The future of energy generation and storage

[qldfrog]

and all that for wind farm idle and roundup ex forests wasteland: have you ever notice Tv or films in europe with backdrop of wind farms: how often are they turning? Or when you travel there

not a scientific review, you stay home and do not film by night or during storms and tempest but still..have a check....
As for the cost..

 

[qldfrog]

I posted quite a bit about it when it was first announced but in short, a key issue is there's more than one way of building it, indeed there's actually quite a lot of options for building something there.

At present they're going down the track of 24 hours' storage which, ultimately, does require deep firming from some other means (in practice, gas turbines). Alternative designs are possible, including scaling the whole thing up or alternatively keeping the present scale (or even scaling it down) but changing that to a higher or lower power output in return for a shorter or longer duration.

So on one hand I'll give absolute credit to the Qld state government. They've set up their own hydro company from scratch and they're jumping straight in the deep end of large scale projects. Not only that, they're not afraid to ruffle some feathers politically - Pioneer-Burdekin is literally right next to a National Park and not without controversy for the effects on residents too. So they haven't shied away from hard decisions there.

On the other hand, is 24 hours' storage enough? Well that depends on what the objective is and for that reason, I'm firmly of the view that an overall "master plan" is needed before building $ billions worth of infrastructure. Otherwise there's a risk of building the wrong thing, this isn't a situation where "cross that bridge where we come to it" is a wise strategy. Hence my previous post - society needs to decide the destination.

I do not think society is given any choice are we?
we are brainwashed, told of supposedly danger under pseudo science and HUGE lobbies, and told of supposed solutions none including adaptation and prevention work..Any objection is "conspiracy", evil...Salem witch hunt included (deniers ROL)
very Covid like in my opinion(no prevention with the same end result: most of these "conspiracies" were facts and truth/sciences..it took 4 y for the truth to pop up, half if not more of the population is still not aware..
for the CC scam, it will take decades..
each time we pay an extra $ for our bills and supposedly reduce our Co2 emission, straving ourselves in the process, we should have a thought at the Nordstream pipe blown or the emissions of the ukrainian or Gaza war....But these are different CO2 , nitrous oxydes or methane...
thankfully, I am off grid and do not have to rely much on these jokers ...

 

[qldfrog]

Sorry for the previous post tone:
Am a bit pxxsed off:
I read a great study about the net zero cost with quite strong looking figures putting it at 60% of our GDP..so a wet dream.
And probably doing it again within 15y..
L
Was less than a week ago and wanted to share it as a key debate idea piece
But guess what..unable to find it again in any search...so conspiracy or just bad user?
In short, to maintain current consumption and grid on wo CO2 is an unaffordable task so something will have to go:
Blackout or Not Zero....
If anyone else has read this?

 

[sptrawler]

Sorry for the previous post tone:
Am a bit pxxsed off:
I read a great study about the net zero cost with quite strong looking figures putting it at 60% of our GDP..so a wet dream.
And probably doing it again within 15y..
L
Was less than a week ago and wanted to share it as a key debate idea piece
But guess what..unable to find it again in any search...so conspiracy or just bad user?
In short, to maintain current consumption and grid on wo CO2 is an unaffordable task so something will have to go:
Blackout or Not Zero....
If anyone else has read this?

I guess the thing is, what is the point of using fossil fuels, if some or all of it can be replaced by renewables?
At the end of the day if renewables peak out at replacing 60% of fossil fuel usage, that is better than not doing it.

Whether fossil fuel is causing climate change or not, IMO it doesn't change the fact that it will run out, so if we can reduce the usage through technology it has to be better for the long term survival of humans on this planet.

Everything on the planet is finite, the sooner we use it, the sooner we're done.

As technology improves, so does the way we use it, renewables is only another step in our history the same as the 8 track, then the cassette, to cd's, then dvd's they are all moving into the history books and being replaced by streaming so less resources are used.
Eventually fossil fuel probably will.
Only my thoughts

 

[qldfrog]

I guess the thing is, what is the point of using fossil fuels, if some or all of it can be replaced by renewables?
At the end of the day if renewables peak out at replacing 60% of fossil fuel usage, that is better than not doing it.

