The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

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

Every little bit helps, it will be interesting to see how the Indian plant performs.
Theoretically much better lifespan than a battery, but less efficient due to the Turbine, I suppose it depends on scalability.
There are some interesting ideas being developed.

 

[basilio]

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

That is a seriously brilliant project. The thermal storage units are simple to produce and seemingly very simple to install. Very impressed with the speed and effectiveness of the Indian power station project.

Well worth checking out the website. This is a ready to roll clean energy storage option. The FAQ page covers all teh bases.

E2S Power |

e2s-power.com

FAQ | E2S Power

e2s-power.com

 

[SirRumpole]

That is a seriously brilliant project. The thermal storage units are simple to produce and seemingly very simple to install. Very impressed with the speed and effectiveness of the Indian power station project.

Well worth checking out the website. This is a ready to roll clean energy storage option. The FAQ page covers all teh bases.

E2S Power |

e2s-power.com

FAQ | E2S Power

e2s-power.com

You only get 4 hrs out of it, so hopefully that can be scaled up.

 

[basilio]

You only get 4 hrs out of it, so hopefully that can be scaled up.

I'm not sure where you saw the 4 hours limitation Rumpy. This is the spiel I found on the website.
I suppose they could have multiple units which operate in sequence as well as parallel.

When charging, each TWEST module converts surplus electrical energy during periods of low demand into heat using high energy density storage materials. When discharging, the system returns the stored energy in the form of superheated steam to power the legacy steam turbines and generators. Our design can be designed to be charged to full storage capacity in as little as one hour with near 100% conversion of electricity to heat and has the flexibility to discharge from a few hours to 8+ hours as a long duration energy storage solution. Other key benefits include negligible degradation in performance, no depth of discharge issues and long life. Thanks to these advantages, our solution will be among the most competitive in terms of levelized cost of storage.

Our Product | E2S Power

e2s-power.com

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm not sure where you saw the 4 hours limitation Rumpy. This is the spiel I found on the website.
I suppose they could have multiple units which operate in sequence as well as parallel.

When charging, each TWEST module converts surplus electrical energy during periods of low demand into heat using high energy density storage materials. When discharging, the system returns the stored energy in the form of superheated steam to power the legacy steam turbines and generators. Our design can be designed to be charged to full storage capacity in as little as one hour with near 100% conversion of electricity to heat and has the flexibility to discharge from a few hours to 8+ hours as a long duration energy storage solution. Other key benefits include negligible degradation in performance, no depth of discharge issues and long life. Thanks to these advantages, our solution will be among the most competitive in terms of levelized cost of storage.

Our Product | E2S Power

e2s-power.com

4 hours was mentioned in the video at about 4:32, but it will be interesting to see how they work in the real world.

 

[investor13]

Can you image what will happen if the LNP get back in ?

They spent 9 years doing nothing , now they want us to wait another 10 years (minimum) for nuclear reactors, and what are they going to do until then?

If they can investment in renewables like the farmers want, the coal stations are going to get older and older trying to keep up with demand util they break and when that happens with insufficient input from renewables, the lights will go out for sure.

I don't think Labor is moving fast enough, but the LNP won't be moving at all, their nuclear plan will be a disaster.

I highly doubt farmers or 90% of the population want renewables. Only the inner cities woke mostly public servants want renewables

 

[SirRumpole]

I highly doubt farmers or 90% of the population want renewables. Only the inner cities woke mostly public servants want renewables

I highly doubt that 90% of the population have a preference for any form of energy as long as it's reliable and affordable.

 

[investor13]

I highly doubt that 90% of the population have a preference for any form of energy as long as it's reliable and affordable.

Most of them are to busy with trying to get on with life rather than be concerned. It’s a pity more people don’t pay attention to what is really going on as it would make the incompetent pollies pay attention and serve the people not them self

 

[sptrawler]

I highly doubt that 90% of the population have a preference for any form of energy as long as it's reliable and affordable.

