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
Fundamentals in layman's terms:

Electricity production and consumption needs to match precisely and it needs to do so in real time.

I'll use the analogy of sound. If you want to hear it then it has to be produced in real time. Produced from a recording it could be yes, but the recording isn't storing actual sound, it's just storing a means of recreating specific sounds. What you hear still comes out the speakers in real time.

Electricity is the same. A pile of coal, a tank full of oil or gas, water behind a dam etc are all storing an energy source that can be turned into electricity but the electricity itself must be produced in real time.

The problem with wind and solar being simply that they're highly variable at or close to ground level and we have no workable means of storing the wind and sun itself. At best, we can harness the wind and sun when they're available and use them to produce something else which can be stored or, alternatively, we use something else (eg gas, diesel) as a backup. Or a combination of both approaches.

Batteries work, there's no question about that, but the problem is scale. The entire worldwide battery production in 2023 is forecast at 555 GWh. To put that into perspective, that's less than 4% of the storage capacity of the Tasmanian hydro system and it's outright trivial compared to hydro globally.

So batteries are just fine for short duration storage, eg to meet the evening peak demand, and there's quite a few companies (including AGL, Origin and Energy Australia among others) instaling them for that reason but they're not up to the task of maintaining supply during prolonged periods (days) of overcast, calm weather.

For that the options are far more limited - hydro or fuel of some sort. It's not that engineers love dams, gas turbines or diesel engines, just that they're the available fix for the problem.

In the context of hydro, either pumped storage or on river dams are both technically viable options so long as there's a surplus of energy at some other time with which to run the pumps. The key is finding places where they can be built large enough at a low enough cost - that's the hard bit which rules many out.

It's a scale of economy thing basically. What it needs to be viable is high energy storage volume relative to the civil works and transmission required including all roads, dams, tunnels or other water conveyance and transmission. The power station itself being more of a constant. Same with any resource. There's plenty of coal or iron ore for example that's worthless in practice since the cost to get it out of the ground is too high. Etc.

Failing that, it's gas turbines or diesels. Trouble is, those also come with a very real environmental impact and that's a key point of all this.

There is no "do nothing" option that maintains a functioning modern society.

There is no option that does not impact the environment in some way.

Or as an analogy, we have no choice other than to break some eggs and make the omelette. All we're choosing is which eggs we break. Trouble is, every egg has someone arguing why it ought be saved.
 
moXJO said:
So my understanding (and anyone feel free to correct me because I don't really know)
is that renewables are a cheap source of power. But the actual transition off one of the current firming measures is where the costs start to really add up?
Click to expand...
Round ballpark figure for a generic wind or solar project built on a large scale in Australia is $50 per MWh generated.

That assumes it's commutable distance from a town or city, so we're not trying to house workers in the middle of nowhere etc, and that the required transmission line is at most 10's of km it's not strung half way across the country etc.

Trouble is that $50 gets us intermittent electricity whereas society expects constant power on demand and it's creating that which gets expensive.

As just one example, well in SA demand peaks at about 3400MW.

AGL spent $295 million building the Barker Inlet power station, capacity 210MW using internal combustion engines (gas / diesel) and is spending $180 million putting a 200MW battery, with a running time of one hour expandable at additional cost to 4 hours, next to it.

So all up that's $475 million to meet 12% of peak demand but, once we count the need for maintenance, breakdowns etc it's really only 10% of the required SA capacity for that $475 million.

Now you need to add the cost of gas or diesel burned at Barker Inlet.

Then it needs to be considered that the batteries in particular have a finite life that's fairly limited. Some of them will be shut before the last coal stations close.

Economics has long been the barrier to renewables. The basic technology's all been there for 40 years now but the trouble has been doing it an affordable manner.
 
Another two have bitten the dust:

AER ensures continued supply for former QEnergy and Mojo Power customers

[no-lexicon]The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has initiated the Retailer of Last Resort process that will allow for the transfer of customers from electricity retailers QEnergy Limited and Mojo Power Pty Ltd to ensure the continued supply of essential energy services to these customers. The...
www.aer.gov.au


 
Allan Finkle quits as advisor to the Victorian Governments new State Electricity commission, sounds as though the SEC is heading the way of the last SEC, I wonder when Dan will pull the pin on a high.
Sounds as though everyone is getting fed up with the narrative and starting to tell the mob, what was obvious to most.
Another example of reality catching up with the enormity, well we did mention the issues in this thread several years ago.
An early election might be on the cards, before the manure hits the proverbial IMO. I just can't see the mob liking the way this is going, in a year or two.

