Yes it is just so crazy, the electrical system isn't a game, if it becomes a stuff up it will mean lives, no if or buts, it is just so important in a modern society we would struggle to function without it in an extended outage IMO.
Edit: this was a paper extract, not @sptrawler talking but the message is the same, say a lie long enough and it becomes a truth
That would depend on the detail.
On one hand I agree that the issue of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature change should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
In short it depends but some of the things which could be built are indeed redevelopments, adaptations or extensions of existing infrastructure.
This absolutely.
And I fully agree on that,On one hand I agree that the issue of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature change should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
On the other hand fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, have an abundance of problems even without considering CO2.
Scarcity, wealth transfer, wars, spills, etc. There's a lot of downsides to relying on fuel from the Middle East and/or Russia without needing to worry about CO2.
That doesn't apply to coal however, it doesn't have that problem.
Too late as we are selling existing resources and preventing exploration of new field, but I think Australia could be powered on gas only?
www.abc.net.au
Ultimately it's workable with proper engineering bearing in mind it's really no different to the logistics of using coal. We already can and do transmit over relatively large distances indeed in the case of the Qld scheme, transmission already just happens to run very close to the required location (and that's not a coincidence, it's from the days of forward planning).
That answer kind of the fact that transmission is not required all that far..well, maybe in pocket states like SA,Victoria but in Qld, there is hardly anything in term of consumption north of rockampton, yet this is where most of the hydro can be setUltimately it's workable with proper engineering bearing in mind it's really no different to the logistics of using coal. We already can and do transmit over relatively large distances indeed in the case of the Qld scheme, transmission already just happens to run very close to the required location (and that's not a coincidence, it's from the days of forward planning).
View attachment 167727
Bearing in mind that whilst Cairns is a long way from Sydney, the real transmission distance is much shorter in practice. Physically, that ~1GW isn't going to make it anywhere south of Gladstone. Same goes for most of this, the effective transmission distance in practice is a lot shorter than the total network length due to that local consumption.
For those in WA, an equivalent would be placing generation in Kalgoorlie. Now that's a long way from Perth, and could be argued as too many losses and so on, but in practice most of the physical flow won't make it out of the Goldfields region anyway. The effective distance becomes much shorter than the actual route itself.
Using that principle we already transmit between SA and Tasmania via Victoria after all, and the circuit length between Gordon power station and Port Augusta is about 1800km, but it works because the energy isn't really moving that far due to loads and generation along the way. In truth none of it's getting past Melbourne in either direction and once you realise that, well the distance is a lot shorter.....
On the engineering side for Qld, the former Queensland Electricity Commission had it all worked out ~35 years ago to put ~1800 MW of hydro up there. They didn't need to physically transmit it all the way to Brisbane, just needed to reverse the flow in the lines such that Brisbane peak demand would in practice be met simply by keeping more of the coal-fired generation down south, using the hydro to run the north. Same concept. Noting that 1800MW wasn't the limit, just what was seen as required at the time.
Simplest "layman's terms" way I've explained it is to say imagine it as a pipeline carrying water where we've got lots of consumers taking water out, but we've also got lots of water sources being put into it. The pipe might be thousands of km long and in theory water could travel from one end to the other but in practice no water actually travels the full length of it, and most isn't going far at all. Most of it's just going a short distance from somewhere in the middle to somewhere not far away, and even if we make up any shortfall by adding water right at both ends, all that's really doing is suppling users at the ends and leaving the other incoming water to supply those in the middle. No individual drop of water is travelling even half the pipe length in practice.
What all that comes down to though, and the thing we're really lacking at present in Australia, is taking a proper engineering approach to it. Engineering yes, not politics. Data collection and number crunching, not words and arguing.
reneweconomy.com.au
and why not a Nazi, one of these Gaza bombing Nazis the leftards hate so much
qldhydro.com.au
Don't think I've ever seen a single figure for the nation or even the NEM looking only at transmission (without distribution) - most focus being on marginal losses under any given circumstance or the losses at any individual connection point (generation or load) not the total lost in the whole system.
Thanks Mr @Smurf1976 , you are a wealth of knowledge and provide to us data which is hard or quasi impossible for us commoners to access even when we try.Don't think I've ever seen a single figure for the nation or even the NEM looking only at transmission (without distribution) - most focus being on marginal losses under any given circumstance or the losses at any individual connection point (generation or load) not the total lost in the whole system.
Someone would definitely know it though, just not me. I'll have to find that one out.....
For the marginal losses, from any specific point, here's some random Queensland Marginal Loss Factors for 2023-24 calculated from AEMO data:
SF = Solar Farm, WF = Wind Farm. Rest is conventional coal, gas, hydro, diesel.
Note this is a lost of a lot of generators in Qld but is not comprehensive. There are also others.
