The future of energy generation and storage

SirRumpole said:

If we are still exporting most of the stuff, then export restrictions would seem to be in order to conserve local supply.

Click to expand...

Good point, I don't think Governments like to get involved in curtailing commercial contracts, sovereign risk issues.
Any new supply coming online,or exploration licenses should include a domestic reservation clause, but even that will be a problem, we are trying to move away from fossil fuels.
A lot of gas producers are under pressure to reduce exploration, eg Woodside and Santos, it really is getting to the point where some hard decisions need to be voiced, to stop the guessing and speculation. IMO

Maybe more people read ASF than we think.
From the same author of yesterdays article paying out on nuclear a more honest and frank explanation of the problem with the current trajectory. It still has a personal bias, but does include accurate assessments IMO.
From the article: minus the fluff.

Dutton, however, has one big fact that works in his favour. The energy grid needs new sources of reliable power to make up for the end of coal. If the country cannot build enough renewable power with storage, something else must be added to the grid. Those who oppose nuclear have to show that other energy sources can fill the gap.

How big is the gap? The Clean Energy Regulator, one of the federal authorities managing the changes, said last month that Australia added about 5.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity to the electricity grid last year. This sounds impressive. Unfortunately, the regulator says we need to add at least seven gigawatts every year to achieve the country’s stated goals by 2030.

The truth is that construction is too slow and costs are too high – and the humiliating proof is stuck in the rock beneath the Snowy Mountains. That’s where Florence, the tunnelling machine, has stalled the grand plan for Snowy 2.0 to add renewable power to the grid. Meant to cost $2 billion, the project is now tipped to cost at least $12 billion and finish six years late.

It is true that Australia will pay a substantial cost over many decades to build new electricity supplies, whether they are wind turbines or rooftop solar panels or gas-fired power stations. But it is not true to suggest the Coalition can do away with that investment just because it commits to nuclear. It would be adding nuclear to what is already being planned, and perhaps replacing the need for some wind and solar.

Dutton also makes a flawed claim – that Labor has a “renewables only” policy for the grid. In fact, the government assumes that gas-fired power stations will be used over the long term to add reliability to the grid when solar and wind cannot generate enough electricity. Labor is just too divided about gas to talk openly about using it for decades.

Right now, renewable projects supply almost 40 per cent of electricity across the grid on an annualised basis, and much more than this at peak times for wind and solar. Wood says it is possible to increase the annual figure beyond 70 per cent, or even higher, with the help of pumped hydro and batteries, but gas-fired power will be needed as well.

Even so, there is a case to be made for nuclear. What if Australia cannot build enough renewable projects, with reliable storage or gas-fired power, in time to make up for those looming coal closures? That is when nuclear has to be an option. Voters will not accept power outages, so political leaders must have a back-up plan.

Ziggy Switkowski, the former nuclear physicist who ran Telstra and later chaired the NBN, says nuclear should be judged by the value it brings to the entire electricity grid with reliable baseload power. This is a nuanced argument for small modular reactors, for instance, to complement solar, wind, hydro, batteries and gas.

There is, however, a debate to be had. There is also time for the opposition leader to give voters the details they deserve so they can vote for nuclear power if they choose.

Well, nuclear is another iron in the fire and we should be developing capabilities to exploit it, but staking the entire grid on 7 reactors to the exclusion of other forms (mainly renewables) is stupid policy imo.

The election campaign on this will be interesting, let's hope it rises above the level of three eyed fish.

He hasn't even released details of the power capacity of the reactors, even if they are say a gigawatt each, that still leaves a lot to come from other sources.

SirRumpole said:

Well, nuclear is another iron in the fire and we should be developing capabilities to exploit it, but staking the entire grid on 7 reactors to the exclusion of other forms (mainly renewables) is stupid policy imo.

The election campaign on this will be interesting, let's hope it rises above the level of three eyed fish.

He hasn't even released details of the power capacity of the reactors, even if they are say a gigawatt each, that still leaves a lot to come from other sources.

Click to expand...

Spot on Rumpy, by the way there is no hope in hell that 7 reactors could run the grid, even if they went that way it would only be firming and replacing the need for more pumped hydro and gas. Basically that is the question, do people want reactors or pumped hydro/gas firming.

