The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Fairly simple explanation of the pros and cons of Thorium molten salt reactors.

Not likely in the near future we would have to conclude.

 

[sptrawler]

Well this will be a wakeup call.
As batteries and renewables shoulder more of the load, their limits and heat dissipation abilities will certainly be tested.

Firefighters 'monitoring temperatures' as Tesla battery continues to burn at Qld renewable energy storage site

Witnesses have reported loud bangs, "multicoloured" flames and a plastic smell after a Tesla battery caught fire at one of Queensland’s first large-scale renewable energy storage sites.

www.abc.net.au

A Tesla battery continues to burn at one of Queensland’s first large-scale battery storage sites after it caught fire last night.

Police were called to the incident in Child’s Avenue in Bouldercombe, about 23 kilometres from Rockhampton, at 7:45pm.

The battery is a lithium Tesla Megapack 2.0 unit and is one of 40 used at the site.

In a statement released on the ASX, Genex Power said the site had been disconnected from the grid and it was working with Tesla to investigate the cause of the incident.

 

[sptrawler]

The cost of the Government demanding that a target be met, the owners just put the cost back on the taxpayer, well as if that wasn't obvious.

'$1.7b in damages a year': The estimated cost of keeping Australia's largest coal-fired power plant running

The NSW government is currently in talks with Origin about using taxpayer subsidies to extend the life of the plant in the state's Hunter region. It follows a review that found the state should discuss delaying the plant's closure to help prevent blackouts due to the slow building of renewables.

www.abc.net.au

he cost of keeping Australia's largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, open beyond its 2025 closure date could be $1.7 billion a year in economic, social and environmental damages, according to a cost-benefit analysis based on overseas carbon pricing, which the New South Wales government recommends.
The NSW government is currently in talks with Origin about using taxpayer subsidies to extend the life of the plant in the state's Hunter region.

It follows a review that found the state should discuss delaying the plant's closure to help prevent blackouts due to the slow building of renewables.

The government intervention comes just 18 months after Origin announced it planned to bring forward Eraring's closure by seven years to 2023.

 

[SirRumpole]

The cost of the Government demanding that a target be met, the owners just put the cost back on the taxpayer, well as if that wasn't obvious.

'$1.7b in damages a year': The estimated cost of keeping Australia's largest coal-fired power plant running

The NSW government is currently in talks with Origin about using taxpayer subsidies to extend the life of the plant in the state's Hunter region. It follows a review that found the state should discuss delaying the plant's closure to help prevent blackouts due to the slow building of renewables.

www.abc.net.au

he cost of keeping Australia's largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, open beyond its 2025 closure date could be $1.7 billion a year in economic, social and environmental damages, according to a cost-benefit analysis based on overseas carbon pricing, which the New South Wales government recommends.
The NSW government is currently in talks with Origin about using taxpayer subsidies to extend the life of the plant in the state's Hunter region.

It follows a review that found the state should discuss delaying the plant's closure to help prevent blackouts due to the slow building of renewables.

The government intervention comes just 18 months after Origin announced it planned to bring forward Eraring's closure by seven years to 2023.

Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.

Cut out the middleman's profits and they may find they could break even.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.

Cut out the middleman's profits and they may find they could break even.

That would make way too much sense and put way too much responsibility on the politicians, much easier just to throw money at it and say "what more can I do? It's not my fault".

 

[sptrawler]

Another looming energy problem, whales voices.

Woodside's Scarborough gas project dealt blow with part of its environmental plan ruled invalid

Woodside's massive Scarborough gas development suffers a major blow, with the Federal Court finding an environmental plan for part of the project was not legally approved and was therefore invalid.

www.abc.net.au

Woodside's massive Scarborough gas development has been dealt a major blow, with the Federal Court finding an environmental plan for part of the project was not legally approved and was therefore invalid.

The company had been hoping to start a form of underwater surveying for the US$12 billion project – located off WA's Pilbara coast – earlier this month.

But it agreed to put those plans on hold while a legal challenge brought by traditional owner Raelene Cooper, arguing that she was not adequately consulted, was heard in the Federal Court.

Ms Cooper's concerns were around the potential impact of the surveying on sea life, including whales which carry Indigenous songlines.

 

[SirRumpole]

Ms Cooper's concerns were around the potential impact of the surveying on sea life, including whales which carry Indigenous songlines.

Riiiight.....

 

[sptrawler]

Riiiight.....

Fckn noisy for ones that can't be heard.

 

[Smurf1976]

Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.

The inherent nature of electricity systems is that if you want them to work reliably then not all the bits make a profit.

That's the fundamental flaw with the idea of generation being a competitive market. Nobody want's to own the unprofitable bits, bearing in mind that which ones those are will shift over time - with the added problem that the losses occur in the latter years of operation thus creating a huge financial incentive to close when the profits dry up rather than when the need is removed.

