting, even if everything goes battery(which is ridiculous IMO) the amount of extra renewable energy required to keep everything charged and running would be astronomical IMO.

Click to expand...

I know, and i am not against h2 per se, the engineer in me is just **** scared to see dumb and dumber Greens and political actors looking at leveraging the woke narrative for votes, none with any idea of the doability or technicality let alone costs and dangers
I really think that coupling solar/wind farms to H2 producing cells acting as local batteries(cells, turbines, whatever the way), and turning these into baseline producing units is the way to go;
but when i hear people thinking about transporting H2, burning it in existing gas units to feel good or using them for trucks traveling thru towns with refueling stations etc I am scared:
we will have to pay with blood and dollars for these stupid schemes; we are going backward at high speed in this country, only referencing reversed developing countries like Europe and US as model, and keeping population untraveled and unaware of anything but their MSN/ABC BS feed.
We are heading toward a USSR style country with matching technical backwardness.Energy will be our showtime
If Germany can not make us think twice, nothing will

qldfrog said:

We are heading toward a USSR style country with matching technical backwardness.Energy will be our showtime
If Germany can not make us think twice, nothing will

Click to expand...

25 million people, sitting on one of the Worlds biggest quarries, we are living the dream.
What else are we going to do, other than come up with brain farts, boredom leads to complacency and dreaming.
We are World leaders at both.
What was Margaret Thatchers quote about socialism?

qldfrog said:

I know, and i am not against h2 per se, the engineer in me is just **** scared to see dumb and dumber Greens and political actors looking at leveraging the woke narrative for votes, none with any idea of the doability or technicality let alone costs and dangers
I really think that coupling solar/wind farms to H2 producing cells acting as local batteries(cells, turbines, whatever the way), and turning these into baseline producing units is the way to go;
but when i hear people thinking about transporting H2, burning it in existing gas units to feel good or using them for trucks traveling thru towns with refueling stations etc I am scared:
we will have to pay with blood and dollars for these stupid schemes; we are going backward at high speed in this country, only referencing reversed developing countries like Europe and US as model, and keeping population untraveled and unaware of anything but their MSN/ABC BS feed.
We are heading toward a USSR style country with matching technical backwardness.Energy will be our showtime
If Germany can not make us think twice, nothing will

Click to expand...

How about the proposal to turn hydrogen into ammonia for transportation ?

Viable or not ?