The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

Its not just Victoria and WA.
NSW seems to be failing as well,
From ABC News

This is what has the engineers and others screaming, including AEMO themselves.

Their focus is more on energy supply than employment obviously, no disrespect to the workers it's just that they're focusing on the energy supply rather than the jobs, but it's all happening far too slowly yes.

Apparently the average approval time for a wind farm in NSW is now 3488 days so almost a full decade. That's not to build it, that's just to get through all the approvals. It's not hard to see why business is losing interest.

 

[Smurf1976]

the average approval time for a wind farm in NSW is now 3488 days

Australia has six years to clean up its power grid. But in one state, it's taking nearly 10 years to approve a wind farm

New South Wales is regarded as "the most difficult state" for clean energy developers, according to fresh analysis which found the state is taking roughly 3,488 days to rubber stamp a wind farm.

www.abc.net.au

Approval time frames:​

• 3488 days for wind projects (9.5 years)
• 705 days for solar projects (2.5 years)
• 530 days for battery projects (1.5 years)

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting article in the AFR to on Erarang, apparently it is starting to look like it can't shut down in 2025, when Origin want to and everyone is getting nervous.
Well who would have thought it would end up here, all the balls in the air are certainly starting to land, some serious long term action is required ASAP IMO.
The situation is starting to look like a very expensive stop gap, until a long term solution can be formulated, still necessity is the mother of invention so they say.

From the AFR

 

[Smurf1976]

A somewhat crude chart from an incompletely developed source on the IT side hence the warning at the top but it looks correct, I've checked some random intervals and it seems to be working correctly.

So here's the output of Eraring over the past 7 days.

Red line at the top is maximum capacity and the shades of grey show the individual units.

Overall it's running pretty hard apart from afternoons on weekends.

 

[sptrawler]

A somewhat crude chart from an incompletely developed source on the IT side hence the warning at the top but it looks correct, I've checked some random intervals and it seems to be working correctly.

So here's the output of Eraring over the past 7 days.

Red line at the top is maximum capacity and the shades of grey show the individual units.

Overall it's running pretty hard apart from afternoons on weekends.

View attachment 172028

Well IMO it will be a very expensive discussion for Chris. Lol

 

[macca]

Well IMO it will be a very expensive discussion for Chris. Lol

between a rock and a hard place springs to mind

 

[sptrawler]

Hopefully this article is accurate, it looks as though several large battery installations are starting to go in, it will be interesting to follow the progress.

Why 2024 will be the year of the big battery

This year is set to be the first in which the capacity of new big batteries starting construction in Australia exceeds the combined capacity of new wind and solar farms.

www.afr.com

Big batteries have been getting steadily larger, and their duration – how long they can run at full power – has been growing, too. Last month, Equis Energy and Victoria’s State Electricity Commission signed off on the $1.1 billion first stage of the Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub, a 600 megawatt battery array with 1600 megawatt hours of energy capacity – enough to run for just over two and a half hours at full power.

A second 600 MW stage could have as much as 12 hours of energy storage – enough to power households through the night.

A week earlier, Blackrock’s Akaysha Energy won federal Capacity Investment Scheme backing for its Orana battery, a 415 MW, four-hour (1660 MWh) battery at Wellington, in NSW’s Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone. Akaysha is also developing the 850 MW/1680 MWh Waratah Super Battery at Lake Munmorah. Nearby, Origin Energy and AGL Energy are developing batteries with 460MW to 500 MW capacity.

All in all, there are about 5 gigawatts of big batteries under construction, Dixon says, enough to replace the recently retired Liddell coal-fired power station and Eraring, due to retire in 2025. This makes them the best performing part of the energy transition – alongside the unstoppable juggernaut of rooftop solar.
The bulging pipeline – at a time when few large wind and solar projects are getting final investment decisions – suggests there is more “firming” capacity coming into the grid than AEMO has assumed in recent reports warning of increased risks of blackouts and brownouts as coal-fired power exits the grid at an accelerating rate.

