The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

I'm not sold on renewables being a reliable source without something that doesn't rely on the weather.

A properly designed and run system is, mathematically, inherently more reliable than the other big renewable energy system - agriculture.

If the chance of electricity shortage is lower than the chance of famine, as it would be, then I'll argue that's low enough.

Key there being "properly designed and run" - there's no room for beliefs, shortcuts, guesswork or politics. It's measure and calculate and do what's required.

 

[Smurf1976]

There are those experts again. Are these experts, economists, engineers, environmentalists or public servants?

That'll depend very heavily on who's quoting said "experts".

There's a few individuals, quite well known in the industry, who are simply pushing a particular agenda but frequently get themselves quoted as "experts" by the media.

What they really are is someone with some good enough credentials but biased by virtue of employment toward particular outcomes which just happens to align with the bias of the media organisations who quote them. It works nicely - the media gets someone who says what their audience wants to hear, and their employer gets the media promoting the outcome they want to occur.

Other media, with a different bias, goes looking for someone with good enough credentials to push their side.

For the record I presently have no personal reason to advocate any particular technology over another beyond a broad "do something to keep the lights on" outcome.

 

[Smurf1976]

If a 660 MW plant that is not intermittent and can run for periods of months , let alone days, and can be built for 600 million does not make economic sense, how does the 14.2 billion for an intermittent pumped hydro plant make economic sense?

There's a few differences. Comparing gas turbines and hydro:

40 - 60 year life versus centuries if properly maintained.

Variable and potentially high ongoing fuel cost versus relatively low cost for energy to pump the water or no cost in the case of on-river schemes.

Risk of carbon taxes or restrictions versus no comparable risk.

Risk of physical fuel scarcity versus no comparable risk.

Gas turbines can be sold for relocation quite easily versus hydro once built is stuck in the one place and cannot be moved.

In the specific case of Kurri Kurri, it's neither licensed nor technically capable of continuous operation. To their credit APA Group, an ASX listed company, have of their own accord improved somewhat on the government's efforts in that regard but it still can't run constantly. The limitation being on the fuel supply side - the gas pipeline, a lateral supplied from the Moomba - Sydney pipeline, has a capacity of 60 TJ / day feeding a compressor discharging into a looped high pressure storage pipe holding 70 TJ. Gas consumption of the power station at full output being about 7 TJ per hour. So 8.5 hours per day is the limit, plus 10 hours stored.

A further limit, one imposed by license conditions, limits it to a 10% capacity factor over 12 months using gas.

Beyond that well it can burn diesel but that's limited by license conditions to 175 hours' operation per annum on diesel. So a 12% capacity factor in total split 2% diesel / 10% gas.

So it's a heavily constrained project in practice. Bearing in mind that Colongra power station, 724MW and also in NSW, also has a very limited gas supply. It's good for 5 hours' a day at full output on gas and that's it, after that it's diesel or nothing.

Add the constraints on those to gas-fired stations to the constraints on the existing hydro stations and the end result is, once the coal plants close, about 70% of dispatchable generation in NSW will be either fuel / regulatory constrained gas turbines or it'll be short term energy constrained hydro plant. That'll exceed 50% as soon as the early 2030's which in an energy planning sense is real soon.

I won't speculate when that becomes a problem, only that at some point it will matter. At some point there'll be a crisis due to that approach, it's an inherent design limitation akin to building a car with inadequate brakes. It won't matter until suddenly it does. Then the usual suspects will trot out the "nobody could have known" nonsense - in practice we know right now before it's even built.

Meanwhile it seems the ACCC has hit the panic button.

Winter gas shortage risk for NSW, Victoria

The competition watchdog has urged Queensland gas producers to sign supply deals with local buyers to fill the forecast shortfall before locking in exports.

www.theage.com.au

A shortfall of gas for heating and electricity generation looms for south-eastern Australia in the coming three months

Supply is becoming increasingly tight as several Victorian gas fields in Bass Strait rapidly decline without any new ones to replace them.

