The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

An interesting graph, biomass and hydro have been lagging.
@Smurf1976 do you have any more current graphs? This is 2019.

 

[Smurf1976]

An interesting graph, biomass and hydro have been lagging.
@Smurf1976 do you have any more current graphs? This is 2019.

Some more recent data.

This is by financial year however not calendar year but near enough. All figures in GWh and note solar data includes rooftop solar + large scale solar farms.

2020:
Biomass = 3410
Wind = 22,607
Hydro = 14,807
Solar = 23,845

2021:
Biomass = 3344
Wind = 26,786
Hydro = 16,382
Solar = 31,194

2022:
Biomass = 3187
Wind = 30,050
Hydro = 17,375
Solar = 37,544

2023:
Biomass = 3126
Wind = 31,868
Hydro = 15,975
Solar = 44,994

For reference, 2023 electricity from fossil fuels:
Coal = 125,610
Gas = 46,670
Oil = 4863

2021-22 direct use of fossil fuels. That is, for purposes other than electricity generation:

Coal = 28,972
Gas = 276,111
Oil = 556,806
Wood, ethanol, biodiesel etc = 49,472

From there comes the point that gets people like me pointing out there's an awful lot of BS around all this, and the task ahead is far greater than most seem to realise.

Politicians will excitedly point out that renewables generated 35% of electricity. Indeed they did.

Trouble is wind and solar, the only two renewables that are actually growing, produced just 6.49% of Australia's total energy requirements and yet we're already at the point of increasing economic difficulty of further installation. That is, we're at the point where additional wind or solar simply displaces existing wind and solar at times of high output and low consumption, there's no ability to use it, and the more that's installed the greater that problem becomes.

The first and foremost solution required is to electrify consumer loads. That is, use electricity not gas or other fuels at the point of consumption. Undo the nonsense that's occurred over the past 20 years with the switch from electricity to gas, it needs to be in the opposite direction. Direct use of gas has increased 54% since 2002-03 and the trend remains upward.

Another thing that's needed is storage and load shifting to enable use of that wind and solar when it's generated and to store the rest. So that's off-peak storage hot water, it's batteries, it's pumped hydro, etc. A lot more of that is needed.

Plus the other one, and this is the debate few are willing to go near, is there's ultimately a need to settle what happens as the means of deep firming the electricity supply. That is, how to deal with extended periods, like the ones we've just seen, of poor wind and solar yield. Recent conditions in Victoria and SA show the problem clearly, charts show wind + solar combined output:

At present the plan is to use gas turbines, fuelled by fossil natural gas, as the means of fixing that simply because nobody's brave enough to have a discussion about anything else.

Personally I'm neither for nor against that, but I do think the issue needs to be settled and accepted one way or the other. There's no point in having a fleet of 16.2GW of gas turbines, of which 13GW needs to be built as new or replacement plant, only to get to 2035 or 2040 then someone starts complaining about the fact that we're never going 100% renewable even for electricity, and that fleet of new gas turbines essentially locks gas in through to the 2080's.

If we do want fully renewable, ever, then society needs to have a hard conversation about the options and that's where it gets painful. Straight to the point - that's a conversation about large hydro projects. Politically, well no politician wants to go anywhere near that so gas it is.

Put all that together, and ultimately it's going to top out at 24.5% renewable energy nationally if nothing changes and even that's far from certain to be achieved. Simply because so much of what's used isn't electricity, and even with electricity there's no intention to go fully renewable just mostly. Only if society gets far more serious than it is at present will that change.

As I've learned though, it's pretty much impossible to get this stuff through to much of the population. There's an awful lot of people whose mind just isn't open to factual data.

 

[Smurf1976]

Didn't produce energy but not a bad stunt this one. Location = Gordon Dam, Tasmania.

Watch to the end.....

 

[sptrawler]

As I've learned though, it's pretty much impossible to get this stuff through to much of the population. There's an awful lot of people whose mind just isn't open to factual data.

