The future of energy generation and storage

[IFocus]

There's also a company looking very seriously at coal gasification using low grade coal that otherwise isn't being used for anything.

The Japanese ran an experimental plant using brown coal (gases I think) in the late 80's early 90's over east some where, an instrument tech died on the site got cooked in a hydrogen explosion.

Went looking for it and found this

“Clean” brown coal to hydrogen project likely an economic dud, says new report

Controversial brown coal-to-hydrogen project in Victoria is likely an economic dud, and lousy for the environment, says new study.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

What would be the prime identified sites for large hydro ? Apart from Snowy 2.0

I doubt it has been announced, as the uproar would have started.

 

[SirRumpole]

I doubt it has been announced, as the uproar would have started.

Yes, but Smurf can tell us, we can keep a secret.

 

[sptrawler]

The Japanese ran an experimental plant using brown coal (gases I think) in the late 80's early 90's over east some where, an instrument tech died on the site got cooked in a hydrogen explosion.

Went looking for it and found this

“Clean” brown coal to hydrogen project likely an economic dud, says new report

Controversial brown coal-to-hydrogen project in Victoria is likely an economic dud, and lousy for the environment, says new study.

reneweconomy.com.au

Yes hydrogen is the key to unchaining humans from fossil fuel, it has the energy density, it has next to no emissions, but it is very inefficient to make in huge volumes.
That is the stumbling block and IMO is what will force a compromise, it will require continuous production of huge amounts of hydrogen to realistically replace the fossil fuel in the transport sector.
That will force a compromise on what electrical energy source to produce it IMO, fossil fuel makes no sense as it is a negative return, renewables I doubt will stack up due to the amount that would be required to be installed and its intermittent nature, so maybe eventually? who knows.
My personal thoughts are, there is only one energy source capable of making enough H2 at a scale big enough to satisfy the demand and do it without emissions.
Time will tell, but I can't see any other answer for Europe and Asia ATM, but you never know technology is coming up with brilliant ideas all the time.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes hydrogen is the key to unchaining humans from fossil fuel, it has the energy density, it has next to no emissions, but it is very inefficient to make in huge volumes.
That is the stumbling block and IMO is what will force a compromise, it will require continuous production of huge amounts of hydrogen to realistically replace the fossil fuel in the transport sector.
That will force a compromise on what electrical energy source to produce it IMO, fossil fuel makes no sense as it is a negative return, renewables I doubt will stack up due to the amount that would be required to be installed and its intermittent nature, so maybe eventually? who knows.
My personal thoughts are, there is only one energy source capable of making enough H2 at a scale big enough to satisfy the demand and do it without emissions.
Time will tell, but I can't see any other answer for Europe and Asia ATM, but you never know technology is coming up with brilliant ideas all the time.

Fusion would sort the issue or develop nuclear but not the uranium branch..that would mean giving up nukes as side bonus .so not that favoured by leaders

 

[qldfrog]

Fusion would sort the issue or develop nuclear but not the uranium branch..that would mean giving up nukes as side bonus .so not that favoured by leaders

Look at thorium if not aware of already...

 

[Knobby22]

The Japanese ran an experimental plant using brown coal (gases I think) in the late 80's early 90's over east some where, an instrument tech died on the site got cooked in a hydrogen explosion.

Went looking for it and found this

“Clean” brown coal to hydrogen project likely an economic dud, says new report

Controversial brown coal-to-hydrogen project in Victoria is likely an economic dud, and lousy for the environment, says new study.

reneweconomy.com.au

They had the chief engineer talk about it on the ABC some time ago.
By-product was also saleable.

 

[Smurf1976]

The Japanese ran an experimental plant using brown coal (gases I think) in the late 80's early 90's over east some where, an instrument tech died on the site got cooked in a hydrogen explosion.

Morwell (Victoria).

Town Gas was produced from brown coal 1956 until 1969, closed due to replacement with natural gas. This was a commercial scale operation supplying a third of Melbourne's gas prior to its demise.