I tend to think this will open the debate and force the announcement and construction of the dams, which really needs to start ASAP, to facilitate more renewable generation. just my opinion.
Nuclear will only be realistically considered if it becomes obvious that renewables/hydro/gas can't do it, as is happening in Europe.
In the article yesterday that I posted, the author made a strong argument that France is closing 3 nuclear power stations, what he failed to mention was they are building 14 new ones.
It's all in how you say it.
One point he made, that you and I keep saying, "Voters will not accept power outages, so political leaders must have a back-up plan."

sptrawler said:

A lot of gas producers are under pressure to reduce exploration, eg Woodside and Santos, it really is getting to the point where some hard decisions need to be voiced, to stop the guessing and speculation. IMO

Click to expand...

Santos has acreage at Narrabri in NSW that could supply a lot of the state's gas needs. However, there is strong local opposition and Santos haven't been able to progress development.

The government makes lots of noise about the need for additional gas, but goes very quiet when hard decisions are required.

Just got this from Origin, our energy supplier retailer about reductions in feed in tariff sor solar.

Of course they will still charge other customers much higher rates when they manage to onsell the power we supplie to them.
I am starting to do my sums about removing the grid connection completely and installing a backup generator.

Mick

mullokintyre said:

Just got this from Origin, our energy supplier retailer about reductions in feed in tariff sor solar.
View attachment 179060
Of course they will still charge other customers much higher rates when they manage to onsell the power we supplie to them.
I am starting to do my sums about removing the grid connection completely and installing a backup generator.

Mick

Click to expand...

Yes this is the problem with lack of storage, electricity has to be used when it is made, supply has to equal demand.
So at the moment all this renewable energy in the middle of the day, if it is more than can be used it has to be backed off or shut down, that's why they are reducing what people are getting paid for exporting it at the same time.
When Snowy 2.0 and other storage is operational, the excess power will be used to send the water back up the hill, but at the moment no one can use it, that's why no major generators want to put more in. Catch 22.
With regard off grid, the son has a 13kW diesel backup and it hardly ever runs.
If you go off grid and cut your supply, will they still keep charging you the service charge, as the service/ connection is still there at the property?

sptrawler said:

Yes this is the problem with lack of storage, electricity has to be used when it is made, supply has to equal demand.
So at the moment all this renewable energy in the middle of the day, if it is more than can be used it has to be backed off or shut down, that's why they are reducing what people are getting paid for exporting it at the same time.
When Snowy 2.0 and other storage is operational, the excess power will be used to send the water back up the hill, but at the moment no one can use it, that's why no major generators want to put more in. Catch 22.
With regard off grid, the son has a 13kW diesel backup and it hardly ever runs.
If you go off grid and cut your supply, will they still keep charging you the service charge, as the service/ connection is still there at the property?

Click to expand...

it would be difficult to charge a service fee when no service is supplied.
The part that really pisses me off is they take energy out of my battery systems at night and will pay me a 3.3 cents per kwhr, but charge me at 25.67 cents to replace it if the sun is not shining next day.
Mick

mullokintyre said:

it would be difficult to charge a service fee when no service is supplied.

Mick

Click to expand...

I don't know what the rulings are over your way, here in W.A there is no service charge if the electricity/gas is cut off, but there is a service charge for water, sewage if there is a service at the block.
I think I read that some are getting charged for what the export to the grid, during peak generation times, if that happens I can't see people replacing their systems when they break down.

sptrawler said:

So at the moment all this renewable energy in the middle of the day, if it is more than can be used it has to be backed off or shut down, that's why they are reducing what people are getting paid for exporting it at the same time.

Click to expand...

I could easily adjust my power usage to soak up some of that excess in the middle of the day.

I currently run pool pumps, dishwasher etc overnight when rates are off-peak and it is an easy change to run these in the middle of the day. I'm sure plenty of other people are in a similar situation.

Problem is, I'm charged shoulder rates from 7am to 2pm and peak rates from 2pm to 8pm. Why would I change?

I honestly don't understand why the tariffs power retailers charge haven't been changed to reflect the input from solar.

A good article on the gas shortage situation on the East Coast.

sptrawler said:

Hi smurf in the scheme of things is this a short term issue or a long term one, I am just wondering if this gas shortage is an issue regarding GT's that will be required for firming?

Click to expand...

Issues with gas supply can be divided into four categories:

Annual - the total quantity of gas produced over the yearly cycle and the ability of reserves (in the ground) to sustain that into the future.

Seasonal - the ability to support seasons (typically winter) of above average gas consumption either by higher production (from reserves in the ground), withdrawal of previously produced gas from storage, or a combination of the two.