Wind and solar:
Baking Board SF = 4.02%
Bluegrass SF = 4.54%
Childers SF = 2.96%
Clare SF = 10.19%
Clermont SF = 8.5%
Collinsville SF = 8.68%
Columboola SF = 2.54%
Coopers Gap WF = 3.42%
Darling Downs SF = 2.38%
Daydream SF = 9.02%
Dalacca WF = 2.24%
Edenvale SF =2.8%
Emerald SF = 8.89%
Gangarri SF = 1.63%
Hamilton SF = 9.4%
Haughton SF = 8.49%
Hayman SF = 9.02%
Hughenden SF = 7.78%
Kaban WF = 4.25%
Kidston SF = 7.78%
Lilyvale SF = 9.36%
Longreach SF = 8.5%
Maryborough SF = 0.86%
Middlemount SF = 8.89%
Mount Emerald WF = 5.28%
Oakey SF = 1.31%
Ross River SF = 7.78%
Rugby Run SF = 8.15%
Sun Metals SF = 0.21%
Susan River SF = 2.96%
Wandoan South SF = 1.68%
Warwick SF = 0.86%
Whitsunday SF = 9.9%
Woolooga SF = 2.64%
Yarranlea SF = 0.86%
Coal, gas, diesel, hydro:
Barcaldine = 6.2%
Barron Gorge hydro = 4.1%
Braemar = 3.83%
Callide B = 8.51%
Darling Downs = 3.83%
Gladstone units 1,2, 5 & 6 = 6.71%
Gladstone units 3 & 4 = 6.77%
Kareeya + Koombooloomba hydro = 4.41%
Kogan Creek = 3.27%
Millmerran = 2.37%
Mt Stuart = 8.36%
Oakey = 3.72%
Roma = 3.57%
Stanwell = 8.19%
Swanbank E = 0.13%
Tarong North = 2.88%
Tarong = 2.93%
Kennedy Energy Park Battery = 3.33% each way
So for Queensland anything between almost zero and about 10% is a credible number, they're in that range.
Noting two major complicating factors:
First is in the case of situations where generation leads to negative losses in practice due to location and impact on flows elsewhere in the network to supply that load in the absence of local generation or due to reactive power issues. Those tend to be minor but some examples do exist. Eg Sunshine Coast SF generation effectively has negative losses albeit minor.
Second is that losses are not constant or linear. Plant that runs at full capacity will tend to have a higher % loss in practice than plant which operates at partial output if all other things are equal.
My point there being not about the detail of any particular connection point, just that overall losses are generally under 10% and most are considerably less.
Load also plays a big role especially with interstate transmission. The lower the load, the longer the effective distance in practice, it leads to some counterintuitive outcomes that lower load actually results in higher current flow on sections of the network due to that. Eg if there's maximum flow under a low load scenario then lines past the first load connection point will carry more current than they'd carry under a high load scenario.
All of which is a long way of saying there's no single answer.
Now I'll throw in the curve balls....
Powerlink (Qld transmission) are planning on installing 500kV lines for bulk transmission in Qld, that being a pretty big step up from the 275kV used at present and the benefit is lower losses.
Not necessarily at 500kV, more likely another 275kV, but a particular near term focus is transmission to the far north due to the renewable energy resources there. Not the hydro but the wind / solar but I'll add that if the point of the hydro is to firm the wind and solar when there's a lack of wind or sun, well if such a scheme were built then it could use the same lines.
As for the efficiency of pumped hydro, that depends and is also not constant. Turbine efficiency varies with load and when generating is typically optimal somewhere circa 70 - 85% of peak capacity with some loss either side of that, and that loss itself is not linear. Then there's variation in head loss (friction loss) in the water conveyance.
Then there's any complicating factors eg net water flow in the scheme. Typically that'll be downwards, a net gain, but Shoalhaven (NSW) has the somewhat unusual feature of net outflow at the top of the scheme. That is, it pumps more water than it discharges, a concept most easily explained by saying the river's at the bottom of the scheme not the top, and the top serves as the source for one final stage of pumping then gravity flow into Sydney's water supply. That gives it somewhat shocking efficiency at storing electricity if only gross input and output is considered but it looks a lot better if that physical water discharge into Sydney's water supply is netted out.
Realistically though, a well built modern pumped hydro scheme with both reservoirs not far apart and without any complicating factors will hit 80% energy storage efficiency in real world use, and will exceed that if intentionally operated so as to optimise efficiency.
SH2 doesn't meet that criteria however, due to the long horizontal distance between the upper and lower reservoirs which lowers efficiency due to increased head loss. I'm not aware if anything's changed recently, but earlier calculations were 76% efficient if operated optimally, 67% worst case, with the difference being in the operating scenario. Some others, whose objectivity is questionable given stated opposition to the scheme and use of emotive language, claim as low as 60%.
That said, efficiency isn't necessarily a show stopper.
No ordinary consumer could care less about the technical efficiency of upstream supply. What they care about is that it works and it's affordable. Efficiency matters to the end user only to the extent it helps achieve that end goal, or is avoiding some other problem they're concerned about (eg environment).
On economic measures though well there's no denying gas turbines have a lot going for them. That's if, of course, you've got gas to run them with and therein lies a problem - the notion that Australia has an abundance of gas is true only if we're talking about the past or we're talking about tearing up contracts. Because in our infinite wisdom of ignoring those pesky technical people, we've managed to sell pretty much all the economic reserves overseas.
That leaves the uneconomic gas reserves, imported fuel, finding more gas reserves, ripping up the export contracts or non-gas options.
Personally I won't argue that hydro necessarily ought be the solution. I will however argue that it's technically viable, it's physically possible to build it, and that being so it ought be properly evaluated from a strictly objective perspective. Measure things and crunch the numbers on costs, ecological impacts and so on. Same goes for gas, liquid fuels and so on, crunch the numbers rather than making assumptions or political claims.
And same goes for climate change, fracking and all the rest. Proper science not politics is what's needed.
If that is really happening due to a stressed grid, that would be amazingly bad, I doubt it would be the case.
No shortage at the generation bulk supply level so any problems are with distribution networks. I don't have all the details but there's presently at least 145 separate network outages in Qld each of which is resulting in loss of supply to consumers, in most cases a substantial number of properties per fault.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