Whether fossil fuel is causing climate change or not, IMO it doesn't change the fact that it will run out, so if we can reduce the usage through technology it has to be better for the long term survival of humans on this planet.

Everything on the planet is finite, the sooner we use it, the sooner we're done.

As technology improves, so does the way we use it, renewables is only another step in our history the same as the 8 track, then the cassette, to cd's, then dvd's they are all moving into the history books and being replaced by streaming so less resources are used.
Eventually fossil fuel probably will.
Only my thoughts

Agree cf fossil fuel disappearing but we have plenty so why bother spending now on what will be obsolete tech when we can easily wait 100y.
Don't we have enough issues?
..the 60% of GDP was the cost of a net zero for Australia.

We will starve, litteraly ,before we get there or most probably offshore our carbon use to China and buy everything from there ..
If every good and food is imported , all energy created with imported hardware, and we have blackouts monthly, Australia itself can bask in being a broke carbon neutral eden by growing forests and letting them burn in "CC caused wildfires" later
This is the 3rd time I find proper studies on the internet not PC according to the propaganda and can not retrieve them a week later .
I will from now on download them as soon as read..,to be able to share them.
If anyone else has access to that paper, please share here: a costing at 60% of GDP is critical to this thread and to our economy

 

[qldfrog]

BHP tied to gas until 2053 as power need swells on electric fleet

Decarbonisation of Australia’s biggest export industry will require almost seven times more power and BHP wants gas to play a role until at least 2053.

www.afr.com

So we move our grid to renewable and individual users will build their own dependable plant or expand their own when they do not have the choice to move..miners..other users will go bankrupt: smelters industry..
And for miners, it could go the nickel way too..arrgg
The good point for bhp is they move to gas..that we have plenty of if we allow it to be extracted, and not oil we do not have much.

 

[sptrawler]

Agree cf fossil fuel disappearing but we have plenty so why bother spending now on what will be obsolete tech when we can easily wait 100y.
Don't we have enough issues?
..the 60% of GDP was the cost of a net zero for Australia.

We will starve, litteraly ,before we get there or most probably offshore our carbon use to China and buy everything from there ..
If every good and food is imported , all energy created with imported hardware, and we have blackouts monthly, Australia itself can bask in being a broke carbon neutral eden by growing forests and letting them burn in "CC caused wildfires" later
This is the 3rd time I find proper studies on the internet not PC according to the propaganda and can not retrieve them a week later .
I will from now on download them as soon as read..,to be able to share them.
If anyone else has access to that paper, please share here: a costing at 60% of GDP is critical to this thread and to our economy

Yes, but I think the results will drive the logics, the narrative is rolling with theme, until things go pear shaped it is just your reality against theirs.
I've had enough head banging sessions in my life, to realise sometimes you just have to let people learn from experience.
One of the posters on here put up a great saying, "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it think".
I loved it. Lol

 

[Smurf1976]

I guess the thing is, what is the point of using fossil fuels, if some or all of it can be replaced by renewables?
At the end of the day if renewables peak out at replacing 60% of fossil fuel usage, that is better than not doing it.

Whether fossil fuel is causing climate change or not, IMO it doesn't change the fact that it will run out, so if we can reduce the usage through technology it has to be better for the long term survival of humans on this planet.

Yep, ultimately fossil fuels are finite resources.

Oil and gas do seem to be really quite limited relative to present use of them. If it wasn't for that, if supplies were plentiful, then the industry wouldn't go into deep water, physically hostile environments and war zones in order to gain access. If there were vast resources elsewhere then it'd be a pretty impressive conspiracy to have kept them hidden so long.

Coal there's a lot more of it but it does ultimately have limits. In particular, the deeper the mines go the more costly it gets. Plus there's a lot of coal that realistically nobody's going to want to mine.

In the Australian context well there's technically mineable coal within the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, there's coal west of Brisbane and in Adelaide's case there's coal under the CBD itself at the northern end and it stretches under the Torrens River up toward North Adelaide. So within that area is the heart of the commercial district, a good portion of all Adelaide hotels, state parliament, the Oval, the zoo, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, railway station, university, a golf course, etc. Chance anyone's going to mine that I think we can safely say is zero.