That's the crux of it @Smurf1976 , it's all about tribal politics, point scoring and finger pointing.
Eventually the whole issue will be painted into a corner, where a crisis causes a panic reaction and then the whole thing becomes a pigs ear, situation normal.
There is an absolute lack of honesty and integrity surrounding the whole issue ATM, way too many sectors are making a killing and vested interests seem to be controlling the narrative.
It just has to end badly, or the more likely outcome, the Govt has to continue to pay the coal generators to stop their closure and take the responsibility of firming away from the private sector. Then the privates get paid for their generators and production, then can use the money to install renewables win/win.
Certainly is an interesting period in Australia's history.
As for your comment that the task is far greater than most realise, I get shouted down for even suggesting that.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's the crux of it @Smurf1976 , it's all about tribal politics, point scoring and finger pointing.
Eventually the whole issue will be painted into a corner, where a crisis causes a panic reaction and then the whole thing becomes a pigs ear, situation normal.
There is an absolute lack of honesty and integrity surrounding the whole issue ATM, way too many sectors are making a killing and vested interests seem to be controlling the narrative.
It just has to end badly, or the more likely outcome, the Govt has to continue to pay the coal generators to stop their closure and take the responsibility of firming away from the private sector. Then the privates get paid for their generators and production, then can use the money to install renewables win/win.
Certainly is an interesting period in Australia's history.
As for your comment that the task is far greater than most realise, I get shouted down for even suggesting that.

The whole energy topic is a political bunfight, which is why you rarely see genuine experts weighing in to the debate because they know that whatever they say they will offend someone and the way things are polarised they will probably end up with either Greenies tying themselves to their gates or farmers dumping loads of cowsh*t in their driveways. No reasonable person wants that so they stay out of it and it's left to politicians who generally know sod all about the subject.

Even our resident expert has held back on some issues, I'd suggest for that very reason.

Is it possible to have a rational debate based on science and engineering instead of hysteria? It's looking more and more unlikely I'm afraid.

The only way out that I can see is to create a panel of experts and empower them to make the decisions. They way it's going though, unless they are guaranteed anonymity, they wouldn't want to participate, they would just want a quiet life.

 

[sptrawler]

Is it possible to have a rational debate based on science and engineering instead of hysteria? It's looking more and more unlikely I'm afraid.

Is it possible to have a rational debate? IMO probably not, even now that the issues are becoming obvious to everyone, there is still a lot of deceit and misinformation being pedalled.

The Labor party are pushing the renewable barrow, which is wobbling along way too slowly, even Chris said yesterday " I am still quiet confident we will achieve our target".
That is a huge change in rhetoric, no doubt because we are getting to a point now, that generation required is in reality surplus to requirement, to charge storage and be supplementary to make up for poor generation days, so who is going to put that in?
We have been talking about this for years.

Then we have the Coalition spruiking nuclear, when in reality there is no money in nuclear even if it is chosen, so the taxpayer would have to fund it and the cost would be huge, there is no way the privates would pay for it.

So really there isn't an easy answer at the moment, because neither side IMO, is being honest.

 

[SirRumpole]

Is it possible to have a rational debate? IMO probably not, even now that the issues are becoming obvious to everyone, there is still a lot of deceit and misinformation being pedalled.

The Labor party are pushing the renewable barrow, which is wobbling along way too slowly, even Chris said yesterday " I am still quiet confident we will achieve our target".
That is a huge change in rhetoric, no doubt because we are getting to a point now, that generation required is in reality surplus to requirement, to charge storage and be supplementary to make up for poor generation days, so who is going to put that in?
We have been talking about this for years.

Then we have the Coalition spruiking nuclear, when in reality there is no money in nuclear even if it is chosen, so the taxpayer would have to fund it and the cost would be huge, there is no way the privates would pay for it.

So really there isn't an easy answer at the moment, because neither side IMO, is being honest.

There is too much fuss about emissions targets imo. Get the right technology and the targets will be achieved.