1980's there was a coal to oil plant that proved the technical viability of converting brown coal to oil and thus petrol, diesel etc. This was a working pilot plant with Japanese involvement. All closed now.

Also a long history of compressing coal into briquettes first at nearby Yallourn (1924 - 1970) and later at Morwell (1959 - 2014). Total production capacity peaked at just over 2 million tonnes per annum during the 1960's when all plant was in operation.

More recently there's the hydrogen plant but it's on a trivial scale, it's to prove the concept not to seriously produce any meaningful quantity of hydrogen. In scale terms, it's really only one step up from a lab experiment, it's a proof of concept operation not a real business.

 

[Smurf1976]

What would be the prime identified sites for large hydro ? Apart from Snowy 2.0

I'll cautiously say the sites would be extremely contentious with regard to environmental effects and that I absolutely do see both sides of that situation. There's sound engineering but there's an undeniable value of that same land for conservation and that being so, any decision to proceed would most definitely be seen as a sacrifice.

There are five key areas and the reason any development would be extremely controversial will become obvious:

Two are National Parks with existing water resource development, including large dams, the additional development within them involving a total of four new dams all of which are on river. The relevant areas being Alpine National Park (Victoria) and Kosciuszko National Park (NSW). That is, they are in the broad vicinity of the existing Kiewa scheme (Victoria, owned by AGL) and the existing Snowy Hydro scheme.

Three others are conservation listed areas with that listing having been proclaimed for the specific primary intent of preventing hydro development. These sites are in three separate states.

Politically it would be dynamite so I'll decline to name specific sites in the second category beyond stating that the Franklin River is not one of them, that was specifically excluded from such plans given past major controversy.

There are also a number of other sites of lesser importance and scale but also generally less land use conflict. These range from the expansion of two existing schemes affecting only agricultural or mining land, to that which would build a new dam on river flooding land with a history of timber logging, to that which is in areas environmentalists have very actively campaigned to have placed in National Parks - the reason being they're well aware of the dam possibility.

So there's a very real and major conflict of land uses there and the reasons are really quite straightforward and not what most would probably assume.

The very idea of conservation came about long after humans started clearing and otherwise developing land, indeed a key trigger was the concern that before too much longer there'd be literally nothing left that humans hadn't radically altered from its' natural state.

That reality means the places available to be conserved weren't chosen based on ecological merit as such but rather, they were simply what was left, what humans hadn't already cleared, mined, dammed or built on by that point mostly the 1970's onwards. With some exceptions where the NP does happen to be in a place that did always have huge ecological value.

Now as with most things, humans tend to go for the best and easiest options first. With land that meant nice flat land at relatively low altitudes, as a species we really aren't keen on living up in mountains or trying to run farms on steep slopes.

And so we have the problem. By the time humans got around to conserving nature, the only nature left to conserve just happened to be the mountains and steep slopes. Those are, of course, the places suitable for large hydro projects, the development of which is mutually exclusive to the entire concept of conservation.

And so we have an interesting situation. Some of the early hydro schemes are themselves heritage listed and classified much the same as natural things. There'd be a degree of outrage if anyone tried dismantling them today, indeed there actually were protests when the idea was suggested. But on the other hand, they'd be impossible to build if they didn't already exist due to the nature conservation argument.

Suffice to say as someone who's spent plenty of time bushwalking, I do see and accept as legitimate the conservation side of the argument. But then there's the energy and climate side of the argument as the counter.

One I will mention, albeit relatively small scale, is to redevelop the existing King River scheme in Tasmania to shift it from routine use to a VRE deep firming role. Technically that's pretty straightforward, it's just a matter of enlarging the tunnel and adding another two machines to the power station, lifting capacity from 143MW to 429MW. That drops the capacity factor of the station, but the rest remains the same and the existing dams and storage are suitable for that deep firming role.

Ecology? Well given the King River immediately downstream of the power station has had approximately 100 million tonnes of mine waste and smelter slag dumped into it historically, and that's the actual estimate 100 million tonnes it's not just a figure of speech to say a big round number, well there's not a lot to lose ecologically. I don't think anyone would argue for conservation there, they'd be a fool if they did.