Daily - the ability to inject enough gas into the network on a daily basis to meet daily demand, noting this is highly variable (eg peak day demand in Victoria is over 5 times minimum daily demand). This applies regardless of where the gas is coming from, production or storage, it's simply about the ability to put it into pipelines.

Network - the capacity of pipelines to supply a particular load (eg power station) irrespective of the upstream availability of gas.

All those have constraints.

The issue at present is seasonal which, if not resolved, will become daily. That is, gas in storage is being depleted at an alarming rate which, if not resolved, will result in a daily injection limitation - can't inject gas from storage once it's empty. Once daily capacity falls short, we have an immediate crisis there and then no matter what's going on with gas in the ground etc.

To put some maths on it, there are three key storage facilities in the south-east:

Iona (south-west Vic) with storage 24,400 TJ and a daily maximum withdrawal (to supply gas into the network) of 570 TJ. Physically this is a compressed (not liquefied) underground gas storage. APA owns this facility.

Newcastle (NSW) with storage 1550 TJ and a daily maximum withdrawal of 120 TJ. Physically this is a tank holding LNG and the associated equipment to turn it back into gas. Note that there's also a miniature LNG production facility on site - the LNG in the tank was produced by taking gas out of the pipelines over summer. AGL owns this facility.

Dandenong (Melbourne) with storage 680 TJ and maximum withdrawal of 237 TJ. Technically it's the same as Newcastle, LNG produced on site during summer stored in a tank. APA owns this facility.

Now here's the recent storage withdrawal rates which will make the problem immediately apparent. All figures here are in TJ.

Iona:

15-6-24 = 279
16-6-24 = 243
17-6-24 = 353
18-6-24 = 428
19-6-24 = 402
20-6-24 = 392
21-6-24 (forecast) = 384

Newcastle:

15-6-24 = 31
16-6-24 = 31
17-6-24 = 30
18-6-24 = 30
19-6-24 = 45
20-6-24 = 45
21-6-24 (forecast) = 45

Dandenong:

15-6-24 = 0
16-6-24 = 0
17-6-24 = 0
18-6-24 = 0
19-6-24 = 1
20-6-24 = 0
21-6-24 (forecast) = 0

Gas held in storage as of the start of 21-6-24 (before today's withdrawals):

Iona = 15,997
Newcastle = 1107
Dandenong = 660

So at present daily injection capacity is still intact, production (from gas in the ground) is mostly working and the storage facilities all have gas in them. Hence gas is flowing to consumers.

The concern however is the rate of using up the stored gas is alarmingly high. Keep that up and storage levels are going to drop rapidly. Eg Iona should be 15,613 TJ in storage at the end of today. End of next week at that rate it'll be down to 13,331.

For Newcastle it should be 1062 by the end of today. End of next week, if the recent rate of use continues, it'll be down to 805.

Continue that trend and we're just on a month away from a situation where Iona storage is too low to maintain the withdrawal rate, since as pressure drops so does maximum flow (like a torch getting gradually dimmer as the battery runs down). Meanwhile Newcastle would be reaching zero storage, at which point supply abruptly stops (like a car running out of fuel, it just stops since LNG is a liquid), at the same time.

If we get to that point then the game's up really. Taking LNG out of Dandenong would buy a few day's time but that's all it really does, it doesn't hold a lot of gas so whilst it does have a high daily supply capability, it would be depleted rapidly if that were used. Normally it's intended to deal with short term disruptions, it's not there to fill a prolonged supply gap.

So we're about a month away from a system failure if nothing changes.

So what are the risks?

On the upside, there's about 90 TJ / day of gas production (from the ground) not presently operating due to problems. That's expected to be running about the end of next week which will slow the depletion of storage.

On the downside, any failure of coal-fired generation, or simply particularly cold weather, would increase the use of gas-fired generation and gas directly (eg gas heating) thus further accelerating the decline of gas in storage.

So how did this occur? What's the issue here?

This is the bit that's about to hit like a smack straight in the face.....

Wind and solar taken collectively just hasn't been going well. Data resolution is weekly and this does include rooftop solar:







Which means gas has been filling the gap:







Now add to that gas used for other purposes, and there's been a huge amount used for space heating in Victoria recently due to the weather, and that's where it's gone.

With just one more thing to add.....

