The future of energy generation and storage

[IFocus]

W.A's coal crisis deepens, coals ain't coals Sol.
Changing from one type of coal to another can take some setting up, not only do the burners have to be tuned, but the type of boiler can have a huge difference to boiler erosion and ash formation.
I wonder if the State Govt will take over one of the coal mines, the plot thickens.

Fears grow over WA energy crisis this summer amid botched importation of NSW coal

State-owned West Australian power provider Synergy is facing questions about whether it paid millions of dollars to import the wrong type of coal as it scrambles to keep the lights on this summer.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:
Later this month, Synergy will take delivery of the first of two 50,000-tonne shipments of New South Wales coal, believed to be costing the utility tens of millions of dollars.

Synergy was left scrambling for the imports in October when it emerged that a deepening crisis in the coal mining and power generation hub of Collie, south of Perth, would leave it short of supplies.

At the time, Premier Mark McGowan blamed a wettish winter and operating difficulties at one of the town's two coal mines for the unprecedented decision, which Energy Minister Bill Johnston also said was "not ideal".

There are growing fears about the security of the state's biggest electricity grid heading into what is forecast to be a scorching summer.
Major coal supply shortages have combined with a gas crunch caused by last week's leak at a critical offshore well and outages at several big plants to put pressure on the system.
In a further blow, it is believed the coal due to arrive at Bunbury port next week is unsuited for use in Synergy's coal plants at Collie because of its high ash content.
A Synergy spokesman insisted the utility had known about and accounted for the content of ash in the coal and planned to "blend" imported product with local supplies, which typically have far lower levels.

But Synergy's former chief engineer has cast doubt over those claims, saying the ash content of the NSW coal was likely to be a major problem at the company's Muja and Collie power stations.

Andrew Wearmouth, also a former manager at Muja, said Synergy's plants were designed to run on coal with an ash content of between six and eight per cent but could "reasonably" handle up to 10 per cent.
However, he said the imported NSW coal was likely to have an ash content of about 20 per cent, which he argued would pose big headaches for power station operators.
For starters, Mr Wearmouth said Synergy may not have the "milling capacity" to blend the imported coal at sufficient rates, there was a risk of "emissions breaches" if it was used in large quantities, and it could also cause "erosion" and "fouling" problems.

Haven't followed this but just seems to be a total mess

 

[sptrawler]

Haven't followed this but just seems to be a total mess

It certainly is, my guess is the Govt is probably going to have to either buy out, or bail out one of the Collie coal mines.
Griffin isn't getting enough money from Blue Waters power station to keep the operations going and Premier probably can't keep going on the basis Muja and Collie are going to be closed by 2029, so sourcing funding for the mine would be difficult.

 

[sptrawler]

And the Eastern States issue.

States asked to cap coal prices as federal government seeks to curb skyrocketing energy costs

The federal government is facing resistance from the states over its request for caps on coal prices, with NSW seeking legal advice.

www.abc.net.au

New South Wales Treasurer Matt Kean has confirmed the federal government asked the states to impose their own caps on coal, and even recall their parliaments to make any legislative changes required.

Mr Kean said NSW had sought legal advice confirming the Commonwealth has the power, in the constitution, to cap prices.

"They've said that they'd prefer the states to do this … but this is a national problem, that requires a national solution," he told Sky.

The ABC understands the NSW legal advice suggests that if the Commonwealth capped prices, it may be required to provide compensation "on just terms" to coal producers.

Both NSW and Queensland have gone further, raising the prospect of the federal government compensating them for lost royalties.

As he tries to secure a national consensus, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Saturday "there are limits to what the Commonwealth can do on its own".

 

[Smurf1976]

Daily output of WA coal plant past 12 months. I think the trend's fairly clear here:

Past 12 months the generation mix for WA (SWIS) was:

33.7% Gas
31.7% Coal
17.2% Solar
17.0% Wind
O.4% Bio (eg landfill gas)
0.01% Diesel

On a shorter term basis, past 30 days, coal supplied 19.9% of the total.

 

[Smurf1976]

Biggest problem with a lot of this is scale and related to that, the general public seems blissfully ignorant.

Most energy discussion focuses on electricity but in doing so it misses a very fundamental point.

Most electricity consumption is not electricity.