 

[sptrawler]

There is too much fuss about emissions targets imo. Get the right technology and the targets will be achieved.

Absolutely, eventually the correct mix will be found, that balances emissions with system reliability and growth demand and my guess it it won't be one technology.
This is again back to the energy any technology can supply, it is no good being 100% reliant on a certain technology, when it can't actually supply the required amount of power, if it can that's great but ATM that isn't looking likely in the timeframe available.
The fact of not being flexible will be the downfall and blaming everyone else wont work either.

 

[SirRumpole]

Absolutely, eventually the correct mix will be found that balances emissions with system reliability and growth demand and my guess it it won't be one technology.
This is again back to the energy any technology can supply, it is no good being 100% reliant on a certain technology, when it can't actually supply the required amount of power, if it can that's great but ATM that isn't looking likely in the timeframe available.
The fact of not being flexible will be the downfall and blaming everyone else wont work either.
Today Albo saying nothing has been done in the last 10 years, I don't think people are believing that anymore and it gives the Coalition a free kick when they show something like graph I posted and the sums smurf put up, the growth in renewables has been rapid and constant. Also I didn't want to mention it, because it is political, but Howard actually started the renewable energy target in the early 2000's and also gave a huge subsidy to home solar installations, about $10k per home installation from memory.
All Labor can make claim to is really more and more announcements and not much else. But as I said the thread will just become a bun fight if politics are used rather than technical issues.

Rooftop solar seems to be the only non political technology, at least all sides (including the Greens) don't seem to be against it.

Maybe that's a better way to go than massive solar or wind farms and their associated wiring. Whether it alone could supply the load is out of my technical knowledge, but you would still need deep firming of some kind.

Then of course you have to consider that a lot of future housing will be high rise, with a limited rooftop area supplying a lot of customers. Solar windows perhaps ?

 

[sptrawler]

Rooftop solar seems to be the only non political technology, at least all sides (including the Greens) don't seem to be against it.

Maybe that's a better way to go than massive solar or wind farms and their associated wiring. Whether it alone could supply the load is out of my technical knowledge, but you would still need deep firming of some kind.

Then of course you have to consider that a lot of future housing will be high rise, with a limited rooftop area supplying a lot of customers. Solar windows perhaps ?

As @Smurf1976 already highlighted, rooftop solar isn't going to even be a pimple on the bum, of what is needed.

Sad, but true.

 

[Smurf1976]

it won't be one technology.

The situation in SA over the past 24 hours shows it clearly:

Green = Wind
Yellow = Solar
Light Blue = Battery
Orange = Gas
Red = Diesel
Purple = from Victoria

Now in case you're wondering where that supply in Victoria is coming from:

Colour code same as above except:
Black = Coal
Dark Blue = Hydro

With the purple being import from Tas and NSW (and indirectly from Qld via NSW):

So on one hand the cheerleaders will correctly point out that on a clear Sunday afternoon in Adelaide, solar is indeed running the entire state.

We're a long way from having this sorted however, a very long way. It'd be pretty dark and gloomy right now if it wasn't for gas, interstate coal and hydro, and a bit of diesel having kept the lights on.

 

[SirRumpole]

The situation in SA over the past 24 hours shows it clearly:

Green = Wind
Yellow = Solar
Light Blue = Battery
Orange = Gas
Red = Diesel
Purple = from Victoria

View attachment 178592

Now in case you're wondering where that supply in Victoria is coming from:

Colour code same as above except:
Black = Coal
Dark Blue = Hydro

With the purple being import from Tas and NSW (and indirectly from Qld via NSW):

View attachment 178593

So on one hand the cheerleaders will correctly point out that on a clear Sunday afternoon in Adelaide, solar is indeed running the entire state.

We're a long way from having this sorted however, a very long way. It'd be pretty dark and gloomy right now if it wasn't for gas, interstate coal and hydro, and a bit of diesel having kept the lights on.