There’s an important caveat to this. Big batteries with up to about four hours of storage will increasingly be able to deal with hot summer evening peaks – when everyone comes home and turns on their air conditioners, electric stoves and TVs and demand surges for a few hours.

But much longer duration storage will be needed to deal with long winter lulls – rare periods of low wind and sun that last for days, if not weeks.
Daniel Nugent, head of portfolio development at EnergyAustralia, says four-hour batteries “are going to play a much more meaningful role for energy security, keeping the lights on for that evening peak on that hot summer day”.


But for the winter lulls after most coal plants have closed, the electricity market “still looks incredibly tight”, Nugent says.

“With lots of batteries of four hours, that summer peak will be less of a challenge in the future, but the real challenge is going to be in the depths of winter … that’s when we need that much longer duration storage.

“We just don’t have the technology for that at the moment, so that’s why gas in short bursts provides a key role in that transition. It means the coal plants can come out of the system. It means you have more confidence that you can then retire the coal and the lights won’t go out.”

Lithium-ion batteries have cornered the market for storage of four hours and less, as well as electric vehicles. But they are costly for longer durations, which require different battery chemistries and storage technologies.

Pumped hydro also provides long duration storage, but it needs favourable terrain; projects such as Snowy 2.0 and Kidston – way over budget and schedule – deter others.

Some developers are looking to flow batteries – which use liquid electrolytes such as zinc bromide and vanadium – for longer durations. Equis Energy is studying different battery chemistries for the second 600 MW stage of the Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub, which will have eight to 12 hours of storage, says founder David Russell.


Big batteries are flourishing, while wind, solar and transmission projects are stalled, because they are easier to build and get to market, can be put almost anywhere in the grid, and ease transmission network congestion problems that new wind and solar farms often make worse, says Dixon.

The footprint is much smaller, often on old power station sites or wind and solar farms, community opposition is muted, and specialist contractors are refining the art of assembling the battery modules.

Lithium is cheap​

Unlike wind turbines, inflation isn’t getting away either – the price of lithium has fallen steadily for a year. “The pricing that we’re seeing in the market now is actually quite low,” says Akaysha chief executive Nick Carter.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t supply chain problems. The sheer volume of batteries required for electric vehicles and grids, and hundreds of billions of dollars of incentives for clean energy in the US and Europe, makes them inevitable, Carter says.

“Lots of people are signing up and wanting more and more batteries, and suppliers of the cells and the modules they’re all scrambling to increase production capacity.”


This goes for essential items such as transformers, says Equis’ Russell. “Anyone that’s not financially closing this year, and getting purchase orders in for transformers – if they’re telling you they’re going to be operational by 2025, that is very inconsistent with what we’re seeing in the market.”

The role of big batteries is also changing. The first big battery – Neoen’s Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia – was ridiculed for only providing a few minutes of the state’s total demand when it debuted in 2017. But its main role was to provide vital system strength and FCAS (frequency control ancillary services) to the state’s grid, and it earned Neoen good profits doing so.

As batteries of longer duration enter the market, they will increasingly shift energy from daytime solar floods – when prices often turn negative – to evening demand peaks when prices soar, says Neil Fraser, head of natural resources, energy and carbon at Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which helped fund the 185 MW Koorangie Battery near Kerang, Victoria.

“To date it’s been FCAS, but we do think that over time, arbitrage is going to be quite an important revenue stream,” says Fraser.

Multiple revenue streams make batteries easier to finance. Koorangie has a 15-year offtake agreement with Shell Energy, and a 20-year system strength contract with AEMO. The expansion of the federal Capacity Investment Scheme to 23 GW of wind and solar power and 9 GW of storage and other dispatchable capacity means the demand isn’t going away, says Fraser.

Big batteries aren’t silver bullets, but they may be a key part of a more optimistic picture of the grid’s evolution than we often paint.