So that's only a small option, it's only 286MW being added, but it's one that I doubt anyone would object to at least not rationally. It basically represents an alternative at the NEM level to a typical medium sized gas turbine station. Eg Laverton North is 320MW, Jeeralang is 466MW, Somerton is 160MW, Valley Power is 300MW, Mortlake is 2 x 283MW so it's broadly an alternative to one of them. All those being in Victoria so obviously a hydro replacement in Tasmania does require additional Vic - Tas transmission.

Noting in all that the intent is to use hydro only for deep firming. So the King scheme, instead of being routinely used as it is at present with its lower capacity, would instead become reserve plant. Its normal role replaced with wind and solar but it sits there gradually filling up ready to be run when wind + solar falls short. That's the mode of operation.

Why only go to 429MW and not something larger? In short, that's to ensure it's bulletproof reliable in a worst case drought. Bearing in mind the records go back over a century so should be good enough. The scheme was built 1984 - 92 by what is now Hydro Tasmania but there was an attempt by the Mt Lyell Mining & Railway Company to build it much earlier in the 1910's, indeed there were physical remains of that earlier attempt clearly visible when it was actually built since they'd started work before abandoning it.

There is of course a way to get 177% more water into the reservoir and scale it up much further but let's not go anywhere near that one. Don't mention the war.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another relatively non-controversial possibility is to expand the existing Great Lake scheme in Tasmania aka Poatina and Trevallyn.

Present scheme consists of, in hydraulic order:

Lake Augusta storage = 44 GWh

Arthurs Lake storage = 795 GWh

Arthurs Lake pumps (7 MW) and Tods Corner power station (1.6 MW)

Great Lake storage = 6523 GWh

Poatina power station = 342 MW

Trevallyn storage 2 GWh

Trevallyn power station much further downstream in suburban Launceston = 100 MW

In operation:

Lake Augusta collects natural inflows and is discharged via Liawenee Canal into Great Lake. This is a water transfer only, no generation takes place in this step.

Arthurs Lake collects natural inflows and is primarily discharged via pumping to Great Lake. Whilst this does generate via Tods Corner, it's an energy-negative step in that pumping power (7MW) substantially exceeds Tods Corner generation (1.6MW). In simple terms it's pumped up to the top of the hill, then run down the other side but it's a net increase in elevation transferring water from Arthurs Lake to Great Lake. This pumping operation runs at a high capacity factor, the original design being the pump runs about two thirds of the time however diversion of water outside the scheme (see below) has reduced this to approximately 45% of the time assuming full use of the irrigation schemes (which of course depends on weather).

Note some water is released from Arthurs Lake for other purposes. Specifically via a siphon over the dam wall to supplement water in Woods Lake, a minor storage used for irrigation, and via a separate 6MW power station the purpose of which is primarily to release water into the Midlands region for irrigation. So for clarity that's two separate irrigation schemes, one of which generates power as a by-product. Both of these were later additions not intended at the time of original construction of the Arthurs Lake dam and pump (in operation 1966).

So Lake Augusta and Arthurs Lake are, in the context of electricity, both essentially diversions into Great Lake. They catch water and store it but diversion is the ultimate purpose. A number of much smaller pumps, weirs etc also divert water into Great Lake – individually they're of minor consequence however, though collectively significant.

Power generation of significance takes place first and foremost via release through Poatina power station, which operates with a nominal design capacity factor of 41.4% discharging into Brumbys Creek and from there ultimately entering Trevallyn storage.

Trevallyn storage receives the discharge from Poatina plus natural inflow from its own large catchment area, most notably the South Esk river. Generation takes place via Trevallyn power station.

In the context of aiming to provide *deep* firming to VRE, that is the ability to generate constantly for multiple consecutive days rather than a relatively short period (hours), is concerned the primary opportunity within the existing scheme is to increase the generating capacity at Poatina and thus reduce the station's capacity factor. That is, build a Poatina B station, a second power station alongside the existing.

