This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
its like asking how long is a piece of string.
Not all wind turbines are created equal.
It depends on the blade size, the blade profile (ie. how agressive or otherwise the pitch might be), how highly geared the alternator drive is and whether they go through a rectifier/inverter to tie to the existing grid supply frequency. It also depends on the wind profile for the area they installed - i.e is it a blustery volatile wind, or a steady gentle wind.
Mick
 
Exactly, they are different for onshore and offshore, they actually have a low and high wind speed cut out, where they don't produce under a certain speed and actually stop turning when the wind speed goes above a certain amount, that causes power system some nervous moments.
What people have to get their head around is, the problem isn't with generation, the more renewables you put in the more generation you get, the problem is storing excess energy for when the renewable generation isn't there (when the sun isn't shining and when the wind isn't blowing).
Industrial businesses can't build a business case if they haven't got reliable energy, even Fortescue Future Industries has gone cold on the Gibson Island ammonia project, because of supply uncertainty.
That issue will get worse, unless some sort of long term energy plan is produced, at the moment there is no plan there is only a target and a hope and a prayer.
That's the problem, nuclear for all its warts is a known outcome, at the moment we have Snowy 2.0 which is years behind schedule a 600% over budget, with no further indication of where the next long duration storage is coming from.
It's just a fiasco IMO.
I'm all for Snowy 2.0, but to point the finger at nuclear on the basis of cost and time overruns, doesn't add up. The actual decision should be based on good technical analysis, not loonies and private industry stoogies rantings.

Snowy 2.0 at inception.

Snowy 2.0, the 2,200 megawatt pumped hydro battery, was announced on 15 March 2017. It was to be built by 2021, for $2 billion, fully funded by Snowy Hydro Ltd at no cost to the taxpayer, have minimal environmental impact, provide renewable energy and reduce electricity prices.

Snowy 2.0 now:
The full findings of the Snowy 2.0 project review and reset, which in August revealed that the cost of delivering the huge pumped hydro project had ballooned out to $12 billion, are being kept under wraps by the federal government, it has been revealed.
It also isn't expected to be finished until 2029.
 
Last edited:
Just read through Smurfs back posts in this thread, you will learn a lot more than from the media.
 
According to Evil Murdoch press, th case in the federal court has started to sheet home the blame for the explosion to CAS Energy and eventually the Queensland government.


The court had previously ordered Dr Brady to release all documents and communications regarding his work, which the Queensland government kept secret for 3 years, and in the court proceedings had tried to claim professional privilege over much of the documentation.
This may get really interesting, and once its all over, I will look forward to Smurf's extra information he alluded to in the above comment.
Mick
 
Seen that one before, failure of DC backup system, one of the most neglected items of plant.
Out of sight out of mind, until you need it.
It even happens on EV's and why I have a jump pack under the driver's seat.
 
He is funded by renewable energy companies. I saw a couple. I'll try to find it again
 
moXJO said:
He is funded by renewable energy companies. I saw a couple. I'll try to find it again
Click to expand...
That is a huge problem with the debate ATM, it is full of vested interests, it really does need to be handed over to technical experts.
The issue, is probably the most important decision, Australia will make in a lifetime.
If the wrong decision is made, either way, it will be hard to turn it around and if it all goes pear shaped, no one will invest in a Country with a third World power system whether it be renewable based or nuclear based.
It will be catastrophic to the economy, if we end up with an unreliable power system, take that to the bank.
 
An animated chart that shows the drama that's unfolded over the past 3 months with wind generation pretty well in very easily understood terms.


Not sure about that music though, but I guess it's appropriate for something not going too well.

What it shows in technical terms why we need either deep storage (pumped hydro, hydrogen), backup generation (conventional hydro, gas, diesel) or a combination of the two. Batteries simply can't deal with a week of constant discharge - someday they might get there but they're not there now.

Which reminds me of this video. The access to a suitable means of firming and also with a better choice of music in the background. Access tunnel to Gordon Power Station, Tas.