‘Profound slowdown’: Alan Finkel quits Victoria’s SEC

Former chief scientist Alan Finkel has quit his role advising Victoria’s SEC amid criticism by energy experts that it lacks clarity and capital.
www.afr.com

Former chief scientist Alan Finkel has quit his role advising Victoria’s State Electricity Commission, as the organisation’s chief executive warned energy prices will rise, despite Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ election promise the SEC would bring down prices.

The Australian Financial Review can reveal Dr Finkel has quit his role advising the SEC, amid criticism by energy experts that plans for the re-established body lack detail and didn’t have sufficient capital.

The inaugural CEO of the SEC also told the Australian Energy Week conference it was still searching for its first project, amid growing concerns investments have dried up and the country is unlikely to reach its emission reduction targets.

Chris Miller, appointed interim CEO of the SEC, acknowledged on Thursday the energy transition would cause a large uptick in energy prices, despite Mr Andrews’ election claims.

“We know that getting to 95 per cent renewables in Victoria will require a large uptick in billed rates,” he told the conference.

The Grattan Institute’s energy director Tony Wood agreed.

“No-one who has ever understood any of the numbers would ever tell you the delivered price of electricity is going to go down unless you were going into an election and wanted to promise they would,” he said.
Mr Wood is among experts who have warned the SEC appears hopelessly short of funds, given the Australian Energy Market Operator estimates the transition from fossil fuels will cost around $320 billion nationally.

“There’s so many unknowns and questions, and none of them have been answered yet,” he said.

“We’ve got one shot of getting this right,” Mr Miller told Australian Energy Week in Melbourne.

“We know at a national level the Commonwealth government is aiming for 82 per cent renewable penetration by 2030. In Victoria we have a target of 95 per cent renewables by 2035,” he said.

“Current projections are that Victoria needs about 25 gigawatts of new capacity to reach the 2035 target.”


But Mr Miller pointed to warnings by the CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator, Daniel Westerman, and data from the Clean Energy Council that shows “a profound and recent slowdown in new financial commitments for large-scale user generation projects”.

“In fact, in the first quarter of this year there were no new financial commitments across the nation despite a strong pipeline of projects.”
Mr Miller said registration of interest in investing with the SEC closed in May “and we received a really pleasing response” but said “we know that our seed capital of $1 billion doesn’t buy 4.5 gigawatts acting alone”.

Mr Westerman warned the conference on Tuesday that investment in new, clean electricity supply is not happening fast enough to replace closing coal power stations.

No new renewable energy generation projects reached a final investment decision in the March quarter, despite more than 200 gigawatts of proposed future generation projects.

Coal plant closures are set to accelerate at the same time, building on AGL Energy’s shutdown of the Liddell power station in NSW in April.


Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood agreed on Thursday with new head of the French-owned energy group Engie in Australia Rik De Buyserie, that the country is on track to miss its 2030 climate targets.

“I would be very impressed and absolutely surprised in a positive sense if we were to achieve anywhere near 82 per cent renewables by 2030,” Mr Wood said.
 
Last edited:

Soon the people will be asking, if they are not already, "what is the most important, the climate or cheap energy prices" ?

Does anyone have the guts to admit that the task is bigger than they thought and perhaps build things that actually generate power at affordable prices rather than just reduce emissions ?

Maybe just buying solar panels for every house in the country is a better bet than spending $billions on transmission lines and wind farms ?
 
The big issue is making that 2030 line in the sand IMO, as I said when Labor announced it the problem is it is a measurable target witha ridiculously short time frame.
They have made a rod for their own back, which will either cost the taxpayer an eyewatering amount, or cost them Government IMO, as usual great ideas hamstrung by poor implementation.

The amount of storage needed to get rid of the coal generators hasn't even been talked about yet, only the amount of renewable generation is being discussed, this has to end badly IMO.
The gas producers are reluctant to invest, the private sector is mopping up all the mining company renewable work, as it is easier than Govt work.
The transmission and distribution network is a massive money pit and is running behind schedule as is most projects ATM, we look like we are going into a recession and the coal generators are wanting to close plant down.

IMO the target is fast becoming the least of the Governments problems, keeping the lights on is very quickly overtaking the target as the issue even in W.A.

The general public paying more for electricity they can probably live with, paying more for a less reliable system wont go down well, hopefully something is pulled out of the bag because it is starting to look like an out of control train wreck the way it's going IMO.

Your idea of solar panels for everyone might sound far fetched, but funnier things have happened, it would probably be cheaper than the NBN and everyone cheered that cable t.v system on.
 