My view, and I base this comment on maths not simply opinion, is it won't be a problem unless either there's an infrastructure failure or humans deliberately make it a problem. Resilience isn't what it should be, so the set up is there the gun's loaded, but it needs a trigger to be an actual problem.

 

[sptrawler]

Sweden moving from 100% renewable, to 100% fossil fuel free target.

Swedish parliament passes new energy target, easing way for new nuclear power

Sweden's parliament on Tuesday adopted a new energy target, giving the right-wing government the green light to push forward with plans to build new nuclear plants in a country that voted 40 years ago to phase out atomic power.

www.reuters.com

STOCKHOLM, June 20 (Reuters) - Sweden's parliament on Tuesday adopted a new energy target, giving the right-wing government the green light to push forward with plans to build new nuclear plants in a country that voted 40 years ago to phase out atomic power.

Changing the target to "100% fossil-free" electricity, from "100% renewable" is key to the government's plan to meet an expected doubling of electricity demand to around 300 TwH by 2040 and reach net zero emissions by 2045.

"This creates the conditions for nuclear power," Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said in parliament. "We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system."

Sweden's parties agreed a deal in 2016 that new reactors could be built at existing sites. However, without subsidies, it has been seen as too expensive. The new right-of-centre coalition says new reactors are essential to power the shift to a fossil-free economy and has promised generous loan guarantees.

Around 98% of electricity in Sweden is already generated from water, nuclear and wind.

 

[basilio]

In the context of commercial application, that is beyond lab or prototype scale where the only real question is the technology itself, it comes down to cost per unit.

Cost per unit as in cost per MW and cost per MWh of storage.

Bearing in mind there's no real room for fat in all of this. Cost is already a problem now, there's no room to be spending more than absolutely necessary. Indeed cost is, and has been for at least the past 40 years, the only real barrier to using renewable energy since technically it's not that difficult as such. It's doing it economically that's difficult.

All other things being equal, large scale does win and there's a point where small scale is uneconomic. Eg there's an abundance of 2 - 3 GWh potential pumped hydro sites nationally but the economics of them are poor for daily storage and outright shocking for long term storage. Technically it's very doable, just prohibitively expensive.

Therein lies the inherent conflict. There's a reason engineers tend to go looking for steep river gorges and mountainous terrain - it means nature has already done almost all the work. Nature's built the bath, humans just need to put the plug in and if a dam is viewed in the context of the overall reservoir that's exactly that it is, a plug.

The downside is of course the ecological one and on that note I'll mention that tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary of the High Court ruling against the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme in Tasmania.

On that one though, without aiming to re-start an old debate, I'll point out that even those you might expect to be screaming from the rooftops to celebrate this anniversary have become very noticeably subdued in recent times. There was a big fuss at the 30 year mark but not so much now, and it's not simply due to their own age.

Nobody's planning to revive that project so far as I'm aware but from private discussions I'll say that even within the conservation movement the "No Dams" stance, the origins of which are a decision in 1981 to oppose all large hydro-electric dams, is now viewed as flawed by many. Or in simpler words, what could be termed a pro-dams faction within conservation movement has emerged. Not damming everything, but an acknowledgement that not all dams are the devil's work and that we're not going to end the use of fossil fuels without both nuclear and hydro being scaled up from present levels. That is, the question is where not whether.

The overall task, in terms of the required outcomes technically, economically, geopolitically and environmentally is massive on all four measures and realistically requires an "all of the above" approach to it in terms of the technologies used.

Dam the lot? No. But there's a place for them yes.

My personal view on that remains that species extinction or the loss of unique biological features needs to be avoided at all costs. Wiping out species is one hell of a price to pay in order to turn an alternator. Far too high a price and it ought be off limits. But that's where it ends - if we're just talking about generic unremarkable bushland or some scenic views then my argument is that, all things considered, if there's a need to flood it well get on and flood it. It's not the ideal solution but it's ultimately far more sustainable than fossils as a means of providing deep firming to VRE.