In today's news paper (WA).
As we keep saying, interesting times.
To put the article in context when MuJa A,B,C,D and Kwinana Power stations A,B,C were all operational they produced around 1900MW depending which fuel Kwinana was using. That was a total of 14 generating units Stage D Muja were the biggest at 220MW.
W.A is quite a small grid, so the issue isn't as huge as the East coast, but it still has to be addressed in a relatively short time which is the real concern as Muja is getting old also.

 

[basilio]

I highly doubt that 90% of the population have a preference for any form of energy as long as it's reliable and affordable.

No. Absolutely not Sir Rumpole.

That may have been the case 30-40 years ago. In 2024 a huge overriding factor in concerns about energy provision is the impact of CO2 emissions on global heating. There has also been a far larger concern about the other pollutants that come from coal fired power stations. Particulates, SO2 and so on.

In that context clean renewable energy generation is a top priority. At least it is for people who accept the need to reduce GG emissions as well as other pollutants that come with coal, oil and gas based energy supplies.

 

[SirRumpole]

No. Absolutely not Sir Rumpole.

That may have been the case 30-40 years ago. In 2024 a huge overriding factor in concerns about energy provision is the impact of CO2 emissions on global heating. There has also been a far larger concern about the other pollutants that come from coal fired power stations. Particulates, SO2 and so on.

In that context clean renewable energy generation is a top priority. At least it is for people who accept the need to reduce GG emissions as well as other pollutants that come with coal, oil and gas based energy supplies.

Bas, if people are huddlesd over a candle trying to stay warm in winter because renewables aren't up to the job, their minds will change very quickly.

I hope that's not the case but things aren't moving fast enough atm.

 

[basilio]

Bas, if people are huddlesd over a candle trying to stay warm in winter because renewables aren't up to the job, their minds will change very quickly.

I hope that's not the case but things aren't moving fast enough atm.

Of course things have to move and move very quickly. And equally governments will need to keep on the lights. I don't believe anyone will just allow power systems to fail.

The absolute priority is to continue creating a new energy system based on clean renewable energy. Dutton's BS about a nuclear energy future for Australia makes no economic or environmental sense. The fossil fuel industries role in energy production has to be wound down as quickly as possible - but yes we still have to keep the lights on.

This can be done.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't believe anyone will just allow power systems to fail.

This is one of those things where details matter.

Eg does it count as a failure if supply is on, electricity is available, but demand is suppressed by prices that a good portion of the population can't afford and which send industry offshore?

Or is it a failure if price is OK but industry wanting more supply, either to expand operations or to electrify, is given a firm "no"?

If either of those constitutes failure then we have a failure right now. Even on a much smaller scale well here in SA there's been a flood of hospitality business closures in recent times and pretty much every single one has listed energy costs as a factor in their demise. Meanwhile as the various charity organisations will confirm, there's no shortage of people going without heating at home.

So the lights are on yes but it's a bit like housing. All fine if you've got enough money but it's failing a significant portion of society.

That's not disagreeing with your comment as such, it's just saying there's different things that constitute failure. On price, it's already failing. On physical supply it's still working but suffice to say there's more than a few with concerns.

The big risk in terms of physical failure isn't peak power that most focus on. Worst case that means short term disruption but the far greater concern is with running out of stored energy. That is, stored gas, water etc. All it needs is a sustained shortfall in the total of wind + solar + coal and that leaves gas and hydro filling the gap. Assuming a major flood doesn't just happen to occur, that's a good way to end up draining the lakes and gas storages and is in practice the most likely mode of failure.

That problem being compounded by the competitive market structure that doesn't encourage keeping storage at high levels but the opposite, it encourages "just in time" hand to mouth operations. My view = at some point that'll end badly. Big time. When it comes it'll be out of the blue - just needs a period of low wind + solar yield and a couple of coal unit failures then we find gas and hydro can't fill the gap because there's insufficient gas / water.