Here's a quote from Tasmania over 40 years ago:

'The Commission expects that the increasing value of renewable hydro-electric energy will ultimately lead to the progressive development of these medium and small incremental resources in the next century. Whilst some are relatively small individually, in aggregate they amount to a substantial increase in energy resource to the State of about 285 MW average output. There is little doubt that future generations will realize the benefits to be gained from their development in preference to fossil and other fuels'

That was written about 5 years before mainstream media first reported on what was then termed "the greenhouse effect" now known as climate change.

It's referring to a number of individually small hydro schemes in Tasmania that have been identified as technically practical to build but never actually built and which have never seen a serious proposal to build them, although detailed investigations were done in the past to confirm viability. Note the 285 MW is average output, constant 24/365, and is not a peak power value which would be considerably higher. That list doesn't include the more well known unbuilt schemes subject to past controversy in the south-west.

Now I'll readily acknowledge there's a legitimate case against some hydro developments on environmental grounds, anything that wipes out a species is too high a price to pay for keeping the lights on, but on the other hand fossil fuels have very real, undeniable problems far beyond just climate change. Oil and gas are physically quite limited whilst coal comes with all the issues of digging up the land, ash to dispose of, etc.

Plus it must be said oil, gas and war are never too far from each other. Another reason to not like them.

So there's a lot of reasons to want to minimise the use of fossil fuels even without saying a word about climate. They're problematic full stop.

 

[qldfrog]

Yep, ultimately fossil fuels are finite resources.

Oil and gas do seem to be really quite limited relative to present use of them. If it wasn't for that, if supplies were plentiful, then the industry wouldn't go into deep water, physically hostile environments and war zones in order to gain access. If there were vast resources elsewhere then it'd be a pretty impressive conspiracy to have kept them hidden so long.

Coal there's a lot more of it but it does ultimately have limits. In particular, the deeper the mines go the more costly it gets. Plus there's a lot of coal that realistically nobody's going to want to mine.

In the Australian context well there's technically mineable coal within the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, there's coal west of Brisbane and in Adelaide's case there's coal under the CBD itself at the northern end and it stretches under the Torrens River up toward North Adelaide. So within that area is the heart of the commercial district, a good portion of all Adelaide hotels, state parliament, the Oval, the zoo, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, railway station, university, a golf course, etc. Chance anyone's going to mine that I think we can safely say is zero.

Here's a quote from Tasmania over 40 years ago:



That was written about 5 years before mainstream media first reported on what was then termed "the greenhouse effect" now known as climate change.

It's referring to a number of individually small hydro schemes in Tasmania that have been identified as technically practical to build but never actually built and which have never seen a serious proposal to build them, although detailed investigations were done in the past to confirm viability. Note the 285 MW is average output, constant 24/365, and is not a peak power value which would be considerably higher. That list doesn't include the more well known unbuilt schemes subject to past controversy in the south-west.

Now I'll readily acknowledge there's a legitimate case against some hydro developments on environmental grounds, anything that wipes out a species is too high a price to pay for keeping the lights on, but on the other hand fossil fuels have very real, undeniable problems far beyond just climate change. Oil and gas are physically quite limited whilst coal comes with all the issues of digging up the land, ash to dispose of, etc.

Plus it must be said oil, gas and war are never too far from each other. Another reason to not like them.

So there's a lot of reasons to want to minimise the use of fossil fuels even without saying a word about climate. They're problematic full stop.