Do you reckon Snowy Hydro 2.0 is fatally flawed, ie will never do what its intended to do, or is it just having temporary setbacks ?

You are probably a power engineer rather than a construction engineer, so I understand if its not your area.

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting that AGL think scrapping the target isn't helpful and now Origin are all for moving on with installing GT's, maybe Dutton and the nuclear threat has put a rocket up the generators.
They wouldn't have a business if the nuclear option happened, IMO it would have to be built by the Govt.
Maybe Dutton has kicked a home goal. Lol

Utility giant says paying to extend life of "fragile" coal plants has a limit, but digs in on gas | RenewEconomy

Head of major energy utility says the only way to kick out coal is to lock in gas as back-up to renewables "for the foreseeable future."

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[IFocus]

Do you reckon Snowy Hydro 2.0 is fatally flawed, ie will never do what its intended to do, or is it just having temporary setbacks ?

You are probably a power engineer rather than a construction engineer, so I understand if its not your area.

Its underground mining I know at the start they took shortcuts not doing the pre works required to stabilise the ground maybe cost cutting or just straight up no idea also claims there hadn't been enough drilling checking the ground before hand those cutting machine borers only operate in certain conditions.

It all do able regardless just the costs can blow out.

 

[Smurf1976]

On SH2 I'm reluctant to criticise anything I'm not involved with and don't know all the details of but I'll note they do seem to have a bit of a fondness for tunnel boring machines.

Versus the hydro tunnels in Tasmania the majority of which were built manually, they were quite simply underground mines albeit for the purpose of making the hole rather than because anyone wanted the rock. Start digging at both ends until they meets somewhere in the middle.

The decision to use a TBM isn't one that can be made arbitrarily, it absolutely depends on the geology involved. If in doubt, a conventional mining approach is far more certain to succeed.

 

[sptrawler]

On SH2 I'm reluctant to criticise anything I'm not involved with and don't know all the details of but I'll note they do seem to have a bit of a fondness for tunnel boring machines.

Versus the hydro tunnels in Tasmania the majority of which were built manually, they were quite simply underground mines albeit for the purpose of making the hole rather than because anyone wanted the rock. Start digging at both ends until they meets somewhere in the middle.

The decision to use a TBM isn't one that can be made arbitrarily, it absolutely depends on the geology involved. If in doubt, a conventional mining approach is far more certain to succeed.

Good point @Smurf1976 It is a strange choice, when we are so adept at underground mining and have been doing it for so long, in all sorts of terrain.

 

[sptrawler]

These articles, are what cause all the confusion, by not comparing apples with apples and misleading the public that everything is fine.
Comparing at call 24/7 365 day generation with renewables and battery storage isn't a scientific approach IMO. Then they compare the output of renewables with small modular reactors, which in the next breath they keep correctly saying don't yet exist.
Is there any wonder the general public is confused and concerned, no one can give an accurate story.

The truth about Australia’s race to roll out renewables

New figures heighten the dispute over energy policy after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton revealed this week he would not set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Federal authorities have approved 51 renewable energy projects since the last election to add to the electricity grid and prepare for the closure of coal-fired power stations amid a growing political row about the need for new capacity to avoid future shortages.

The new projects are expected to add 8.4 gigawatts of clean energy to the grid, almost three times the capacity of the country’s biggest coal-fired power stations, and will be accompanied by storage to deal with intermittent supply from wind and solar farms.

The approved renewable projects in NSW include the Tilbuster solar farm near Armidale, the Quorn Park solar project near Parkes, the Marulan Solar Farm, the Orana battery storage project near Wellington and the Silver City storage project near Broken Hill.
The projects in Victoria include the Elaine battery storage system near Ballarat, the Melton battery north of Melbourne and the Numurkah solar farm near Shepparton.

The result is expected to add 8.4 gigawatts to the electricity grid, more than the 2.9-gigawatt capacity of the Eraring power station and the 2.2-gigawatt capacity of the Loy Yang A power station combined.
The renewable generation is accompanied by 6.4 gigawatts of storage capacity to add a degree of stability to the grid to handle increasing supplies from intermittent wind and solar farms.