Same with diesel. It's all well and good to say just burn diesel. Then Smurf points out that there's only 4 hours' worth in the tank..... Then someone from finance talks about opportunity costs, that money in the bank earns interest but diesel in a tank doesn't, and so on.

On the subject of coal unit failures I'll avoid politics and just point out that much of this stuff is simply old and tired so failures are going to occur that's a given. Nobody should expect 50 year old plant that's way past its design life to be reliable.

 

[wayneL]

Power prices in Ontario, Canada.

 

[basilio]

This is one of those things where details matter.

Eg does it count as a failure if supply is on, electricity is available, but demand is suppressed by prices that a good portion of the population can't afford and which send industry offshore?

Or is it a failure if price is OK but industry wanting more supply, either to expand operations or to electrify, is given a firm "no"?

If either of those constitutes failure then we have a failure right now. Even on a much smaller scale well here in SA there's been a flood of hospitality business closures in recent times and pretty much every single one has listed energy costs as a factor in their demise. Meanwhile as the various charity organisations will confirm, there's no shortage of people going without heating at home.

So the lights are on yes but it's a bit like housing. All fine if you've got enough money but it's failing a significant portion of society.

That's not disagreeing with your comment as such, it's just saying there's different things that constitute failure. On price, it's already failing. On physical supply it's still working but suffice to say there's more than a few with concerns.

The big risk in terms of physical failure isn't peak power that most focus on. Worst case that means short term disruption but the far greater concern is with running out of stored energy. That is, stored gas, water etc. All it needs is a sustained shortfall in the total of wind + solar + coal and that leaves gas and hydro filling the gap. Assuming a major flood doesn't just happen to occur, that's a good way to end up draining the lakes and gas storages and is in practice the most likely mode of failure.

That problem being compounded by the competitive market structure that doesn't encourage keeping storage at high levels but the opposite, it encourages "just in time" hand to mouth operations. My view = at some point that'll end badly. Big time. When it comes it'll be out of the blue - just needs a period of low wind + solar yield and a couple of coal unit failures then we find gas and hydro can't fill the gap because there's insufficient gas / water.

Same with diesel. It's all well and good to say just burn diesel. Then Smurf points out that there's only 4 hours' worth in the tank..... Then someone from finance talks about opportunity costs, that money in the bank earns interest but diesel in a tank doesn't, and so on.

On the subject of coal unit failures I'll avoid politics and just point out that much of this stuff is simply old and tired so failures are going to occur that's a given. Nobody should expect 50 year old plant that's way past its design life to be reliable.

Thank you Smurf. Absolutely nailed the issues

As far as I can see you recognise that the failure will come from reliance on the current competitive market structure. I remind myself about how the SEC when it was run to serve Victoria had a very strong engineering basis that did ensure , as far possible, there was a flexibility of supplies that could keep the lights on. (I do remember however on very cold winter mornings the warnings we were given) .

 

[mullokintyre]

Thank you Smurf. Absolutely nailed the issues

As far as I can see you recognise that the failure will come from reliance on the current competitive market structure. I remind myself about how the SEC when it was run to serve Victoria had a very strong engineering basis that did ensure , as far possible, there was a flexibility of supplies that could keep the lights on. (I do remember however on very cold winter mornings the warnings we were given) .

And may i point out that to achieve that the flexiblity of supply was achieved by almost exclusively burning fossil fuels, to wit brown coal.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

It is great this nuclear debate has opened up the issue, which is long term firming, IMO it will force both sides to formulate a near term and long term plan.

Nuclear will take a long time to build and cost a lot of money, but no doubt it will provide long duration firming, in the meantime they need a stop gap to fill the firming role and retire the coal.

Renewables and long duration storage will also take a long time to build and also cost a lot of money, as Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri are proving, so they also need a stop gap to fill the role and retire the coal.

At the moment neither side is coming up with a plan, just a lot of rhetoric, when an honest and costed plan is presented by both sides, then a sensible and realistic choice can be made.

