The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Yep and a condition was it had to run hydrogen on commissioning, the ex head of Snowy had a blue with Bowen telling him there is no source for the Hydrogen, now the gas is an issue.
Don't you remember? That's unusual, not. Lol
Now it' s the problem of a 21km gas pipe and the stations location, after 5 years OMG, the lenghs that people go to in the name of optics.
What after 4 years, they are so incompetent they only just worked it out its in the wrong spot, Green can dreaming at its best. FFS LOL.
It took less time to put in a gas pipeline from Karratha to Perth, Lol and that has since been doubled.

Snowy Hydro boss says 'clash of ideas' with Energy Minister sparked resignation

Paul Broad says he is disappointed to be leaving Snowy Hydro after falling out with Chris Bowen over a gas plant in the NSW Hunter Region.

www.google.com

Yes,the crux of the problem.

The politicians think that they know more than the experts.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes,the crux of the problem.

The politicians think that they know more than the experts.

We said early in the thread, that putting all the eggs in one technology, is a recipe for disaster and it is really starting to bottleneck.

Now multiple Governments, State and Federal are paying for the coal burners and the solar installers lunch.

IMO Chris needs to take a deep breath, a cold beer and sit to have a think about what the end game is.

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting test module from Westinghouse.

Westinghouse's milestone 5MW microreactor ready for 2026 testing

Westinghouse has successfully completed the Front-End Engineering and Experimenting Design phase to test a prototype of the microreactor.

interestingengineering.com

 

[Smurf1976]

Say what?

"The wait for gas comes down to the project’s heavily criticised location beyond the end of the Sydney-Newcastle trunkline, which has meant building a 21km lateral pipeline connection as well as an on-site storage pipeline to the new power plant.

And because it relies on these on site storages, its ability to provide gas back-up in say, the feared “dunkelflautes” (periods of low wind and solar output), would be limited by its inability to operate for than 10 hours before its reserves are exhausted."

If there's one big criticism I'll make that shoots across the political and ideological spectrum, it's the failure to understand the nature of the problem.

There's a lot of people stuck in a mindset of seeing the problem as about peak demand when it's 40+ degrees outside or when it's freezing cold. They're seeing the problem as needing a short burst of power to deal with than and so they come up with ideas such as, among others, gas-fired plant relying on very limited gas storage, pumped hydro with 8 hours storage, batteries with 1 - 4 hours storage, there's even an existing diesel plant that has only 4.5 hours worth of fuel in the tank and that's when it's full which, of course, it usually isn't.

In practice the problem is about energy constraints far more than it's about power constraints and suffice to say it wouldn't be the first time someone who ought know better struggled to comprehend that it's a real thing not some hypothetical. And so much of the present planning and thinking is, to be blunt, rather useless in dealing with the actual problem.

To me, Kurri Kurri is and has always been a diesel-fired plant with the ability to burn some gas. That's what it is and will always be. With the added problem of the logistics of actually getting that much diesel to it since with both units at nominal capacity, consumption runs to about 3000 litres per minute, every minute. Pushed to the limit it's somewhat higher. That's a lot of road tankers.....

Now for the crux of the problem, that also applies to much of the rest albeit for varying reasons at the technical level. Batteries are far more limited than enthusiasts seem to grasp, because they address power but not bulk energy, and gas is also somewhat problematic in that role. With gas it's fixable with enough money thrown at it, with batteries it's impractical to overcome.

Where that goes is a reality that's not going to sit too well. Particularly in the south-east, so Victoria especially but also SA and NSW, the options to fill the major gaps in VRE output are basically:

1. Bulk fuel storage and transport infrastructure. That is, storing very large amounts of gas or diesel and having the transport infrastructure (pipelines in the case of gas, trucks in the case of diesel) to support that.

2. Large storage hydro. That means big dams storing weeks' worth of water at a minimum, it doesn't mean old quarries holding 8 hours' worth.

3. Nuclear (instead of VRE not to firm it).

4. Coal. As a means of firming VRE it's not great, but purpose built peak load coal plant has been designed, built and successfully operated in the past so it's proven possible, it can be done if there's no alternative.

Because it doesn't just need to run for a few hours, it needs to cope with a week or more of sustained low wind, and that's well beyond what batteries can do. It also requires serious amounts of fuel or water if using gas turbines or hydro - hence the bit about needing large dams or large scale gas supply not just filling an old quarry etc with water.