Allowing for conservative assumptions regarding future rainfall, and making allowance for irrigation diversions outside the catchment as well as required water releases from Poatina during summer for downstream water requirements (irrigation and town supply) and assuming full use of those, capacity could be increased to about 910 MW. So that is, build a 570 MW Poatina "B" station in addition to the existing and also construct a new 28.2 GWh lower storage.

That 910MW figure is based on running 10% of the time at maximum output for VRE firming and the conservative assumptions stated regarding water availability, this 10% figure being arbitrary as a design basis for VRE deep firming. If less frequent operation were required, or more risk taken with water supply, then capacity could be increased further.

Noting in this context that storage of natural inflows to the combined Lake Augusta, Arthurs Lake and Great Lake storages exceeds 5 years of inflows. That provides almost infinite flexibility in how the station is operated – eg it could be run 20% of the time in a particularly bad year and not at all the following year without running out of or spilling water. Etc.

In routine operation this turns Poatina into a pumped storage scheme with generation through both stations and pumping via the new B station only with a maximum generation time, without spill from the lower storage, of 31 hours. This enables routine use of the power stations for daily peak power requirements and short term VRE firming (pump during daytime, discharge of an evening etc).

When required for VRE firming, it's simply a case of continuing to operate the power stations as normal and releasing surplus water from the lower storage. In practice a typical mode would be to release sufficient water to enable constant maximum operation of Trevallyn, bringing total Poatina A + B + Trevallyn output to 1010 MW, and retaining the surplus (the quantity of which depends on the volume of natural river inflows to Trevallyn) thus slowly filling the lower Poatina storage. This would then be pumped back into Great Lake once the VRE drought ends and surplus energy (from wind / solar) is available.

In terms of ecological impact, it's primarily limited to the direct impacts of construction, noting that the land downstream is presently subject to agricultural use – the lower storage, with its relatively small physical size, isn't being built in wilderness etc it's already cleared land. Beyond that it's the impact of construction works etc and the additional transmission lines required.

Brumbys Creek does represent a possible issue as the name implies – it's a creek that's already been somewhat "overloaded" by dumping the discharge from a substantial power station into it. That is a potential impact yes, it may need to be widened and effectively turned into a canal or similar, but it's farmland not wilderness, it's not a pristine natural waterway.

So in summary, it's a new 570 MW power station to operate on a daily basis as pumped storage noting the existing station also operates for discharge but not pumping. In addition it plus the existing Poatina power station then run 10% of the time, at maximum output, for VRE deep firming. These figures being based on very conservative assumptions about water availability including maximum irrigation requirements and some allowance for climate change. In practice the 10% figure would be higher most likely, it's a "safe" conservative value there.

So there's another one. It isn't massive but it's big enough to be useful, it's a plausibly worthwhile project that doesn't end the need for gas but it does reduce it somewhat and with the pumped storage hybrid aspect it would be a daily workhorse, far cheaper than wearing out batteries so would be used heavily, as well as the deep firming from the main storage. Obviously there needs to be additional transmission Vic - Tas to go with it in order to do it.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another I'll mention without saying where it is.

Project involves 3 man-made storages on river and three power stations, basic details as follows:

Upper is 2250 MW / 540 GWh pumped storage so a running time of 240 hours for a full discharge. Noting 100% of the water is retained in the middle reservoir for re-pumping, no spill occurs. There's also a net inflow of about 210 GWh from the river to this station.

Middle is 2083 MW / 200 GWh pumped storage without spill from any storage so it's a 48 hour pumped storage scheme. Plus an additional 1830 GWh annual release downstream, without re-pumping, for VRE deep firming. So that's operating in discharge mode 10% of the time, plus unlimited pumped storage use in addition to that.

Lower is 1038 MW conventional non-pumped hydro and operates for deep firming only, with a firm sustainable operation of 910 GWh per annum (so that is, operating at full output 10% of the time).