That's fundamental though. It should always be the highest marginal cost plant that fills the reserve role, and that generally is the plant near end of life. You don't build plant intentionally to be the reserve - in short you run the new stuff as priority because it's more efficient and put the old but still functional equipment into the reserve role.

A single utility, regardless of whether it's government owned or privately owned, can fund that so long as it has reliable supply as an objective. Eg if we look at it historically then all utilities had an "old clunker" somewhere that was technologically antiquated but still in reasonable shape and fully functional. When the need arose it roared into life and the public was unaware there was any drama going on behind the scenes.

 

[sptrawler]

The inherent nature of electricity systems is that if you want them to work reliably then not all the bits make a profit.

That's the fundamental flaw with the idea of generation being a competitive market. Nobody want's to own the unprofitable bits, bearing in mind that which ones those are will shift over time - with the added problem that the losses occur in the latter years of operation thus creating a huge financial incentive to close when the profits dry up rather than when the need is removed.

That's fundamental though. It should always be the highest marginal cost plant that fills the reserve role, and that generally is the plant near end of life. You don't build plant intentionally to be the reserve - in short you run the new stuff as priority because it's more efficient and put the old but still functional equipment into the reserve role.

A single utility, regardless of whether it's government owned or privately owned, can fund that so long as it has reliable supply as an objective. Eg if we look at it historically then all utilities had an "old clunker" somewhere that was technologically antiquated but still in reasonable shape and fully functional. When the need arose it roared into life and the public was unaware there was any drama going on behind the scenes.

So how do we fit that into a privatised system that works on a profit basis?
With renewables being intermittent, you need a lot more than is required, because as you know per unit cost, doesn't necessarily mean a per unit output.
So if you have a fossil fueled generator of 100MW, the owner knows that it will cost $x and give out Y output, with renewables they know it will cost $x but they don't know what the output will be.
So then you have the problem of averaging, where they say because of historical wind and solar data, we should expect something like Z output, but don't bet the house on it.
Then the AEMO says ok so we need you to put in more to give a reserve value on your output, then they say but that will cost a lot more and the cost doesn't stack up unless it is dispatched.
This is heading down to a situation of massive taxpayer funding for idle generation IMO.
I may be wrong and I will stand corrected but this isn't looking good IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.

Cut out the middleman's profits and they may find they could break even.

The great irony that the biggest obstacle we now have to renewables is their lack of a "social license" to do so.

There being no such thing as an actual social license of course. It's just something activists came up with some years ago to stop anything they don't like.

Now I've nothing against genuine environmentalists but when it comes to politics I'm not blind. Both ends of the political spectrum have done everything possible to slow the transition down as much as possible. The two ends of the spectrum are much like competing supermarket chains - any difference is in minor detail but the overall result is exactly the same.

 

[sptrawler]

Well we left Southampton last night and are heading to Norway, we cruised past this today, it is either getting built or dismantled.
There are a lot of rigs out here, dotted from horizon to horizon.

 

[mullokintyre]

Although wind farms have been in existance for some time, large scale off shore farms are only now starting to show some of the long term affects on engineering.
It seems that some remedial work will need to be done on the thousands of kms of undersea cables that bring the generated electricity back to the mainland.
From Energy Live News

The oil industry knows a thing or two bout offshore platforms, was also quite gleefully telling the world about the issue.
From World oil.com

Globally, over £620 billion of investment in offshore windfarms is anticipated by 2030 and, for the world to hit net-zero emissions by 2050, the generating capacity from offshore wind must increase by a staggering 1,120 GW. The subsea cable sector for offshore wind has been estimated at £100 billion over the next ten years.

Mr Gordon added, “This scale of expansion and opportunity can only be achieved by installing and maintaining thousands of miles of reliable cables under the seabed.

“There is an urgent need for a holistic approach to finding solutions which can be implemented as offshore wind increases in scale and technical capability with higher voltages and dynamic elements.”

GUH has established the Subsea Cables Forum to bring the industry together to develop a roadmap for improving the quality, reliability, and therefore insurability, of cables, which is crucial to achieving global offshore wind ambitions, particularly in the nascent floating offshore wind arena.

This will involve the development of a set of industry-led, recognized standards and best practice guidelines, encompassing the life of the cable that would be adopted by developers, suppliers, contractors, warranty surveyors and others and accepted by insurance bodies.

According to one developer, the cost of insuring a 1.2GW offshore wind farm over its lifetime is in the region of £350 million and insurance brokers estimate that the costs of floating offshore wind will be 30% higher than fixed bottom ones.