Until then we just meander along the path to a critical failure, the blind leading the blind IMO.
Politics and ideology, need to take a back seat to honesty, the problem is if either way is a stuff up Australia wears it.
The politicians quietly walk away into the sunset, with a big payout, as has happened post covid.

Premiers threaten to derail proposal for seven nuclear reactors, saying Dutton has no power to lift state bans

State premiers make themselves another hurdle for the federal Coalition to clear if it wants to introduce nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country, saying they would not cooperate to lift state-level nuclear bans.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

It is great this nuclear debate has opened up the issue, which is long term firming, IMO it will force both sides to formulate a near term and long term plan.

Nuclear will take a long time to build and cost a lot of money, but no doubt it will provide long duration firming, in the meantime they need a stop gap to fill the firming role and retire the coal.

Renewables and long duration storage will also take a long time to build and also cost a lot of money, as Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri are proving, so they also need a stop gap to fill the role and retire the coal.

At the moment neither side is coming up with a plan, just a lot of rhetoric, when an honest and costed plan is presented by both sides, then a sensible and realistic choice can be made.

Until then we just meander along the path to a critical failure, the blind leading the blind IMO.

Premiers threaten to derail proposal for seven nuclear reactors, saying Dutton has no power to lift state bans

State premiers make themselves another hurdle for the federal Coalition to clear if it wants to introduce nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country, saying they would not cooperate to lift state-level nuclear bans.

www.abc.net.au

I give Dutton credit for having the b@lls to propose nuclear by 2035, I just don't think he has a hope of getting in done in that time frame, meantime things will fall apart.

What about offshore wind in Bass straight linked to Bass link? That would save the cost of transmission lines at least.

 

[sptrawler]

I give Dutton credit for having the b@lls to propose nuclear by 2035, I just don't think he has a hope of getting in done in that time frame, meantime thing will fall apart.

What about offshore wind in Bass straight linked to Bass link? That would save the cost of transmission lines at least.

The thing is, whichever path is chosen they need to get a move on, at the end of the day renewables are going to feature very large in both models.
With the coalition nuclear idea, they wouldn't be doing the heavy lifting, they would be doing the firming.
Same with Labors hydro/gas plan, they would be doing the firming not the heavy lifting.
But both plans need a lot of lead time as Snowy2.0 is showing, it will take 10 years to get Snowy 2.0 up and running and they need several more, so both options have time problems, that is what seems to be getting forgotten.
Coal fired boilers get severe tube erosion problems and cycling them excessively causes metal fatigue of both the boilers and the turbines and these are already old units.
i personally don't care whichever way they go, because eventually whatever works best will rise to the surface, if renewables can do it nuclear wont float, if renewables can't do it nuclear will happen.
Simple really, it is just how much pain and suffering has to be endured before the obvious rises to the top, that's where the honesty has to come in, ATM there is way too much 'all or nothing' 'black or white', 'right or wrong' going on.

 

[SirRumpole]

The thing is, whichever path is chosen they need to get a move on, at the end of the day renewables are going to feature very large in both models.
With the coalition nuclear idea, they wouldn't be doing the heavy lifting, they would be doing the firming.
Same with Labors hydro/gas plan, they would be doing the firming not the heavy lifting.
But both plans need a lot of lead time as Snowy2.0 is showing, it will take 10 years to get Snowy 2.0 up and running and they need several more, so both options have time problems, that is what seems to be getting forgotten.
Coal fired boilers get severe tube erosion problems and cycling them excessively causes metal fatigue of both the boilers and the turbines and these are already old units.
i personally don't care whichever way they go, because eventually whatever works best will rise to the surface, if renewables can do it nuclear wont float, if renewables can't do it nuclear will happen.
Simple really, it is just how much pain and suffering has to be endured before the obvious rises to the top, that's where the honesty has to come in, ATM there is way too much 'all or nothing' 'black or white', 'right or wrong' going on.

Its what we have been saying for too long, too much politics not enough science and engineering.