As a case in point well the Rubicon hydro scheme is on the Victorian Heritage Register and also on the National Estate and yet, if someone had tried to build it in recent times, they'd have been shot down in flames by those opposed to damming anything in the first place.

If it were up to me then I'd complete the Rubicon scheme, it was never finished to its potential due to a preference for coal, and I'd likewise complete the Kiewa scheme, also in Victoria and never fully completed. Both come with the benefit of being able to run flat out during winter when required - exactly what's needed to partially replace gas for VRE firming. Bonus that in both cases the roads and much other infrastructure including transmission is already not far away.

I see your point Smurf. Cost of development is a important factor. Just building a pumped hydro project for its own sake without regard to cost could be really dumb.

However... a few points to consider.

1) The concept of RheEnegise is essentially a cookie cutter engineering approach to small scale pumped hydro that are totally self contained. The heavy fluid is just pumped up hill with excess wind/solar/other energy and then released over 8-10 hours . As yet it seems unclear what commercial production costs would be.

2) Unlike very large hydro schemes it could be developed simultaneously in multiple locations. Construction could be completed in far shorter time frames than big schemes.

3) Being located across the country would firm up current renewable energy systems without the need for massive new power connections.

4) The life span of the project should be considerably longer than say batteries . So perhaps a somewhat higher initial cost can be borne against a longer term value.

I'd like to see it proven. And I would like to see engineers get busy with making it cost effective.

 

[SirRumpole]

I see your point Smurf. Cost of development is a important factor. Just building a pumped hydro project for its own sake without regard to cost could be really dumb.

However... a few points to consider.

1) The concept of RheEnegise is essentially a cookie cutter engineering approach to small scale pumped hydro that are totally self contained. The heavy fluid is just pumped up hill with excess wind/solar/other energy and then released over 8-10 hours . As yet it seems unclear what commercial production costs would be.

2) Unlike very large hydro schemes it could be developed simultaneously in multiple locations. Construction could be completed in far shorter time frames than big schemes.

3) Being located across the country would firm up current renewable energy systems without the need for massive new power connections.

4) The life span of the project should be considerably longer than say batteries . So perhaps a somewhat higher initial cost can be borne against a longer term value.

I'd like to see it proven. And I would like to see engineers get busy with making it cost effective.

The more energy you get when the fluid falls the more you have to put in to pump it up again, so are you really gaining anything ?

 

[basilio]

The more energy you get when the fluid falls the more you have to put in to pump it up again, so are you really gaining anything ?

Actually yes.. Remember this is transfer of unusable wind /solar energy for later use. It's function is to direct as much of unwanted renewable energy into an energy bank as is deemed necessary. The energy loss would be around 15% (I believe) .

I would be so keen to see how a smaller scale engineering company could devise a good cookie cutter approach to mass development of these units.

 

[sptrawler]

The more energy you get when the fluid falls the more you have to put in to pump it up again, so are you really gaining anything ?

As usual all these ideas work on the best case scenario, where you have heaps of excess renewable generation and they highlight how much capacity has to be installed to get 24/7 365 days a year reliable output.
With solar, there has to be enough to run the grid during the day and also have enough extra to recharge the storage that runs the system overnight, it certainly will take a lot of generation and storage.
That's where the $320billion dollar figure comes from.

 

[basilio]

As usual all these ideas work on the best case scenario, where you have heaps of excess renewable generation and they highlight how much capacity has to be installed to get 24/7 365 days a year reliable output.
With solar, there has to be enough to run the grid during the day and also have enough extra to recharge the storage that runs the system overnight, it certainly will take a lot of generation and storage.
That's where the $320billion dollar figure comes from.