If the remaining coal stations in NSW and Vic weren't still running and that output were replaced with gas, well then we'd need another 1100 TJ/day gas in Victoria and about 1650 TJ/d in NSW so an additional 2750 TJ/d in total. To put that into perspective the present gas demand across the whole of NSW, ACT, Vic, SA and Tas, which the system is seriously struggling to supply, is running at 1841TJ/d.

So it's a 150% load increase on a system that's seriously struggling to keep up with existing demands. Needless to say, that's guaranteed to fail.

Gas infrastructure can be built of course to work around that, it's not an unresolvable problem, but point is, it would have to actually be built if there's to be a major increase in reliance on gas for electricity. We can't just add more gas turbines to the existing gas supply and expect it to work, the system just can't supply enough gas.

Workaround?

Diesel. I expect not too much will be said publicly but realistically that's the fix. Diesel.

Noting that the existing coal fleet isn't going all that well right now either which is another problem......

Sounds like the candle is burning at both ends, something has to be announced soon, one would expect demand to increase due to naturally growth.
With coal getting pushed hard it just ends up with more tube leaks, we went through that at KPS, eventually you just keep chasing blown tubes.
There will be some nervous managers.

sptrawler said:

With coal getting pushed hard it just ends up with more tube leaks

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that....

A lot of hand wringing by the left, the Libs in reality are doing the most left wing move ever, re nationalise the electricity supply and putting it back in Government hands.
The article is a great read.
One thing for sure, the nuclear announcement is going to turn over some rocks and upend some urban myths that have been peddled endlessly.


Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan has a distinct Russian flavour. First is its Soviet economics. The seven nuclear facilities envisioned in the Coalition plan are to be financed entirely by the Commonwealth. There is no place for private investment or market forces. It’s central planning, Soviet-style. Indeed, electrification was a Stalin priority from his first five-year plan.


I personally thought this summed the issue up perfectly: From the article.
The group of 18 big investors, including Australia’s Macquarie, America’s BlackRock and France’s Neoen, said “a stable and predictable policy environment is essential for attracting and retaining the significant capital required to achieve our renewable energy targets”, in the words of interim chief executive Marilyne Crestias.

sptrawler said:

A lot of hand wringing by the left, the Libs in reality are doing the most left wing move ever, re nationalise the electricity supply and putting it back in Government hands.
The article is a great read.
One thing for sure, the nuclear announcement is going to turn over some rocks and upend some urban myths that have been peddled endlessly.

Why Dutton’s nuclear power plan is so Soviet

Peter Dutton’s newly unveiled nuclear manifesto is a peculiar fit for the party of free enterprise, private investment and entrepreneurialism. But what will the political fallout be?

www.smh.com.au

Peter Dutton’s nuclear power plan has a distinct Russian flavour. First is its Soviet economics. The seven nuclear facilities envisioned in the Coalition plan are to be financed entirely by the Commonwealth. There is no place for private investment or market forces. It’s central planning, Soviet-style. Indeed, electrification was a Stalin priority from his first five-year plan.


I personally thought this summed the issue up perfectly: From the article.
The group of 18 big investors, including Australia’s Macquarie, America’s BlackRock and France’s Neoen, said “a stable and predictable policy environment is essential for attracting and retaining the significant capital required to achieve our renewable energy targets”, in the words of interim chief executive Marilyne Crestias.

Click to expand...

And yet, if Labor were to decide to re-nationalise the coal industry say, I wonder who would be the first to complain?

SirRumpole said:

And yet, if Labor were to decide to re-nationalise the coal industry say, I wonder who would be the first to complain?

Click to expand...

Isn't it already nationalised?
The taxpayer is already funding it, just not getting any benefit from it, they are still paying the same for electricity while paying the generators to keep running.

Fun fact I read today.

A single revolution of the blades of a large wind turbine generates as much electricity as five homes with rooftop solar generate in a day.

Amazing!

Ferret said:

Fun fact I read today.

A single revolution of the blades of a large wind turbine generates as much electricity as five homes with rooftop solar generate in a day.

Amazing!

Click to expand...

I saw the same thing saying 4 turns is the equivalent of 1 house power for the day?
I wasn't that impressed.

moXJO said:

I saw the same thing saying 4 turns is the equivalent of 1 house power for the day?

Click to expand...

Lol, I wonder where the truth lies? I might do some investigation on this.

Below is the article I read. Some might treat it with a grain of salt due to the Peter Fitzsimmons connection, but this Ty Christopher's credentials seem to stack up. He doesn't appear to be pushing any particular barrow.