Tunnel was dug the old fashioned way, drills, blasting and manual labour, no boring machine.

Incidentally when the odd random public open day is held, kids get pretty excited once they realise the bus they're on is in fact going underground, a point that's carefully not mentioned until the tunnel is entered so as to not spoil the fun. There's also a passenger lift from the surface which provides a much faster, easier and simpler access - doesn't excite visitors though.
 
Last edited:
Well I did say, the nuclear announcement would kick start the real transition, announcements and pertinent questions are starting to flow at last.
Bring it on, let's sort the chaff from the hay.

A post below from the left leaning Age, but even if a nuclear plant is built, the gas will be required in the immediate future.

At least the truth is comming out, rather than the political crap.

Next cab off the rank, announce how many dams are required, putting off the announcement just causes axiety and distrust.
Move on, stop the nonsense.

Gas plant building boom to fuel renewable revolution, says energy grid chief

Many new gas power plants will be needed to back up renewables, despite warnings that gas supplies are running out on the East Coast.
www.theage.com.au

Australia’s east coast needs the equivalent of 26 new gas plants to back up renewables​

Many new gas power plants will be needed to back up renewables, despite warnings that gas supplies are running out in the eastern states
 
Last edited:
They are not mentioning hydro are they?
 
SirRumpole said:
They are not mentioning hydro are they?
Click to expand...
It is strange, because gas is only just being tolerated by the Greens and obviously isn't a long term viable solution.
One because the emissions even though lower than coal are still substantial and secondly reserves are diminishing.
I would have thought it would be an ideal time to announce more dams, but maybe they want to get Snowy up and running first, to reduce the hysteria about timelines etc.
I think everything is going to be a lot slower than anyone expected, nothing gets built quickly, or on budget anymore.
At least there is a bit more talk surrounding the issue.
 
Unless there is some grand plan to run gas turbines on "green hydrogen" or bio fuels when the gas runs out, it seems the gas stations would be stranded assets at some point.
 
SirRumpole said:
Unless there is some grand plan to run gas turbines on "green hydrogen" or bio fuels when the gas runs out, it seems the gas stations would be stranded assets at some point.
Click to expand...
just a note on biofuels.
When in the US, I was talking to some farmers who were complaining about the crappy biodiesel that was being foist on them.
For some reason, if you leave the biodiesel sit for any length of time, it grows a black slime that clogs up filters, injectors, fuel lines etc.
They often empty their tanks at the end of the season and fill with some more expensive ordinary diesel and run it through before storage.
Mick
 
That can happen here with any diesel when left in tanks on farms etc particularly in hotter areas.

One trick is to ensure the tank is as full as possible if being left standing for weeks etc

This was one of the reasons on the old diesels people had extra filters between tank and motor.

I have read that the higher grade diesels with detergents in them stop most of it happening and when people use the motor often it does not happen.
 

You can throw in an additive as well to stop the growth common in any standby emergency genset etc.
 
SirRumpole said:
They are not mentioning hydro are they?
Click to expand...
Comes down to politics and a reality that humans mostly think short term.

It's not rocket science that oil and gas are ultimately unsustainable. That's true even if someone has no concerns about CO2 since they're still finite resources and not just that, they're highly geographically concentrated in a handful of problematic countries too. At some point they become a problem, the only question is when and what constraint bites first.

But at the moment the focus is all on 2030 and CO2. That it runs into the wall after 2030 is tomorrow's problem, that's how politics works unfortunately.

Gas consumption for direct use, that is things other than electricity generation, isn't going away anytime soon.

Walk around Adelaide in new homes areas or knockdown rebuild hot hot spots and you'd be hard pressed to find even one new house that doesn't have a gas connection. It's as common as having a door facing the street or having a concrete driveway - not having it is the thing that would stand out. Then there's commercial and industrial use that also isn't going away, indeed with the push to re-industrialise an increase, not a decrease, in gas use is the most likely scenario. From the most recent data, Australia's direct gas use is at an all time high.