Not so sure about this SP.
IF all of the solar output during the day is fed into the grid and used than definitely there would have to be an increase in solar panels to create more energy.
However my understanding is that we already have surplus solar energy from installations that can't be fed into the grid. Or perhaps the price of energy falls to quite a low level during the day that makes it more economic to simply store it by pumping fluid up a hill. ?

The issue of firming up renewable energy is ensuring that there are sources of saved energy that can be brought online when the sun goes down ect.

The size of any renewable energy units could be developed with a range of options in mind.

 

[sptrawler]

Not so sure about this SP.
IF all of the solar output during the day is fed into the grid and used than definitely there would have to be an increase in solar panels to create more energy.
However my understanding is that we already have surplus solar energy from installations that can't be fed into the grid. Or perhaps the price of energy falls to quite a low level during the day that makes it more economic to simply store it by pumping fluid up a hill. ?

The issue of firming up renewable energy is ensuring that there are sources of saved energy that can be brought online when the sun goes down ect.

The size of any renewable energy units could be developed with a range of options in mind.

Well Bas it's a bit like smurf mentioned the other day, renewables supply on average 34% of W.A'a annual supply, but for a couple of days in a row recently, they only supplied 5%.
So how do you pump the gunk, when you have consecutive days like that? On those days we will need a very large amount of excess generation installed, or a very large amount of long duration storage, which in W.A is an issue.

 

[basilio]

Well Bas it's a bit like smurf mentioned the other day, renewables supply on average 34% of W.A'a annual supply, but for a couple of days in a row recently, they only supplied 5%.
So how do you pump the gunk, when you have consecutive days like that? On those days we will need a very large amount of excess generation installed, or a very large amount of long duration storage, which in W.A is an issue.

Fair question. Could be a combination of both SP. A fair bit more generation capacity which still supplies a fair bit of power and small medium batteries/hydro/interconnected grid/gas power.

Perhaps they could tap into the energy grid that is now powering the mining fields ? Or possibly virtual power banks from EVs ?

 

[Smurf1976]

I see your point Smurf. Cost of development is a important factor. Just building a pumped hydro project for its own sake without regard to cost could be really dumb.

However... a few points to consider.

In the context of prototypes, technology development and so on I absolutely agree - "build it".

My point though is really about what happens in the long term? Is it a goer or not? Assuming the technical aspects can be made to work, that really comes down to cost per unit of storage and power.

I say that being aware there's a very long history of "obvious" things that didn't work in practice and likewise some that logic says would never work but in practice they do. Referring to the economics there not technical.

Among other examples:

There's coal within the metropolitan area of Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and at the outskirts Brisbane. Long story short - Brisbane's and Sydney have both seen some mining of that historically, Hobart did on a trivial scale, meanwhile it's never been used in either Adelaide or Melbourne.

When SA did mine coal, it was done 500km away in the middle of nowhere.

Victoria it's 150km from Melbourne.

Now in the case of Melbourne it's even funnier when I point out that the coal's within a short walk of Newport, which historically had the Newport A, B and C coal-fired power stations there but they never burned any local coal.

Adelaide it's similar, the broad area from around Waymouth St north through to the built area of North Adelaide and west through to the zoo sits atop coal. So the hospital, the Adelaide Oval, the golf course, Hindley St, the western half of North Terrace etc is all sitting on coal. Given its proximity to the River Torrens it would've actually made for a decent power station site if someone hadn't previously decided to put the CBD there. Indeed the first power station built to supply Adelaide wasn't far away - corner of Grenfell St and East Terrace in the CBD, right on the edge of a coal deposit that's never been mined. And yes that power station burned coal - which was imported.

The largest industrial heat user in Tasmania is within walking distance of proven coal and oil deposits but rails coal in from the other side of the state. Every attempt to extract those local resources, for any purpose, having failed economically despite plenty of companies trying over an extended period.

But on the other hand, solar PV. The idea that solar PV works better economically than solar thermal even when the required outcome is to heat water is truly bizarre from a physics perspective but it's absolutely real from an economic one. That comes down to mass production and scale, nothing else, being a big enough force to overcome the inferior physics.