Trouble is, acknowledging that forces a realisation that there are no easy fixes for all this.

For the non-technical readers struggling to get your mind around all that, think of it this way:

The problem isn't how fast your car can go. The problem is that Perth is a long way from Sydney.

The problem isn't the daily cash withdrawal limit via an ATM. The problem is how much money you've actually got in the bank.

Etc. The problem isn't with the rate of delivery, the problem is being able to sustain it for an extended period. Because while short periods are fine for dealing with peak power demand at 6pm, they're not at all fine for dealing with 10 days of low wind.

 

[SirRumpole]

If there's one big criticism I'll make that shoots across the political and ideological spectrum, it's the failure to understand the nature of the problem.

There's a lot of people stuck in a mindset of seeing the problem as about peak demand when it's 40+ degrees outside or when it's freezing cold. They're seeing the problem as needing a short burst of power to deal with than and so they come up with ideas such as, among others, gas-fired plant relying on very limited gas storage, pumped hydro with 8 hours storage, batteries with 1 - 4 hours storage, there's even an existing diesel plant that has only 4.5 hours worth of fuel in the tank and that's when it's full which, of course, it usually isn't.

In practice the problem is about energy constraints far more than it's about power constraints and suffice to say it wouldn't be the first time someone who ought know better struggled to comprehend that it's a real thing not some hypothetical. And so much of the present planning and thinking is, to be blunt, rather useless in dealing with the actual problem.

To me, Kurri Kurri is and has always been a diesel-fired plant with the ability to burn some gas. That's what it is and will always be. With the added problem of the logistics of actually getting that much diesel to it since with both units at nominal capacity, consumption runs to about 3000 litres per minute, every minute. Pushed to the limit it's somewhat higher. That's a lot of road tankers.....

Now for the crux of the problem, that also applies to much of the rest albeit for varying reasons at the technical level. Batteries are far more limited than enthusiasts seem to grasp, because they address power but not bulk energy, and gas is also somewhat problematic in that role. With gas it's fixable with enough money thrown at it, with batteries it's impractical to overcome.

Where that goes is a reality that's not going to sit too well. Particularly in the south-east, so Victoria especially but also SA and NSW, the options to fill the major gaps in VRE output are basically:

1. Bulk fuel storage and transport infrastructure. That is, storing very large amounts of gas or diesel and having the transport infrastructure (pipelines in the case of gas, trucks in the case of diesel) to support that.

2. Large storage hydro. That means big dams storing weeks' worth of water at a minimum, it doesn't mean old quarries holding 8 hours' worth.

3. Nuclear (instead of VRE not to firm it).

4. Coal. As a means of firming VRE it's not great, but purpose built peak load coal plant has been designed, built and successfully operated in the past so it's proven possible, it can be done if there's no alternative.

Because it doesn't just need to run for a few hours, it needs to cope with a week or more of sustained low wind, and that's well beyond what batteries can do. It also requires serious amounts of fuel or water if using gas turbines or hydro - hence the bit about needing large dams or large scale gas supply not just filling an old quarry etc with water.

Trouble is, acknowledging that forces a realisation that there are no easy fixes for all this.

For the non-technical readers struggling to get your mind around all that, think of it this way:

The problem isn't how fast your car can go. The problem is that Perth is a long way from Sydney.

The problem isn't the daily cash withdrawal limit via an ATM. The problem is how much money you've actually got in the bank.

Etc. The problem isn't with the rate of delivery, the problem is being able to sustain it for an extended period. Because while short periods are fine for dealing with peak power demand at 6pm, they're not at all fine for dealing with 10 days of low wind.

So why don't the pollies grasp this ? Surely the people at AEMO and CSIRO know the answers and tell the politicians. Or is it just too hard ?

 

[sptrawler]

So why don't the pollies grasp this ? Surely the people at AEMO and CSIRO know the answers and tell the politicians. Or is it just too hard ?

It's hard to backpedal, when a Govt has made a big issue of it.

Did you read what the head of Snowy Hydro said, back in 2022? It isn't a case of politicians not knowing, it a case of politicians not listening.

Quote from the article:

However, Mr Broad said clashes with Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen were another reason to step aside.

"Issues have arisen obviously between what I think of the world and what Chris Bowen Minister for Energy thinks of the world and, rather than create a drama, I resigned," Mr Broad said.