The scheme stores a total of about 8300 GWh filled by natural rainfall and is thus drought resilient.

Location = no comment but would be highly contentious. The scheme would flood approximately 120km2 of land presently reserved for conservation, not including the impact of roads and transmission lines.

That said, believe it or not the idea does actually have some cautious support within the conservation movement. There are certainly some who see it in a "well it's not ideal, but as you say it plausibly is the lesser of the available evils" sort of way.

There's a possible modification, which increases cost significantly whilst reducing the generating capacity by about 71 MW, that would plausibly get them over the line to see it as a net gain overall due to a major improvement in the conservation (land use) aspect. That modification requires building an additional dam, an additional power station, and a pump station plus associated pipelines, transmission etc albeit over relatively short distances. That modification does significantly shrink the flooded area, most importantly it leaves a particularly valuable (in terms of conservation) area completely untouched indeed no works would even be visible from that point (well, OK, might see a tower in the distance if you're using binoculars but there'd be nothing at or immediately near the site).

I've deliberately been a bit vague to avoid revealing the location but you could assume from the above that quiet discussions have taken place, detailed investigations have been done and so on. There's no serious thought of actually building it however.

 

[Belli]

This has been around for a couple of years. Covers PV, Hydo, offshore wind, etc.

100% Renewable Energy Group

RE100

re100.eng.anu.edu.au

 

[SirRumpole]

Trouble for the Marinus link, Tasmania threatens to walk away.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[sptrawler]

Trouble for the Marinus link, Tasmania threatens to walk away.

MSN

www.msn.com

Well it was only recently, that Dan Andrews committed to put some funding in.
If I was Tassie I would have my nose out of joint as well.
It sounds like the Feds are going to have to stump up the shortfall and it also sounds like cost blowouts are on the horizon, yet again.
The walls close in, the cheque book comes out, brain fart pressure mounting.
2030 closing too fast, still way too many balls in the air and the only saving grace is Dutton.

 

[sptrawler]

Trouble for the Marinus link, Tasmania threatens to walk away.

MSN

www.msn.com

Another article on the Marinus link:

‘Battery of the nation’ renewable project scaled back amid cost blowout

The federal government, Victoria and Tasmania are pushing ahead with a multibillion-dollar project to improve energy security on both sides of the Tasman.

www.theage.com.au

A renewable energy project touted as an essential part of the plan to make Tasmania the “battery of the nation” and boost energy security on the mainland has been scaled back after a multibillion-dollar cost blowout.

The Marinus Link, a joint venture between the federal government, Victoria and Tasmania, was expected to cost $3 billion in 2017 for two 750-megawatt cables, but costs ballooned to an estimated $6 billion due to global inflation, spiralling steel prices and supply chain disruptions.

Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen revealed on Sunday that the venture would proceed with only a single cable, costing $3.3 billion, in response to the cost blowout. He said the goal was to begin delivering power to the mainland by 2028.

He said the single cable would deliver about two-thirds of the benefits that would have come from having two cables, and that it would boost energy security on both sides of the Bass Strait by backing up Tasmania’s renewable generation in the darker months of winter and filling gaps on the eastern seaboard.

“Marinus Link is an important project for Australia’s renewable transformation and a vital project for Tasmania as well as the mainland,” Bowen said.

Loading
He confirmed on Sunday that the Albanese government has increased its stake to 49 per cent of the joint venture, in which Victoria has a 33.3 per cent share and Tasmania now has 17.7 per cent, with an option to sell its stake to the Commonwealth on completion.

His announcement followed Tasmanian Energy Minister Guy Barnett’s comments last month that there was a “line in the sand” on costs his state would not cross.

The additional commitment is worth about $76 million, bringing the federal government’s total contribution to $1.6 billion. Those funds will be sourced from the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund for new electricity transmission projects.

 

[SirRumpole]

Another article on the Marinus link:

‘Battery of the nation’ renewable project scaled back amid cost blowout

The federal government, Victoria and Tasmania are pushing ahead with a multibillion-dollar project to improve energy security on both sides of the Tasman.

www.theage.com.au

A renewable energy project touted as an essential part of the plan to make Tasmania the “battery of the nation” and boost energy security on the mainland has been scaled back after a multibillion-dollar cost blowout.