Much the same could be said for oil. However long it takes to electrify transport and so on, it's going to be quite some time that's for sure. At the global level oil consumption continues to rise and, whilst it's a bit hard to be sure given the pandemic blip, it does look to be still trending up in Australia.

Sometime not too long after 2030, reality's going to hit hard. CO2 emissions reduction is going to become far more difficult once the low hanging fruit has been picked as practically all of it will be by that point. "Easy" use of wind and solar, insulating houses, phasing out inefficient lighting and other appliances will all be largely done by that point. What remains requires considerably more effort - electrification at the point of use, and getting the last fossils out of electricity generation.

Now add in rising population, re-industrialisation and the question of obtaining sufficient gas regardless of environmental concerns and that's when a serious debate about hydro or other non-fossil means of firming is likely. In the meantime, gas / diesel is the path of least resistance.

In terms of the detail on hydro projects, it varies but the requirement to be an alternative to gas is the ability to operate at high output when required, when the wind and sun fails to deliver. Ideally that involves a large storage, either pumped or on river doesn't matter either way, but as a secondary option a "run of river" scheme does at least have an inverse correlation with solar. An imperfect inverse correlation but a reasonable one.

From an environmental perspective there is of course an inherent conflict between hydro versus nature conservation, that's literally the founding basis of the Greens, and ultimately that can't be overcome, it's an unresolvable situation that the conflict exists. That said, it can be worked around to the extent neither side takes an extreme position. That is don't "dam the lot" but don't say no to everything either, find a middle ground based on proper science on a case by case basis.

The bit often missed being that this isn't about peak power, it's not about dealing with a few hours on a hot day as was traditionally the problem. For that sure, a battery or small pumped hydro using an old quarry etc works just fine storing a few hours worth. Trouble is, what this is about is dealing with a full week of low wind yield as per a previous post, and for that a 4 hour battery or 8 hour pumped hydro just isn't up to the task. Either it's gas, diesel or it's hydro or hydrogen with serious volumes of storage. Or it's use an alternative to the whole lot eg nuclear.

Realistically though, society isn't ready for that debate yet. There's still too many who haven't accepted that gas is a problem and for whom any mention of hydro conjures up images of inflatable yellow boats and a blockade in south-west Tasmania. Hydro does have an image problem in that regard, especially in the big cities, and all the drama and politics surrounding Snowy 2.0 hasn't helped.

Ultimately though, gas isn't a permanent option. Once that's accepted then either some alternative has been developed or hydro's the realistic solution.

On the alternatives - CSIRO and AEMO basically dismiss hydrogen on economic grounds but technically it all seems doable. So it comes down to how much is society prepared to pay? Environmentally it's as benign as it gets really and it can certainly be built as deep storage. But..... that's $ taken out of something else, it'd be taxpayer subsidised, so it's not without consequence in other ways.

Meanwhile on the Snowy:

 
You made the above post in 2016:

Now from your post above @Smurf1976 and cherry picking what I consider are MY pertinent points, not that all your points aren't great, they are:
Sometime not too long after 2030, reality's going to hit hard. CO2 emissions reduction is going to become far more difficult once the low hanging fruit has been picked as practically all of it will be by that point. "Easy" use of wind and solar, insulating houses, phasing out inefficient lighting and other appliances will all be largely done by that point. What remains requires considerably more effort - electrification at the point of use, and getting the last fossils out of electricity generation.

Ultimately though, gas isn't a permanent option. Once that's accepted then either some alternative has been developed or hydro's the realistic solution.

Realistically though, society isn't ready for that debate yet. There's still too many who haven't accepted that gas is a problem

Now add in rising population, re-industrialisation and the question of obtaining sufficient gas regardless of environmental concerns and that's when a serious debate about hydro or other non-fossil means of firming is likely.

That is what I've been constantly saying in another thread and this one, but as you say society isn't ready for getting their head around that yet, as can be seen by the responses I get for trying to discuss it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
876
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
645
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
745
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
557
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...