I agree about finite reserve etc etc but:
coal can be kept underground with long wall mining:
open cut is imho an archaic cheap and dirty way , sadly preferred here, and you do not do underground for copper lithium or whatever you need to mine to replace coal
Coal can and should be the least destroying mining available on earth due to its clear stratification.
Similarly oil and gas..there are oil pumps in the middle of cities
we are blessed in Australia with an almost endless gift of fossil fuels (not oil) for the size of our population and have sun:
we should be the last country on earth to target net zero: maybe 50% zero etc..
Of course use solar "free energy" if it makes sense economically but only so.
but spending money to replace something we got basically for free is just crazy.
Once again: if solar or wind is more expensive in $ or use of oil/coal..we should not have it here
Does Iceland spend money on desalination plant because there is no more fresh water in California?
This is not as stupid an argument as it sounds.
And definitively not a good reason to get broke: the decisions are made now(or were made 10y ago), while we are having uninterrupted power and basking in wealth: the results will be poverty and misery on our children..we have no excuse

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree about finite reserve etc etc but:
coal can be kept underground with long wall mining:
open cut is imho an archaic cheap and dirty way , sadly preferred here, and you do not do underground for copper lithium or whatever you need to mine to replace coal
Coal can and should be the least destroying mining available on earth due to its clear stratification.
Similarly oil and gas..there are oil pumps in the middle of cities
we are blessed in Australia with an almost endless gift of fossil fuels (not oil) for the size of our population and have sun:
we should be the last country on earth to target net zero: maybe 50% zero etc..
Of course use solar "free energy" if it makes sense economically but only so.
but spending money to replace something we got basically for free is just crazy.
Once again: if solar or wind is more expensive in $ or use of oil/coal..we should not have it here
Does Iceland spend money on desalination plant because there is no more fresh water in California?
This is not as stupid an argument as it sounds.
And definitively not a good reason to get broke: the decisions are made now(or were made 10y ago), while we are having uninterrupted power and basking in wealth: the results will be poverty and misery on our children..we have no excuse

I wonder whether CO2 redox batteries that convert CO2 to useful substances and provide a power backup could be built to utilise the CO2 output of coal power stations thus producing no CO2 output.

I have no idea how scalable such installations are but anything that can provide baseload power without emmissions should be worth considering imho.

Some work to do, but an interesting development.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775321002937

 

[SirRumpole]

Breaking news

Queensland researchers create device that consumes carbon dioxide and generates electricity​

Queensland researchers build device that creates electricity by consuming CO2

It's hoped the nano-generator will eventually become a new method of industrial carbon capture with the potential to significantly reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.

www.abc.net.au

 

[basilio]

Agree cf fossil fuel disappearing but we have plenty so why bother spending now on what will be obsolete tech when we can easily wait 100y.
Don't we have enough issues?
..the 60% of GDP was the cost of a net zero for Australia.

We will starve, litteraly ,before we get there or most probably offshore our carbon use to China and buy everything from there ..
If every good and food is imported , all energy created with imported hardware, and we have blackouts monthly, Australia itself can bask in being a broke carbon neutral eden by growing forests and letting them burn in "CC caused wildfires" later
This is the 3rd time I find proper studies on the internet not PC according to the propaganda and can not retrieve them a week later .
I will from now on download them as soon as read..,to be able to share them.
If anyone else has access to that paper, please share here: a costing at 60% of GDP is critical to this thread and to our economy

Qfrog love to see that "paper" which says that going renewable will cost 60% of GDP. Absolutely certain it comes from the same (type of) sources that promote lizard people, shape shifters or liars/delusionists who pretend that global warming is not real and/or isn't affecting our world.

But returning to. the very real topic of why we must move quickly to a renewable energy future if we are going to reduce the impact of global heating.

There are a couple of papers that explore how much impact the world would expect to see with rising temperatures. It's in that context that the investment in changing our energy sources needs to be viewed.

38 trillion dollars in damages each year: World economy already committed to income reduction of 19 % due to climate change​

Date: April 17, 2024 Source: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Summary:

Even if CO2 emissions were to be drastically cut down starting today, the world economy is already committed to an income reduction of 19% until 2050 due to climate change, a new study finds. These damages are six times larger than the mitigation costs needed to limit global warming to two degrees. Based on empirical data from more than 1,600 regions worldwide over the past 40 years, scientists assessed future impacts of changing climatic conditions on economic growth and their persistence.

