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

Jump to new
This one has potentially broader consequences outside the NT.

For the Darwin-Katherine power system there's a partial ability to switch to diesel if need be since about half the installed generating capacity is dual fuel (gas / diesel) whilst the other half is gas only.

Much the same for the separate at Alice Springs system, not all but a fair bit can be switched to diesel if need be.

Where the complexity arises is outside the NT.

Mt Isa gas consumption is roughly 80 TJ / day. Varies a bit but that's a typical figure.

Mt Isa can be supplied from either the NT, from southern Qld, or a combination of both. Since those two pipelines interconnect it's also possible to move gas between Qld and NT via that route albeit in very limited volume.

In short, if supply to Mt Isa from southern Qld exceeds 20 TJ / day then that cuts into the maximum flow rate from Qld to SA of 384 TJ / day. Below 20 TJ / day there's no impact but above it there most certainly is.

So not being able to supply gas from NT to Mt Isa potentially removes about 60 TJ / day of supply to the south-eastern states (NSW, ACT, Vic, SA, Tas collectively) next winter. That's only 3% of their peak day demand but that's 3% in the context of a supply that's already stretched to breaking point, hence the difficulties maintaining gas supply this past winter and the forced switch of some users to diesel.

So it's another straw on the proverbial camel's back that's already close to breaking point.
 
SirRumpole said:
About time. I doubt if the Parrot I n NSW will follow suit though unfortunately
Click to expand...
I dont think they have any other option. As Ive said, it will take a lot of capital, for very little ROE, the Governments will have to do it. Companies like AGL that already own a lot of infrastructure will take the low hanging fruit, the Governments will have to install the non financially viable stuff.
 
Our taxes as gift to the world, as the Germans did, privileged to increase the benefits of China companies to a new golden Idol
 
Mark McGowan has a smirk all over his face when discussing power prices.

They are expected to rise 2-3% compared with 56% in Eastern States.

We all know the reasons, have they escaped other States and the Feds ?

Labor's budget forecasts energy prices will rise 56 per cent in 18 months. It's a different story in WA

West Australian Premier Mark McGowan says the federal government should look to his state and overseas to find a solution to surging electricity prices, which are forecast to rise 56 per cent in the next 18 months.
www.abc.net.au
 
all things are relative....
so a couple of snippets .... and leave it to others to take it away



(courtesy Thoughts from the Frontline )


and this note of realism from someone who is meant to provide solutions
“If you want to go to renewables, you need a 50-year or 75-year plan – you can’t do it in the next 10 years”
Click to expand...
- Lindsay Partridge, MD, Brickworks Ltd
 
sptrawler said:
Great post @Dona Ferentes , as Ive said over and over people just dont understand the enormity of the issue and the media are too dumb to report it.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the notion that it needs to take 50 or 75 years but absolutely it needs a proper plan yes.

Bearing in mind the big problem in Australia isn't that we've failed to plan but rather that not having a plan was a conscious objective, indeed the regulations make any real planning all but impossible beyond a theoretical level. Not having a plan is our plan.

It shouldn't take 75 years though at least not in the Australian context. Not if we have an actual plan and get on with it.
 
Last edited:

That's what happens when we keep electing Conservative governments who believe that "the market will fix it".

That's not to say Labor politicians know any more about the subject, but they were smart enough to set up Infrastructure Australia as an independent body, so maybe they should set up a similar body for the energy industry in particular and follow their advice.
 

And whatever happened to the Finkel report ?
 
SirRumpole said:
And whatever happened to the Finkel report ?
Click to expand...
Market does fix it: prevent exploration, investment in fosdil fuel and energy proce goes balastic but wasn't it tge aim:
Maje sure anything fossil becomes unaffordable and bring back the plebes to Dickensian conditions.
So then so called green energy becomes cheaper, the advocates will say i tell you so.
Narket does fix itself but that is in a free market place. Which is not the case in the west, slightly truer in china at the small case level.
There is no market freedom when a gov decides to stop ice cars by a given date or set a goal of stopping coal.
This is state policy economy with the great outcome we saw in the USSR, but left remains left and nowadays socialists/watermelon would make Stalin blush?
 
So far as markets are concerned, a distinction needs to be made between markets as a generic concept and the actual "market" we have, the National Electricity Market, as distinct from the non-market approach of monopoly utilities which preceded it.

Suffice to say the NEM has a rather long list of omissions and flaws which run counter to technical, environmental and even economic objectives. Hence we've ended up with seriously expensive energy that really need not be.

I'll put these two charts up. One for NSW and one for Victoria. Both are for today:






Now you don't need to be an engineer to spot that something happened today. At about midday there's a plunge in Victorian generation and a corresponding rise in generation in NSW.

Now you could be excused for assuming that something terrible had occurred in Victoria, some sort of major breakdown or incident but that, thankfully, supply from NSW as able to keep the lights on.

If only that were true......

What actually happened was this:


To explain that, it's nothing to do with electrical engineering and nor is it anything to do with problems with boilers, wind gusts or even something like maintaining flow in a river. In truth it's accounting, yes accounting of the financial kind.