Plenty of examples with existing hydro too. Schemes that seemed so obvious but which in practice were economic duds that never went beyond the investigation stage. Meanwhile others involving far greater technical complexity and located in the most inaccessible locations actually worked economically. Scale being what usually tipped the balance.

Hence I take the pragmatic approach. Develop technology and so on by all means but I'll reserve judgement on the economics until firm details are proven.

 

[SirRumpole]

Informative video on several items of generation and storage.

"Do we have enough minerals on earth to supply our energy needs" ?

 

[sptrawler]

Informative video on several items of generation and storage.

"Do we have enough minerals on earth to supply our energy needs" ?

The answer to that will become obvious, as we move along the path.
At the moment it is all speculation, the only thing for certain is we do have to try and move away from fossil fuel, then the next problem will pop up that humans never ending wanting and consuming causes. ?

 

[sptrawler]

Another example of reality catching up.

There's a growing community backlash to transmission line projects. This review hopes to quell concerns

Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen seeks to head off growing community opposition to transmission lines, launching an inquiry into how projects are planned.

www.abc.net.au

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), which runs Australia's major power systems, has used its blueprint for the energy transition to call for a big expansion of the country's transmission networks.
In its central plan, the agency said more than 10,000km of new high-voltage lines would be
required to connect all of the wind, solar and back-up power being built to replace retiring coal-fired plants.

This was because Australia's best renewable energy resources were often nowhere near Australia's coal hubs, meaning new or upgraded lines were required to exploit them.

But the plan is coming under increasing pressure, with several transmission projects facing delays and potential cost blowouts in the face of grassroots resistance.


The Minister insisted the government's plans to boost Australia's renewable electricity rate to 82 per cent by 2030 could still be achieved despite the obstacles in the way of expanding the transmission network.

To that end, Mr Bowen said the review of transmission planning and investment by Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer would recommend improvements to the way projects were handled.

"I understand it's difficult," he said.

"But we do need transmission. And anybody who pretends that that's not the case is having themselves on.
"Just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we don't have to get on with it, but [we want to] bring communities with us with better engagement and better community dividends than has been the case historically in Australia."

Mr Bowen said the review was expected to take six months to complete.

 

[Smurf1976]

Mr Bowen said the review was expected to take six months to complete.

The real problem here is time's running out.

The goal isn't simply something about reducing emissions by 2030 that could be delayed by six months with little consequence.

We're very fast approaching the point where the only option is a like for like replacement of fossil fuel generating capacity which, once done, we're then basically stuck with.

 

[sptrawler]

The real problem here is time's running out.

The goal isn't simply something about reducing emissions by 2030 that could be delayed by six months with little consequence.

We're very fast approaching the point where the only option is a like for like replacement of fossil fuel generating capacity which, once done, we're then basically stuck with.

Exactly what we have been saying for about 3 years, the other problem with that scenario though is, what private company is going to be interested in building a fossil fueled station? None is my guess, why would they, it would be madness.
So then you have the Government having to build it, which becomes a whole new political problem.
This IMO is getting messier as time moves on.

 

[Smurf1976]

Exactly what we have been saying for about 3 years, the other problem with that scenario though is, what private company is going to be interested in building a fossil fueled station? None is my guess, why would they, it would be madness.
So then you have the Government having to build it, which becomes a whole new political problem.
This IMO is getting messier as time moves on.

Indeed.

What concerns those looking at the technical side of this, that is with no particular interest in politics so long as we get a decent outcome, is that time's fast running out to get any solution at all.

Pick any option and they all take quite some time and that goes for all big engineering projects.

 

[sptrawler]

Indeed.

What concerns those looking at the technical side of this, that is with no particular interest in politics so long as we get a decent outcome, is that time's fast running out to get any solution at all.

Pick any option and they all take quite some time and that goes for all big engineering projects.