Looking at energy as it's used by consumers as distinct from the resources used to produce it, the figures for 2019-20 are as follows. Source = Australian Government data.

Fuels produced from oil used directly as petrol, diesel etc = 49.8%

Gas used directly as gas = 23.7%

Electricity from all sources = 20.1%

Renewable fuels used directly (eg solar hot water, firewood, ethanol etc) = 4.0%

Coal used directly as coal = 2.4%

Note that there's no double counting there. Eg gas used for electricity generation is not included in the 23.7% from gas figure which is only for gas used "as gas" at the point of consumption. Same with coal and oil.

There's far more to all this than the political focus on electricity generation. Far more. This may put it into perspective:

That's the energy mix, it's not just the electricity supply mix.

Eg in SA may well have 67% renewable electricity but it's nowhere even remotely close to that once we add in the use of reticulated gas, petroleum fuels and industrial use of coal.

There's a lot more to all this than just changing how we generate electricity. A lot more.

 

[Smurf1976]

Video showing removal of damaged transmission towers in Tasmania due to the recent landslip:



The dual circuit tower, that's the one with 6 physical lines attached, is the 2 x 220kV lines whilst the other towers, carrying 3 physical lines, is the 110kV line which wasn't damaged and has remained in operation except when required out of service to facilitate works.

Yes there's someone sitting on top of the 110kV tower 1:35

 

[Smurf1976]

Meanwhile in Switzerland:

Netflix and 20 degree chill: Switzerland looks to curb energy use

EVs would be banned from non-essential journeys, shop hours reduced and streaming services only permitted at low resolutions under proposed energy-saving measures.

www.smh.com.au

Electric cars could be banned from making non-essential journeys in Switzerland this winter under a COVID-19 lockdown-style plan to deal with potential energy shortages.

The strictest measures - designed to avoid a blackout in the worst-case scenario - include a ban on sports matches, concerts and theatre performances.

And along with that goes electric leaf blowers, escalators, Christmas lights, shops to close early and so on. Heck they're even going to reduce the resolution of video streaming.

There's a part of me that wants to burst out laughing at all this and that goes for every country.

But then I've been on about this for rather a long time since it's been readily apparent that this is exactly where we've been heading. That being so, my basic conclusion is that politicians and "think tanks", globally, are collectively worth, well, not much really.

This mess really shouldn't have happened.

 

[SirRumpole]

Bladeless wind generator ? Well not quite but still interesting.

 

[IFocus]

Biggest problem with a lot of this is scale and related to that, the general public seems blissfully ignorant.

Most energy discussion focuses on electricity but in doing so it misses a very fundamental point.

Most electricity consumption is not electricity.

Looking at energy as it's used by consumers as distinct from the resources used to produce it, the figures for 2019-20 are as follows. Source = Australian Government data.

Fuels produced from oil used directly as petrol, diesel etc = 49.8%

Gas used directly as gas = 23.7%

Electricity from all sources = 20.1%

Renewable fuels used directly (eg solar hot water, firewood, ethanol etc) = 4.0%

Coal used directly as coal = 2.4%

Note that there's no double counting there. Eg gas used for electricity generation is not included in the 23.7% from gas figure which is only for gas used "as gas" at the point of consumption. Same with coal and oil.

There's far more to all this than the political focus on electricity generation. Far more. This may put it into perspective:

View attachment 150107

That's the energy mix, it's not just the electricity supply mix.

Eg in SA may well have 67% renewable electricity but it's nowhere even remotely close to that once we add in the use of reticulated gas, petroleum fuels and industrial use of coal.

There's a lot more to all this than just changing how we generate electricity. A lot more.

No guesses where the cheapest gas is.

 

[mullokintyre]

Biggest problem with a lot of this is scale and related to that, the general public seems blissfully ignorant.

Don't mention scaleability problems on this forum.
I foolishly did, and got roundly browbeaten for my insolence.
Mick

 

[wayneL]

Meanwhile in Switzerland:

Netflix and 20 degree chill: Switzerland looks to curb energy use

EVs would be banned from non-essential journeys, shop hours reduced and streaming services only permitted at low resolutions under proposed energy-saving measures.

www.smh.com.au

And along with that goes electric leaf blowers, escalators, Christmas lights, shops to close early and so on. Heck they're even going to reduce the resolution of video streaming.