So we fixed an accounting problem by turning off about 1500 MW of wind generation, mostly in Victoria with a bit in SA, and replacing the output by burning gas and running hydro generation in NSW then gradually ramping up coal. Running hydro generation that, I might add, is drawing on a water storage that's presently 45% full and with water being discharged into a catchment that's actually flooding downstream to the point of being a problem in itself.

You won't find an engineer who sees logic in this. Even those who are in the camp that isn't at all concerned about the use of fossil fuels will say that if we've already built wind farms then it's outright crazy to not use them.

Therein lies the reason mere mention of the word "market" tends to be met with rolling eyes and derision by those who see this stuff routinely. The actual market we have is shockingly inefficient, having been captured by an assortment of ideologues who've taken it a very long way from the fundamentals of both engineering and economics.

That wasn't an isolated incident and to be clear neither AEMO nor any of the affected companies have done anything wrong. Just enforcing the rules as drawn up by others....

Now please don't anyone tell me I should be shivering in the dark to save on emissions. Not whilst this nonsense goes on.
 
Excellent analysis in The Guardian on the future of energy generation and storage. Echoes much of what Smurf has explained and skewers yet again the poisonous,lying, self serving dribble that has been the cornerstone of Liberal/National/Fossil Fool industry talking points for donkeys years.

Well, well worth a full read. I have clipped a relevant section below.

David Osmond, a Canberra-based engineer with the global energy developer Windlab, is among those with a markedly different, evidence-based take. For more than a year, he has been posting weekly results from a live simulation tracking what would happen in Australia’s main electricity grid if it relied primarily on renewable energy.

Using a live stream of electricity data from Opennem, he adjusted inputs to see what would happen if there was enough wind and solar energy to supply 60% and 45% of demand respectively. He added enough short-term storage, likely to be in the form of batteries, to supply average demand for five hours.

The results are encouraging. They suggest close to 100% of demand – 98.9% over a 61-week period – could be delivered by solar and wind backed by existing hydro power and the five hours of storage. Nearly 90% of demand was met directly by renewable energy and 10% had to pass through storage. Achieving it would require a major expansion of transmission, as proposed by Labor under its Rewiring the Nation policy.

The 1.1% shortfall mostly came when it was less sunny in late autumn and winter. Other technology would be needed to fill that hole. Osmond believes for now that would probably be fast-starting gas-fired power plants that are already connected to the grid, don’t run most of the time and can be called on quickly. There was nothing to suggest new ones were needed.

It means a small amount of fossil fuel generation remaining in the grid, but less gas would be burned than now and, crucially, no coal power would be required. In the longer term, the backup could possibly come from cleaner sources – probably pumped hydro, maybe hydrogen or biofuels. None of these necessarily make economic sense the way solar and wind do – it is hard to justify a plant that would hardly ever be used – but could be needed in the context of the grid. An alternative would be to over-build solar and wind so there was always enough capacity online.

By Osmond’s admission, this is a simplified model that assumes, for example, that electricity transmission links between regions can be delivered efficiently. No one should assume that the transition will be straightforward. The point is the technology already exists, and is comparatively cheap. From there it is a matter of design, engineering and, importantly, cost management.


Rather than an endlessly reheated nuclear debate, politicians should be powered by the evidence | Adam Morton

A renewable-dominated system is comfortably the cheapest form of power generation, according to research
www.theguardian.com
 
And we can also agree this is in no way a free market issue?
What a shamble..
 
qldfrog said:
And we can also agree this is in no way a free market issue?
What a shamble..
Click to expand...
Yep.

It wouldn't happen in a truly free market but at the other end of the scale a monopoly utility wouldn't do things to punish itself either.

Regardless of the arguments for or against building any particular form of generation, if it has actually been built and it's of a type that costs practically nothing to run then it's crazy to not fully utilise it.

We could achieve a significant improvement, both in terms of economics and in terms of natural resource use and the environment, simply by making optimum use of what we've already got in terms of physical generation and transmission. That it doesn't happen is simply down to politics and bureaucracy getting in the way of both engineering and sensible economics, a situation that frustrates many.
 
Fully agree, while i consider this mad rush to "green energy" crazy, once installed and producing for free, use it.The least we can do.
I am afraid that madness might even come to the consumer/ retail side with the idea of variable feed back pricing.
I produce more than i use with solar and as is, the economics of sending power back to the grid are borderline due to feed to grid daily fee.
I moved in a new place with solar installed.there is no way the ROI is here so if moving to a new place,an existing solar system is no worthwhile $ bonus. Unless you double up to go fully offgrid/battery...
Not exactly what it should be imho as we should see people not repairing systems or turning the option off
 
Smurf1976 said:
That wasn't an isolated incident and to be clear neither AEMO nor any of the affected companies have done anything wrong. Just enforcing the rules as drawn up by others....
Click to expand...

Do you think the rule book should be thrown away and have a free for all ?

Or , we should have rules but the current rules are not appropriate ?
 
Another of those instances where sometimes the realities in life can overturn your best intentions.
From ABC News
Mick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
813
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
575
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
652
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
651
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...