38 trillion dollars in damages each year: World economy already committed to income reduction of 19 % due to climate change

Even if CO2 emissions were to be drastically cut down starting today, the world economy is already committed to an income reduction of 19% until 2050 due to climate change, a new study finds. These damages are six times larger than the mitigation costs needed to limit global warming to two...

www.sciencedaily.com

Substantial global cost of climate inaction​

Date: April 17, 2024 Source: ETH Zurich

Summary:
Pioneering study reveals that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could reduce the global economic costs of climate change by two thirds. If warming continues to 3 degrees Celsius, global GDP will decrease by up to 10 percent -- with the worst impacts in less developed countries.

Substantial global cost of climate inaction

Pioneering study reveals that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius could reduce the global economic costs of climate change by two thirds. If warming continues to 3 degrees Celsius, global GDP will decrease by up to 10 percent -- with the worst impacts in less developed countries.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[basilio]

Forbes Magazine has also weighed in on the costs of global warming.

Breaking

Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn​

Robert Hart
Forbes Staff
I cover breaking news.

Apr 17, 2024,11:00am EDT

Topline​

Climate change is on track to cost the global economy $38 trillion a year in damages within the next 25 years, researchers warned on Wednesday, a baseline that underscores the mounting economic costs of climate change and continued inaction as nations bicker over who will pick up the tab.

Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn

Researchers from Germany warned existing emissions have already put the world economy on course for a reduction of nearly a fifth within 25 years, a figure that is likely to grow once increasing damage from weather disasters like storms and wildfires are factored in.

www.forbes.com

 

[basilio]

What is the cost and cost benefits of replacing coal fired power stations across the US ? This analysis from Forbes business magazine details how much more cost effective solar/wind/storage options are to fossil fuel.

Really is a no brainer.

99% Of U.S. Coal Plants Are More Expensive Than New Renewables. A Coal-To-Clean Transition Is Worth $589 Billion, Mostly In Red States​

Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology
Contributor

We are a nonpartisan climate and clean energy policy think tank.
Eric Gimon
Contributor

Senior Fellow

Jan 30, 2023,07:15am EST

Nevada’s last coal plant is scheduled to close in 2025 after 40 years of service due to rising operation costs. The closure will dramatically improve air quality, yet the economic impact will be borne by dozens of plant employees, as well as the surrounding community of Humboldt County.

So what will replace the North Valmy coal plant?

Local utility NV Energy is planning for a clean economic transition: Two new solar-plus-storage facilities will be built adjacent to the closing plant by 2025, creating hundreds of construction jobs, replacement union jobs, and long-term sustainable tax revenue.

99% Of U.S. Coal Plants Are More Expensive Than New Renewables. A Coal-To-Clean Transition Is Worth $589 Billion, Mostly In Red States

Building new wind and solar is less expensive than 99% of existing coal capacity. This Coal Cost Crossover is worth $589 billion in new investment for coal communities across the U.S.

www.forbes.com

 

[Smurf1976]

What is the cost and cost benefits of replacing coal fired power stations across the US ? This analysis from Forbes business magazine details how much more cost effective solar/wind/storage options are to fossil fuel.

Really is a no brainer.

Not so fast.....

As background the plant in question is a two unit coal-fired plant using conventional technology with the units in service since 1981 and 1985. An abnormal attribute is that they aren't identical, indeed the two boilers are from different manufacturers as are the turbines and alternators. An odd approach but not unprecedented.

At present the plant burns coal brought from interstate by rail.

The first proposal was to close the coal plant and replace with two large solar projects, total 600MW, plus 480MW of battery storage.

Various revisions to this plan resulted in a proposed 200MW / 800MWh battery at the existing coal plant site. However this is a regulated utility, not a company operating in a free market that can do whatever it likes, and as such requires approval from the Nevada Public Utilities Commission prior to undertaking major capital expenditure.

Now the Nevada PUC initially rejected the plan, on the grounds that it wasn't an adequate replacement of the coal plant. Noting that the PUC did approve construction of a 520MW gas-fired station in the state on the grounds that more, not simply replacement, capacity is required.

So the new gas turbines are needed with the coal plant, they're not an alternative to it.

So now there's a new plan and that's to do a fuel conversion on the existing coal units from coal to gas. That gets around the problem that the proposed solar and battery projects aren't an adequate replacement for it by removing the actual need for replacement.