There's a part of me that wants to burst out laughing at all this and that goes for every country.

But then I've been on about this for rather a long time since it's been readily apparent that this is exactly where we've been heading. That being so, my basic conclusion is that politicians and "think tanks", globally, are collectively worth, well, not much really.

This mess really shouldn't have happened.

I know almost nothing about electricity and even the simplest household circuit is complete mystery to me.

But it has been obvious to me that this sort of outcome was inevitable and I am in the process right now of ensuring personal energy security.

It's not about economics for me personally anymore, it's about having power when I need it, despite what the idiots in control are doing.

 

[sptrawler]

Biggest problem with a lot of this is scale and related to that, the general public seems blissfully ignorant.

Most energy discussion focuses on electricity but in doing so it misses a very fundamental point.

Most electricity consumption is not electricity.

Looking at energy as it's used by consumers as distinct from the resources used to produce it, the figures for 2019-20 are as follows. Source = Australian Government data.

Fuels produced from oil used directly as petrol, diesel etc = 49.8%

Gas used directly as gas = 23.7%

Electricity from all sources = 20.1%

Renewable fuels used directly (eg solar hot water, firewood, ethanol etc) = 4.0%

Coal used directly as coal = 2.4%

Note that there's no double counting there. Eg gas used for electricity generation is not included in the 23.7% from gas figure which is only for gas used "as gas" at the point of consumption. Same with coal and oil.

There's far more to all this than the political focus on electricity generation. Far more. This may put it into perspective:

View attachment 150107

That's the energy mix, it's not just the electricity supply mix.

Eg in SA may well have 67% renewable electricity but it's nowhere even remotely close to that once we add in the use of reticulated gas, petroleum fuels and industrial use of coal.

There's a lot more to all this than just changing how we generate electricity. A lot more.

That really does put the 43% reduction in carbon emissions in perspective, thanks @Smurf1976
Can't wait to watch the next 7 years, there is a lot of carbon abatement to be done in a very short time, sounds like NBN mk2 to me.

 

[Smurf1976]

scaleability problems

That's the biggest problem with a lot of this.

Replacing 30% of the electricity with variable renewables is a cinch. Most places can do that quite easily and they'd be silly if they don't do so.

Beyond that it gets harder. You can't just have three times as many wind and solar facilities and go from 30% to 90% then add another few and get to 100%. It doesn't work that way due to variability of both wind / solar production and demand.

Then there's the consumption side.

As a case in point well here in SA, about two thirds of homes directly use fossil fuels for some purpose. Have as many wind farms and solar panels as you like but when 62% of residential water heaters burn some form of gas (natural gas or LPG) that doesn't help. Same with cooking and heating, a lot of it's directly burning fossils.

Tasmania is by far the most electrified of the Australian states. Electricity (including electric boosted solar) having a 94% market share for residential hot water, a 67% market share for residential space heating (with most of the rest being wood so that's still non-fossil), over 90% market share for commercial space heating, 90% market share for cooktops and almost 100% share for ovens. Direct use of fossil fuels in the state being primarily for transport and industrial heat.

NSW runs second on electrification by the way. It's far enough ahead of the other mainland states but nowhere near Tas so it's second place status won't likely change in a hurry.

Victoria especially but also SA and WA the use of gas is heavily entrenched at the consumer level. It's not going away anytime soon and that does limit the ability to shift to renewables overall. Renewables produce electricity - that's an issue when most of the energy being used isn't electricity.

NT's high % use of gas overall isn't directly, it's not at the household level, but simply because gas generates almost all electricity in the NT and the NT has Australia's second highest per capita electricity consumption after Tasmania. That's not the problem it might seem - shift the electricity supply to something else and that wipes out gas use almost entirely.

Even that's not a monumental challenge once you realise that the main electricity grid, the Darwin - Katherine system, only has 4 significant power stations supplying it and 3 of those are rather old which means replacement is required in the medium term. Hence the plan to go from almost 100% gas to 50% renewables by 2030 - that's not being done to save the planet, it's simply because it's the cheapest when they've got to invest in new plant. They're not needing to write anything off, a lot of it's only got a few years left in it anyway.

 

[sptrawler]

@Smurf1976 has someone mentioned it to Albo and Chris? ?