Gordon explained, “With the shift from fixed to floating offshore wind, where the dynamic nature of floating cables is even more challenging, the critical issue of their reliability must be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

“It’s clear there are inherent issues affecting the performance and reliability of subsea cables that are within the industry’s control. Failures can stem from any stage in the cable lifecycle – from design to manufacture, handling and installation, through to operation and maintenance.

“Identifying potential weak points throughout the lifecycle of the cable is imperative to ensuring this offshore infrastructure operates robustly and efficiently to bring clean, green renewable energy ashore.

“We need better information sharing and a move away from a siloed approach, that is often ‘secrecy driven’ and ‘NDA heavy’. Introducing shared learning, data logging and increased transparency will create a more open environment for best practice to be developed.”

One can only presume that Chris Bowen who is now the OZ expert in offshore wind generation is aware of the development.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

One can only presume that Chris Bowen who is now the OZ expert in offshore wind generation is aware of the development.
Mick

I tend to think Chris sings from the Martin Luther handbook of 'I had a dream', rather than any engineering handbook and the final hit will be to the taxpayers bankbook. Lol
My guess is still some big subsidies before the next election, eye watering big.

 

[SirRumpole]

Pretty much an example of cherry picking in my opinion.

A lot of talk about batteries because they are cheap, but only provide power for small intervals.

No one is talking about hydro because it's too big an investment for anyone but governments.

Australia's solar energy output eclipses records, sparking urgent need for battery storage

Around Australia, records are tumbling as rooftop solar production soars to new highs. Experts say the trend is pushing the grid to its limits and highlighting the urgent need for storage.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Smurf1976]

Pretty much an example of cherry picking in my opinion.

The alarming bit is this:

little-known but fundamentally important aspect of the power system.

When you flick a switch, the electricity that illuminates the light in the room is new.

Brand new.

So in other words, even after a decade of constant public debate about the subject the most basic fundamental facts are still "little known".

Something's seriously wrong with our high school education, science specifically, if anyone doesn't understand that electricity exists in real time only. Many in politics and the media would be quick to label someone as uneducated if they didn't know a word of Shakespeare, but ignorance of basic science and even maths seems to be accepted as normal. As a society that's an epic failure - there's far more need for maths and science going forward than there is for knowledge of ancient literature.

And to be clear, that it's instantaneous is still the case with batteries. They're storing chemical energy but the production of AC power still takes place in real time.

 

[SirRumpole]

Advances in sugar cane harvesting have positive implications for biofuels.

Sweet reward for sugar industry breakthrough helping to power renewable energy transition

Already powering 27 per cent of the state's renewable energy grid, the Queensland sugar industry's research into improved crop yields for biofuel production using genetic selection beats out major rivals Brazil and India.

www.abc.net.au

"Queensland's sugar industry currently powers 27 per cent of the state's renewable energy grid, according to the Australian Sugar Milling Council."

I'm sure @Smurf1976 would have known this, but it might come as a surprise to others.

 

[sptrawler]

Another example of the advent of technology, further sending middle class Australia down the chute, as we move toward a renewable future.
It is unavoidable, but the results are never the less an indication of where Australia is heading, unless the Government gets back into directly providing essential services and with it a technical workforce and an alternative source of tradespeople other than importing them.
It isn't as though we haven't being saying this for years, sadly everything else is more important, than the hollowing out of the middle class.
Funny how the left leaning media don't mention the record intake of skilled migrants, they are always avoiding the obvious, we are accelerating into another 3rd world society.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...t-incomes-report-reveals-20231020-p5eds6.html
Governments may have to pour millions of dollars into supporting regional communities that depend on coal-fired power stations as the plants are shuttered, with new research revealing workers face a 69 per cent fall in income as they become redundant.
In work that puts pressure on both the federal government and opposition, the independent institute e61 has found workers at coal-fired power plants suffer long-term hits to their income when their employer shuts down because their skills are not easily transferrable to other industries.

 

[SirRumpole]

Is Snowy Hydro 2.0 fatally flawed ?

Would it be more efficient to abandon the project and develop another hydro site ?

Or has it gone too far already and is too big to fail ?

'You've screwed up, haven't you?': The $2 billion mistake behind Snowy 2.0

Snowy Hydro's tunnelling machine caused a sinkhole and spent months barely moving, then the troubled project's tunnel began filling with gas.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

Is Snowy Hydro 2.0 fatally flawed ?

Would it be more efficient to abandon the project and develop another hydro site ?

Or has it gone too far already and is too big to fail ?

'You've screwed up, haven't you?': The $2 billion mistake behind Snowy 2.0

Snowy Hydro's tunnelling machine caused a sinkhole and spent months barely moving, then the troubled project's tunnel began filling with gas.

www.abc.net.au

One would think all options are being looked at, weird that an alternative route wasn't chosen, if you can believe the media report in total.