 

[Smurf1976]

But much longer duration storage will be needed to deal with long winter lulls – rare periods of low wind and sun that last for days, if not weeks.
Daniel Nugent, head of portfolio development at EnergyAustralia, says four-hour batteries “are going to play a much more meaningful role for energy security, keeping the lights on for that evening peak on that hot summer day”.


But for the winter lulls after most coal plants have closed, the electricity market “still looks incredibly tight”, Nugent says.

First time I've seen it said in any sort of mainstream media but this is the crux of it for three basic reasons:

Firstly, for much of the country total electricity consumption peaks during winter. NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and SA all have their highest total electricity consumption during winter.

Hence some and in particular myself often refer to "the south-eastern states" since they're very different to Queensland (which is part of the NEM) or to WA and NT.

Secondly, winter is the season when the strongest growth in consumption is likely. Easily explained by pointing that with the exception of Tasmania, at present a large portion of space heating in the south-eastern states is supplied by the direct combustion of fossil fuels, primarily gas. A broad energy transition will shift this load to electricity.

Noting it'll also increase winter consumption outside that region since heating use in Queensland and WA, whilst less than elsewhere, is certainly not zero and at present that's often gas in WA in particular.

Thirdly, the big one is VRE (wind and solar) production itself. Total production is significantly lower during winter and this effect is strongest in the states with greatest heating requirements. So consumption goes up when supply goes down.

The big problem though is the existence of what I refer to as "VRE droughts". A period, typically 5 - 10 consecutive days, of very low VRE yields. That these occur primarily during autumn and winter, and are correlated with colder than usual weather, compounds the problem in a big way. It's what leads engineers and others straight to hydro or gas turbines for a solution, because no battery in existence can economically be built to cope with that at present.

This chart shows VRE output (only) for Victoria over the past 12 months on a daily basis. Take a good hard look at the period from mid-autumn through winter and the problem is easily spotted. Note the average is 48 GWh per day, so that period at the beginning of July was down two thirds on average, and right at the same time when consumption is high. That's the problem.

Much the same in SA:

NSW less serious in terms of extreme lows but the seasonal trend is still very clear:

As for Tasmania, well it's prone to both extremes. Periods of very high VRE output in the middle of winter but also periods of extremely low output at the same time of year. Thankfully they got keen on hydro over a century ago:

Even Queensland isn't immune, and the standout low unfortunately just happens to be at the exact same time as the other eastern states:

WA isn't immune either:

 

[SirRumpole]

The real mystery is why this isn't getting through to the politicians. Too far into the future I suppose, someone else will be in power (haha) by then.

 

[sptrawler]

It surprised me also @Smurf1976 , but I've noticed are more honest reporting on the issues lately, I don't mean they have been dishonest just have had a propensity to omit a lot of relevant info.

 

[SirRumpole]

Turning waste CO2 into power (and other useful stuff).

 

[basilio]

All about Nuclear Energy

 

[basilio]

Turning waste CO2 into power (and other useful stuff).

WOW!! That is a seriously excellent (potential) solution to so many issues. If we are ever going to reduce CO2 levels, get large scale batteries into play this technology is most definitely worth a look.
Check it out.

 

[basilio]

Matt Ferrels work on Undecided is always worth watching.

I just saw an intriguing examination of vertical double sided solar panels.When you reach the end of the clip you can see the excellent range of opportunities this technology offers.

 

[basilio]

Have you got something from the shovel Bas? That's your normal go to, for intellectual and scientific content.

How come we are so smart and everyone else in the World is so stupid, they must just stare in awe at our brilliance.


View attachment 172171

Really ? Is that supposed to show how cost effective nuclear power is compared to the current renewable energy alternatives ? Would you like to go deeper into the figures and see which projects are anywhere near completion, how much they are costing and who is picking up the tab ?

The nuts of the issue is that nuclear power is not a good value proposition in terms of energy supply. The figures just don't stack up.

The cartoon makes the point that time and time again the problems with the economics and practicality of nuclear power have been laid out for the Liberal party who simply refuse to acknowledge how badly the figures stack up.