To my understanding the Nevada PUC has approved this coal to gas conversion and has approved a different version of the solar and storage plan, that being 400MW solar and 4 hours storage at a separate site, plus building the required transmission. Cost is budgeted at USD $1.5 billion. This 400MW being effectively an expansion, given nothing's being closed.

So it's a technicality to say they're closing the coal. Stopping burning actual coal yes, but only because they're switching to gas.

 

[IFocus]

If we continued with coal power stations then we would need to start building new ones, lots of then or very big units as the current lot are dying off.

Basically we are spending that money on renewables the issue is the shortfall in energy supply transitioning from one to the other.

If we had gas it wouldn't be a major problem or at least we would have somewhere to run to unfortunately gas companies have told us we cannot not have access to Australian reserves...

 

[Smurf1976]

If we had gas it wouldn't be a major problem or at least we would have somewhere to run to unfortunately gas companies have told us we cannot not have access to Australian reserves...

Government ultimately created that mess.

First with the present market structure that allows economic ideology to override engineering and forward planning.

Second by putting the final nail in the coffin and approving the export contracts.

Those two measures, between them, are ultimately to blame for almost all the problems we have today. It's the reason why a subject that interested practically nobody not employed in the industry 20 years ago is now in the mainstream news almost literally on a daily basis.

Not because of climate change and the need to respond to that. That's a significant but ultimately doable task and it's not what's sent prices through the roof, that I can assure you, simply because it mostly hasn't been done or paid for yet.

It's because we dumped forward planning based on real economics and engineering and replaced it with a short term market-driven focus that by design places no value on the future, and considers nothing outside the industry itself to be an objective. That shifted the focus completely.

That situation lead to no energy retailer or generation company being willing to sign up and lock in access to the gas reserves simply because they didn't know how much they'd be selling or using, that being a consequence of the market design that removed forward planning.

Next came the gas companies wanting to export gas, and government deciding to allow them to do so on an epic scale. Once that was done, the idea that the retailers would just buy from producers on the spot market or via short term contracts ceased to work, simply because it was all now committed overseas and there's nothing to sell on spot or short term contracts.

Ultimately gas is a finite resource, once gone it's gone, and it sell the lot was just crazy in my view. Because under any realistic scenario, we're going to need at least some gas for a long time yet - remembering that most of it's not used to generate electricity but is instead used for ~18 million gas appliances, high temperature industrial processes, and as petrochemical feedstock.

As for the consequences, the demise of Qenos is just the latest in a long list unfortunately.



Yes there's been an ownership change but no secret it's the lack of feedstock that's killed the business viability. Shutdown of the Altona oil refinery being one problem, lack of affordable (or even any.....) natural gas being another.

Overall the approach Australia's taken to natural resources has a lot in common with the farmer who sells the farm or the tradesman who sells their tools. Short term windfall, long term dead end.

PS - the Americans are in the process of punishing themselves in much the same way, by the end of this decade they'll have the capacity to export as LNG about 20% of total US natural gas production, in doing so creating a very similar situation unless natural gas production surges.

 

[sptrawler]

And the issues just keep coming.

Major wind farm withdrawn after more planning delays, downsizing, name changes and fierce opposition | RenewEconomy

Ark Energy pulls plans for its second wind project in six months, this time over repeated planning delays for a project criticised for being too close to world heritage areas.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[SirRumpole]

And the issues just keep coming.

Major wind farm withdrawn after more planning delays, downsizing, name changes and fierce opposition | RenewEconomy

Ark Energy pulls plans for its second wind project in six months, this time over repeated planning delays for a project criticised for being too close to world heritage areas.

reneweconomy.com.au

Incredible isn't it?

Tout wind power publicly then strangle it behind the scenes.

What are the Feds playing at?

 

[farmerge]

Incredible isn't it?

Tout wind power publicly then strangle it behind the scenes.

What are the Feds playing at?

@SirRumpole Would appear that problem solving isn't their "thing'.
Create problems instead, and then throw in the towel or buckets of money and call-in so-called experts to solve something that didn't exist in the first place.