I think that issue is staring to dawn on Bowen, it would certainly be scaring me, if I was in his shoes.

Extrapolating out the problem, by the time it becomes obvious something HAS to be done, just getting the public onside to do it will be a major feat after the demonising that has gone on over recent times.
Then they have to decide what they are going to install, which due to time constraints will probably have to be gas, so then fuel supply raises its head as a problem.

Through all this period will the public lose confidence in the renewable narrative? Hopefully it doesn't eventuate but Labor have a huge amount of skin in the game and judging by Albo's popularity ratings the public have a lot of trust invested in him.
Going by the fact that transmission projects have either stalled or haven't even started, it really is getting interesting, W.A has got its own set of problem now so everything seems to be coming to a head.

To highlight the problem you mention @Smurf1976 , how long has it been since Kurri Kurri was announced?
Dec 2021, now two years later it still isn't online and if several coal plants are forced to shut down prematurely, more than one Kurri Kurri will need to be built is my guess.
The lead time, locations and logistics would be a nightmare, interesting times indeed, it is better than reading a thriller IMO.

FEB 2023:

New Snowy CEO can’t rule out further delays at projects

Dennis Barnes could not rule out a further delay at Snowy 2.0, while a business case has yet to be made to run the Kurri Kurri power station on green hydrogen.

www.afr.com

Snowy Hydro’s new chief executive Dennis Barnes has confirmed 12-month delays in the start-up of both the $5.9 billion Snowy 2.0 project and the Kurri Kurri power plant in NSW, with no guarantee against further hold-ups and cost increases.

Mr Barnes told Senate estimates that Snowy had advised the Australian Energy Market Operator of the revised timelines for the two projects, which have both been hit by construction delays due to bad weather and other factors.

Snowy 2.0 is now anticipated to be completed at the end of 2027, while the 750-megawatt Kurri Kurri plant near Newcastle is now anticipated to only be fully online in December 2024, although initial power production is expected in May of that year, he said.

The new timelines raise more question marks over the smoothness of the transition in the National Electricity Market, given accelerating closure dates being announced for coal power plants.

The Kurri Kurri generator, formally called the Hunter Power Project, is now due fully online more than 18 months after the final closure of AGL Energy’s Liddell coal power generator in the Hunter Valley. It was originally intended to start up in time for the first summer season after Liddell closes.
The cost of Snowy 2.0 was raised last year to $5.9 billion, while the cost of the Kurri Kurri plant, originally put at $600 million, is subject to a review that is under way. An additional investment of up to $700 million is envisaged by Snowy’s owner, the Commonwealth government, as part of its pre-election pledge to have the generator run on 30 per cent green hydrogen at the outset.

However, running the plant on 30 per cent green hydrogen – which is not currently available at the site at any cost – is subject to a business case still being worked up by Snowy Hydro that is due to go to government before the 2024 federal budget. The feasibility of that condition set by the Albanese government contributed to the departure of Mr Barnes’ predecessor Paul Broad last August.

 

[sptrawler]

I certainly hope this gets air, we are so busy telling everyone how we are leading the world at dry humping ourselves, I hope we can stop this unfolding tragedy also.
Is there any wonder we have one of the best living standards in the World we are obviously taking the pizz, come on let's sort this out te rest of the World is suffering for our inaction.

Australia vastly underreporting methane pollution, report finds

The International Energy Agency detected uncounted emissions from coal and gas fields equivalent to 6 per cent of the nations’ pollution.

www.smh.com.au

Australia has been called out for underreporting its annual greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 28 million tonnes by failing to record more than 80 per cent of emissions that leak during coal and gas production, exacerbating the challenge of achieving the government’s upgraded climate targets.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency, which conducts independent analysis of greenhouse emissions using public data including satellite detection, estimates that in 2022 Australia’s coal mines were responsible for about 81 per cent more fugitive methane emissions than official statistics show, while oil and gas production generated 92 per cent more.