The Clean Energy Regulator said last month that companies added 5.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity to the grid in 2023, but it has previously warned that Australia needed to add at least 7 gigawatts each year to achieve its emissions target for 2030.

Labor estimates its key policy to reduce emissions, the Capacity Investment Scheme, will underwrite 23 gigawatts of renewable generation by 2030. But the regulator’s analysis, matched by industry analysis from the Clean Energy Council, suggests 42 gigawatts of renewable capacity should be installed over the six years to 2030.

Labor estimates the renewable projects add the same electricity generation as 25 small modular nuclear reactors. The Coalition is yet to say what kind of nuclear power plants it will propose when it reveals its policy.

 

[SirRumpole]

These articles, are what cause all the confusion, by not comparing apples with apples and misleading the public that everything is fine.
Comparing at call 24/7 365 day generation with renewables and battery storage isn't a scientific approach IMO. Then they compare the output of renewables with small modular reactors, which in the next breath they keep correctly saying don't yet exist.
Is there any wonder the general public is confused and concerned, no one can give an accurate story.

The truth about Australia’s race to roll out renewables

New figures heighten the dispute over energy policy after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton revealed this week he would not set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Federal authorities have approved 51 renewable energy projects since the last election to add to the electricity grid and prepare for the closure of coal-fired power stations amid a growing political row about the need for new capacity to avoid future shortages.

The new projects are expected to add 8.4 gigawatts of clean energy to the grid, almost three times the capacity of the country’s biggest coal-fired power stations, and will be accompanied by storage to deal with intermittent supply from wind and solar farms.

The approved renewable projects in NSW include the Tilbuster solar farm near Armidale, the Quorn Park solar project near Parkes, the Marulan Solar Farm, the Orana battery storage project near Wellington and the Silver City storage project near Broken Hill.
The projects in Victoria include the Elaine battery storage system near Ballarat, the Melton battery north of Melbourne and the Numurkah solar farm near Shepparton.

The result is expected to add 8.4 gigawatts to the electricity grid, more than the 2.9-gigawatt capacity of the Eraring power station and the 2.2-gigawatt capacity of the Loy Yang A power station combined.
The renewable generation is accompanied by 6.4 gigawatts of storage capacity to add a degree of stability to the grid to handle increasing supplies from intermittent wind and solar farms.

The Clean Energy Regulator said last month that companies added 5.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity to the grid in 2023, but it has previously warned that Australia needed to add at least 7 gigawatts each year to achieve its emissions target for 2030.

Labor estimates its key policy to reduce emissions, the Capacity Investment Scheme, will underwrite 23 gigawatts of renewable generation by 2030. But the regulator’s analysis, matched by industry analysis from the Clean Energy Council, suggests 42 gigawatts of renewable capacity should be installed over the six years to 2030.

Labor estimates the renewable projects add the same electricity generation as 25 small modular nuclear reactors. The Coalition is yet to say what kind of nuclear power plants it will propose when it reveals its policy.

It ain't over until the things are built and running, so are they going to maintain the coal plants until the renewables are actually operating, of just let them die from lack of maintenance?

Imo it would be better to mothball the coal plants instead of decommissioning them, just in case.

 

[sptrawler]

Imo it would be better to mothball the coal plants instead of decommissioning them, just in case.

Unfortunately we have a bad habit of blowing them up, rather than nitrogen sealing them.

Here is another article, on a subject we brought up a while ago, the brand new free electricity meters everyone is getting.
When the Govt subsidies stop, the bill shock will be shocking for some.

A rude bill shock was the first most households heard about a monumental shift in Australia's energy system

Across Australia, a huge, forced migration is underway as consumers are shunted on to complex power prices. Just don't expect anyone to tell you about it.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

Why knock down old coal plants when they can be recycled for thermal storage?