And then they say they want to "discuss" the idea. Crackers really.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

Renewable energy provides the cheapest source of new energy for Australia, a new draft report from the CSIRO and energy market operator has found.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

The nuts of the issue is that nuclear power is not a good value proposition in terms of energy supply. The figures just don't stack up.

Problem is that people give only lip service to the alternative, hydro, because they are scared of the Greenies mounting scare campaigns about frog extinction and losing the Green vote.

Hard decisions are going to have to be made but no one wants to make them.

 

[sptrawler]

Really ? Is that supposed to show how cost effective nuclear power is compared to the current renewable energy alternatives ? Would you like to go deeper into the figures and see which projects are anywhere near completion, how much they are costing and who is picking up the tab ?

The nuts of the issue is that nuclear power is not a good value proposition in terms of energy supply. The figures just don't stack up.

The cartoon makes the point that time and time again the problems with the economics and practicality of nuclear power have been laid out for the Liberal party who simply refuse to acknowledge how badly the figures stack up.

And then they say they want to "discuss" the idea. Crackers really.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

Renewable energy provides the cheapest source of new energy for Australia, a new draft report from the CSIRO and energy market operator has found.

www.abc.net.au

You have shown over many years, there is no point in debating anything about energy with you, that's why I quickly deleted my previous post.
I have explained on numerous occasions how I believe a full renewables grid is possible in Australia, however there is more to our energy usage than just the grid and I've also explained where I feel nuclear can be a sensible option in the energy transition.
I don't see any point in repeating myself endlessly, unlike some others, therefore as we always say time will tell.

 

[SirRumpole]

You have shown over many years, there is no point in debating anything about energy with you, that's why I quickly deleted my previous post.
I have explained on numerous occasions how I believe a full renewables grid is possible in Australia, however there is more to our energy usage than just the grid and I've also explained where I feel nuclear can be a sensible option in the energy transition.
I don't see any point in repeating myself endlessly, unlike some others, therefore as we always say time will tell.

I'm unconvinced that nuclear is better than hydro in terms of cost efficiency at this point in time, but the public debate has to be more experts(that aren't flogging their own book) and less politicians and clueless journalists.

FFS, turn the whole thing over to someone like Alan Finkle or other engineers, it's time for politicians to get out of the way.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm unconvinced that nuclear is better than hydro in terms of cost efficiency at this point in time, but the public debate has to be more experts(that aren't flogging their own book) and less politicians and clueless journalists.

FFS, turn the whole thing over to someone like Alan Finkle or other engineers, it's time for politicians to get out of the way.

Totally agree, hydro is definitely the goto solution at the moment and as you say the only issue is backlash, also hydro will be the eventual backbone of most renewable systems around the World that's a given.

Even the left including Labor are talking about having fossil fuel as firming, that IMO is where the debate comes into play, cost aside what is the most sensible long term avenue to take.

Both nuclear and fossil fuel are finite resources, so neither are a practicle solution, what has to be decided is where do we go while we transcend to the next level of technology and there will be another level humans are good at that.

To me that is the real issue, which energy source serves us better through this period and I'm more inclined toward the clean energy density of nuclear, rather than fossil fuel, because due to its emissions it will limit the speed of the transition rather than assisting the transition.

If you can understand where I'm coming from.

 

[basilio]

You have shown over many years, there is no point in debating anything about energy with you, that's why I quickly deleted my previous post.
.

Thanks... Nah. Your previous post did you no favours SP. Good idea to retract it .

The Liberal Party is trying once again to push nuclear solutions as our new energy systems. I agree that in the medium-longer term it may be possible to have SMR reactors - when they have been technically proven and have some sort of reasonable economic viability. Best possible scenario is probably 2035-40 and beyond. That would be dependent on seeing built and operational units with a clear budget

The Liberal Parties current attempt to push SMR's now is just a ridiculously expensive economical and technical mirage. The alternatives of renewable energy with batteries/pumped hydro/ gas firming is proven, available and cost effective. It remains to do it..