SirRumpole said:
Does anyone have the guts to admit that the task is bigger than they thought and perhaps build things that actually generate power at affordable prices rather than just reduce emissions ?
Click to expand...
There's no shortage of people in the industry who grasp what needs to happen and who are capable of making it happen.

Trouble is the politics stands in the way.

What's needed is the term older people often use. Start talking about electricity supply and they'll refer to it as "the electricity authority" or something very similar to that.

Key word being "authority" and if we look how the present power system was built, it was done in just that manner. An authority that did in fact have the authority to do things with government keeping watch from a distance, asking probing questions to ensure it was on track but otherwise letting it get on with the job.

Trouble with a lot of this is first level thinking and looking only at one aspect of the problem when what we need is to look at and solve all aspects. Thing is, that's way beyond the capabilities of politicians but it's not undoable as such.

The big problem with politics is it doesn't acknowledge its own limitations and that it needs to set the broad direction then step back and let others get on with it.
 
Nailed it @Smurf , hopefully someone is listening, but these days that doesn't seem to happen.
 
Unless they start heavy subsidies of home batteries to offset some of the cost and power draw. Not sure what they are going to go with considering the idiots locked us into targets.
 
sptrawler said:
hopefully someone is listening, but these days that doesn't seem to happen.
Click to expand...
A century ago in Victoria, Sir John Monash explained all this to the then state government.

He went into detail about why the solution was to develop coal and hydro, not just one or the other, and the reason for building two distinctly different types of coal plant in different locations.

Whether the politicians ever understood the technical aspects or not, they did grasp that Monash clearly understood them and left him to get on with the job.

Within 10 years of it's inception, so 1918 - 1928, the SECV had brought into operation:

A coal mine.

A briquette factory.

A coal-fired power station next to the mine burning raw coal with 6 units for base load operation.

Four hydro stations with a total of 5 generating units for intermediate operation.

Three coal units in Melbourne all for load following, peak load and backup. These being fuelled with briquettes.

A transmission system connecting it all together.

Frequency changers to allow routine power sharing between the Railways' 25Hz power system with its existing power station and the SEC's 50Hz system. Plus connection of the Melbourne City Council's power station to the main grid also. This brought about effectively a single power system operated as one under SEC control albeit with the Railways and MCC continuing to own their facilities.

All built from scratch less than a decade from having decided something needed to be done without any plans prior to that.

That's what happens when a competent person is put in charge and left to get on with it and the story in other states is much the same.
 
Last edited:
AEMO is the modern equivalent or are they just another committee?
 
moXJO said:
Unless they start heavy subsidies of home batteries to offset some of the cost and power draw. Not sure what they are going to go with considering the idiots locked us into targets.
Click to expand...
Even if they push home solar and batteries, it isn't like the NBN or the pink batts, the logistics of supplying that amount of electrical equipment, then installing it is mind boggling. I don't think it would be achievable in a sensible time frame that would warrant the Govt trying.
Most of the NBN was remote work from the residential premises and the batts is a semi skilled task whereas installing home solar/battery grid fed systems will require trades people overseeing it and I doubt that could be done in a short time frame.

The real problem is coal has been so demonised by the Govt and the media, to the point that it is no longer acceptable by the public, but the reality is there doesn't seem to be a sensible plan to close it.
So the companies appear to be deciding for themselves when that happens, which really isn't a plan and as smurf has said over and over it needs to be controlled by technical planning not political posturing.
I just can't see how it can be done in the time allocated, but meanwhile the coal generators don't want to spend a lot of money repairing and overhauling their coal generators and Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0 are behind schedule already.
Gas supply is an issue and people are converting to electrical appliances HWS, heating and cooking, which increases demand.
I might be wrong, but from the outside looking in, it just seems to be descending into a mess.
It is interesting to watch from a technical perspective though.

The other fly in the ointment IMO is, the general public has been told over and over for a long time renewables will make electricity cheaper, they expect that and the fact it wont get cheaper will wear thin very soon, the Governments can't just keep sending out subsidies for ever.
As the article I posted from the AFR says, it wont be cheaper, it is going to cost a huge amount of money to make it happen and it wont be a gift, the public will pay for it despite what the politicians and loonies say.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
AEMO is the modern equivalent or are they just another committee?
Click to expand...
Big difference is AEMO operates that which exists but it has no authority to build or own physical assets. They can identify the need and write reports but they can't go and build it themselves.

Versus the SECV / Sir John Monash a century ago actively built everything required apart from the bits someone else (Railways and the MCC) had already built then operated the whole lot.