The Marinus Link, a joint venture between the federal government, Victoria and Tasmania, was expected to cost $3 billion in 2017 for two 750-megawatt cables, but costs ballooned to an estimated $6 billion due to global inflation, spiralling steel prices and supply chain disruptions.

Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen revealed on Sunday that the venture would proceed with only a single cable, costing $3.3 billion, in response to the cost blowout. He said the goal was to begin delivering power to the mainland by 2028.

He said the single cable would deliver about two-thirds of the benefits that would have come from having two cables, and that it would boost energy security on both sides of the Bass Strait by backing up Tasmania’s renewable generation in the darker months of winter and filling gaps on the eastern seaboard.

“Marinus Link is an important project for Australia’s renewable transformation and a vital project for Tasmania as well as the mainland,” Bowen said.

Loading
He confirmed on Sunday that the Albanese government has increased its stake to 49 per cent of the joint venture, in which Victoria has a 33.3 per cent share and Tasmania now has 17.7 per cent, with an option to sell its stake to the Commonwealth on completion.

His announcement followed Tasmanian Energy Minister Guy Barnett’s comments last month that there was a “line in the sand” on costs his state would not cross.

The additional commitment is worth about $76 million, bringing the federal government’s total contribution to $1.6 billion. Those funds will be sourced from the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund for new electricity transmission projects.

Prices of materials do go up and down so cutting the project back on a worse case scenario seems a bit premature.

 

[sptrawler]

Prices of materials do go up and down so cutting the project back on a worse case scenario seems a bit premature.

Yes it does seem a little 'penny wise pound foolish', at the end of the day the requirement for deep storage is going to increase not decrease and so will the cost.
While you have all the installation equipment in place to lay one cable, laying the second one would seem logical, even if it is only sealed off until a later date, again it seems like a process failure.
Maybe there is something not being said, time will tell, but if it is coming out of the $20billion fund cost really shouldn't be the issue as the project will give huge long duration storage and it isn't subject to public backlash as other projects may well be.

 

[sptrawler]

Well surprise, surprise, not.
The Green dream of Brookfield and its partners to close Eraring early, might prove to be a windfall for the coal burner, as the taxpayer will probably foot the bill to keep it open.

Origin Energy a winner as Eraring extension looms

Origin Energy is primed to benefit as the NSW government works with the energy group to keep Australia largest coal-power station, Eraring, open beyond its 2025 closure date.

www.theage.com.au

NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe on Tuesday confirmed the state government would support the key recommendation in its Electricity Supply and Reliability Check-Up report to engage with Origin Energy on extending the life of the power station beyond 2025.

However, she could not say for how long, or at what cost.

Earlier this month, Morgan Stanley flagged the potential extension of Eraring’s life and was more positive about the potential boost to Origin’s earnings.

The “Eraring extension, if it happened, would be a positive for FY26 Origin earnings (we estimate an annual gross margin of around $650 million at current prices),” it said.

Origin’s current management, led by Frank Calabria, will negotiate Eraring’s closure with the state government ahead of the planned takeover by Canadian asset giant Brookfield, which is expected to go ahead early next year.

 

[Smurf1976]

she could not say for how long, or at what cost.

There's a very real limit on it given the four generating units aren't exactly new.

First unit in service 1982, two more in 1983, final one in 1984.

There's also a relatively small gas turbine, 42MW, commissioned 2008.

 

[sptrawler]

There's a very real limit on it given the four generating units aren't exactly new.

First unit in service 1982, two more in 1983, final one in 1984.

There's also a relatively small gas turbine, 42MW, commissioned 2008.

Yes, the boilers would be getting tired.
They must be hoping on some big projects getting finished in the near future.
Over here in the West, apparently us taxpayers are in the red $37 million, paying the Indians to supply coal to the Japenese power station.lol