 

[sptrawler]

The head banging session, I mean the energy summit, had to be cancelled Albo has covid.
That's a shame, I was really looking forward to that one.

PM’s COVID diagnosis delays national cabinet’s energy price crisis talks

Time is running out for the prime minister to strike a deal as NSW and Queensland warn against any hit to their combined $9 billion in annual coal royalties.

www.smh.com.au

A meeting between federal and state leaders to strike a deal on power prices has been delayed after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese came down with COVID late on Monday, dragging out talks when NSW and Queensland are warning against any hit to at least $9 billion in combined annual coal royalties.
Albanese returned a positive test for COVID-19 on Monday evening, shelving plans for him to discuss the energy strategy with state and territory leaders at a dinner at Kirribilli House on Tuesday and forcing a delay to the national cabinet meeting scheduled for Wednesday.

 

[SirRumpole]

The head banging session, I mean the energy summit, had to be cancelled Albo has covid.
That's a shame, I was really looking forward to that one.

PM’s COVID diagnosis delays national cabinet’s energy price crisis talks

Time is running out for the prime minister to strike a deal as NSW and Queensland warn against any hit to their combined $9 billion in annual coal royalties.

www.smh.com.au

A meeting between federal and state leaders to strike a deal on power prices has been delayed after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese came down with COVID late on Monday, dragging out talks when NSW and Queensland are warning against any hit to at least $9 billion in combined annual coal royalties.
Albanese returned a positive test for COVID-19 on Monday evening, shelving plans for him to discuss the energy strategy with state and territory leaders at a dinner at Kirribilli House on Tuesday and forcing a delay to the national cabinet meeting scheduled for Wednesday.

Haven't they heard of a Zoom meeting ?

Or maybe they are afraid it could be hacked.

 

[sptrawler]

Haven't they heard of a Zoom meeting ?

Or maybe they are afraid it could be hacked.

Albo probably wanted to get them full of booze, before he read them the riot act. ?

 

[Smurf1976]

To put some figures on the NT system, specifically the Darwin - Katherine system:

Total installed generation = 472.5 MW

Of which 209.5 MW dates from 1988 or earlier.

So with a significant portion needing replacement in the not too distant future, that creates the opportunity to install batteries and solar without needing anything to be written off prematurely.

Not currently being considered but another "easy" option up there is the existing Ord River hydro scheme in WA which is under-utilised following closure of a mine previously supplied from it. If a transmission line were built to Katherine (NT) then just sending the unused capacity of that into the NT would reduce gas use there by more than 10%. That needs a transmission line only, no changes to anything else.

As a second stage, if solar were added to replace daytime use of the hydro for its existing uses, and capacity of the hydro station (but not the dam) were doubled to facilitate full use of the water running half the time, then a 63.5% renewable system (50% solar, 13.5% hydro with non-simultaneous operation) becomes very workable. All it needs, apart from building the solar which is straightforward, is a transmission line and expansion of the existing hydro station with two additional turbines.

The line distance would be about 430km which isn't huge, it could be built if someone wanted to. Transmission running Darwin - Pine Creek - Katherine is existing so just connecting to Katherine gets the lot.

Lots of things like this could be done if government's keen enough.

There's also other hydro potential up there, Snowy and Tas had a look at it circa late-1970's on behalf of the feds and NT, and several possible schemes were identified. They all require building dams on rivers so there's potential for controversy etc but the one I'm referring to already exists, it's just 30km over the border in WA and not fully utilised and not connected to anything that can make full use of it. So there's no real environmental impact there apart from the transmission line to connect it to the NT system. The dam's already built and filled with water.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Good bless queen BESS, and duck soup du jour:

An article, one of 6659 in this thread, from a fund manager that invests in CATL (I presume). Grist to the mill.

Where on Green Earth Do We Store All This Wind and Solar Power? - ShareCafe

In a global energy transition characterised thus far by imperfect solutions and uneven progress, the market for one critical piece of the puzzle is about to blow up.

www.sharecafe.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

Haven't they heard of a Zoom meeting ?

Or maybe they are afraid it could be hacked.

They must be reading your posts.

Delayed national cabinet meets Friday over power plan​

A critical Wednesday meeting of the national cabinet to finalise a plan on soaring energy prices has been delayed after Anthony Albanese tested positive for COVID-19.