So an operator only versus a builder and operator. If there was any issue with electricity in Victoria at that time, it all came back to the same organisation and those running it.

Versus today where nobody's actually obligated to ensure adequate or even any supply.
 
Sir John Monash was an organising genius. He was also a skilled engineer and could see engineering opportunities which would not be visible to many other people. His leadership in WW1 saved may thousands of lives and was a critical part of ending the war quickly in the final push. Victoria and Australia was very fortunate to have his service to the country.

One interesting aspect re John Monash. He was not a popular person early in his Military career. He was a Prussian-Polish -Jew (Three strikes !) ) not a professional soldier (also bad) and regarded by some as jumped up engineer trying to be a Military Officer. He had to work hard to be accepted and successful.
The Wiki article on John Monash is very thorough with his early life engineering achievements and Military record. Well worth a read.
 
Just shows Bas, a leader doesn't have to be a well loved and popular person to be a good leader, they just have to put the interests of the country first.
Funny how times have changed.
 
sptrawler said:
Just shows Bas, a leader doesn't have to be a well loved and popular person to be a good leader, they just have to put the interests of the country first.
Funny how times have changed.
Click to expand...

SP John Monash was very well loved and popular across the armed forces and the country. His soldiers loved him becasue he did not see them as canon fodder and created very astute military strategies. I made the comments about the initial disapproval by fellow officers as an observation on the prejudices that were quite accepted at the time.
 
Well in W.A John Tonkin was very much loved by the people, Charlie Court not so much, they both did a good job and were well respected, the last bit is the issue in todays society IMO.
More recent leaders of the ilk were Collin Barnett and Mark McGowan, opposite public appeal, but both put the interests of the State first.

Also my observations through life has been, those who show the least respect, usually have the least analytical thinking capacity.
 
I hear a distant wail of "Wattaboutme?"

"From July, only homes with an unimproved land value of $450,000 or less will qualify for interest-free loans to install solar products."

Interest-free loans for solar will soon be restricted for Canberra households while encouraged for apartments

Under changes to the ACT government's Sustainable Household Scheme, only properties with an unimproved land value of $450,000 or less can apply for an interest-free loan to install solar products.
www.abc.net.au
 
Canberra the virtue signaling beuracrat capital of Australia, why the hell would they still be reticulating gas to the houses, when they are throwing around money for people to put in solar?
Because they have too much money and not enough to do in Canberra, lucky the rest of Australia is paying their rent.
Is there any wonder the rest of the country takes politicians with a grain of salt IMO. They can't even organise, their workplace let alone the rest of the country. ?

Gas pipes installed in most new Canberra homes, even though supply will be switched off

About 80 per cent of new ACT homes are connected to the gas network, imposing tens of thousands of dollars in future electrification costs on owners.
www.abc.net.au

Most new homes being built in Canberra are connecting to the city's gas supply, despite plans to switch the network off within two decades.
The ACT government says about 80 per cent of new houses, and 30 per cent of new townhouse and apartment complexes, have natural gas connections.

Larger buildings are a particular concern, as the costs of retrofitting them for electricity are far higher.
 
Time to put the afterburners on if we are going to effectively transition to a low carbon renewable energy power supply.
This analysis deserves close study.

Australia’s transition away from fossil fuels ‘not fast enough’ as wind and solar investment lags​

Australian Energy Market Operator head Daniel Westerman says two-thirds of electricity capacity could leave grid by 2030

Peter Hannam
Tue 20 Jun 2023 09.15 AESTLast modified on Tue 20 Jun 2023 09.23 AEST


Australia’s transition away from fossil fuels is not proceeding fast enough with too few investments in wind and solar farms, according to the head of the Australian Energy Market Operator.
Daniel Westerman, in a speech on Tuesday, will also argue that delays in transmission construction have left the grid vulnerable to the sudden exit of coal-fired power stations.

Westerman says coal plants supply about 60% of the country’s electricity needs but as much as two-thirds of the capacity could leave the grid by 2030.

Renewable energy backed by storage was the cheapest form of new capacity, and there was “a strong pipeline” of proposed new wind and solar plants totalling more than 200 gigawatts of capacity, the Aemo boss will tell the Australian Energy Week 2023 conference. However, whether they would actually be built remained uncertain.

Australia’s transition away from fossil fuels ‘not fast enough’ as wind and solar investment lags

Australian Energy Market Operator head Daniel Westerman says two-thirds of electricity capacity could leave grid by 2030
www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
813
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
579
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
652
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
9
Views
99
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...