 

[Smurf1976]

So why don't the pollies grasp this ? Surely the people at AEMO and CSIRO know the answers and tell the politicians. Or is it just too hard ?

Problem is the politicians don't want to hear it and there's a deep seated reason for that.

As an issue it's not just a random one. It's not some random issue like, say, the technicalities of corporate law arguing the details of how school bus services are subsidised. The kind of thing where a political party can back down or accept an alternative proposal without much consequence.

Energy's very different simply because they've made such a huge deal about it, it's among the most core policies in public view for the major parties and it's become central to their political identity.

The politicians have a huge problem in that what they've told the public doesn't match reality.

Now add in the added problem that arguing can be career ending. There was one CEO in Queensland who found that out when he suggested coal might not be the future. Another was the boss of Snowy Hydro. Even AGL, a shareholder owned company not government owned, has in practice been through that drama.

 

[sptrawler]

So why don't the pollies grasp this ? Surely the people at AEMO and CSIRO know the answers and tell the politicians. Or is it just too hard ?

This sort of headline doesn't help either, it gives the impression that all is going well and there isn't a problem, but when you put it in context the peak situation has only improved 1% in a year
That's not good, yet they try to make out that it is great.
It actually means we are treading water.

Potential renewables hits record 102.5 pct of grid demand in sign of the future | RenewEconomy

reneweconomy-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org

The level of “potential renewables” – the combination of wind, solar and hydro energy actually produced, and curtailed – hit a record high of 102.1 per cent of electricity demand on Tuesday in yet another sign of the dramatic changes on Australia’s main grid.

The new record was reached at 12.25pm on Wednesday, according to GPE NEMLog, and beat the previous peak of 101.5 per cent that was set nearly a year ago, in October and in spring ,when these

The actual share of generation did not reach a new peak on Wednesday – that stands at 72.1 per cent according to date from the Australian Energy Market Operator – but that was because of the large amount of wind and solar curtailment, much of it due to economic reasons as the price plunged below across all states.

 

[SirRumpole]

but that was because of the large amount of wind and solar curtailment, much of it due to economic reasons as the price plunged below across all states.

We can't have the consumers being charged low prices can we?

 

[sptrawler]

We can't have the consumers being charged low prices can we?

Or making the wind and solar farms, put in the equivalent amount of storage, as generation.

 

[sptrawler]

This would be a big temptation for the W.A Govt.

China solar giant Trina seeks approval for biggest battery project in Australia | RenewEconomy

reneweconomy-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[sptrawler]

This is why politicians really shouldn't be heavily involved in electrical grid planning.
Sept 5

Newly-appointed climate adviser Matt Kean tells government to keep open mind on nuclear

The Climate Change Authority says Australia has a decade to remove 75 per cent of its emissions if it wants to have any chance to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — and with such a mammoth task, it is keeping its mind open to nuclear.

www.google.com

Australians should keep an open mind to alternatives like nuclear power, given how large the task is to cut carbon emissions, Energy Minister Chris Bowen's hand-picked climate adviser has said.

Sept 23

'Very different advice': Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean contradicts Dutton on nuclear power

Climate Change Authority head Matt Kean says expert advice differs to what Peter Dutton says about nuclear and renewables being companions not competitors.

www.abc.net.au

The head of the Climate Change Authority has contradicted the claim of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that renewables and nuclear power can be 'companions not competitors', a claim that suggests a commitment to nuclear power will not derail the current transition to renewable energy.

 

[SirRumpole]

This is why politicians really shouldn't be heavily involved in electrical grid planning.
Sept 5

Newly-appointed climate adviser Matt Kean tells government to keep open mind on nuclear

The Climate Change Authority says Australia has a decade to remove 75 per cent of its emissions if it wants to have any chance to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — and with such a mammoth task, it is keeping its mind open to nuclear.

www.google.com

Australians should keep an open mind to alternatives like nuclear power, given how large the task is to cut carbon emissions, Energy Minister Chris Bowen's hand-picked climate adviser has said.

Sept 23

'Very different advice': Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean contradicts Dutton on nuclear power

Climate Change Authority head Matt Kean says expert advice differs to what Peter Dutton says about nuclear and renewables being companions not competitors.

www.abc.net.au

The head of the Climate Change Authority has contradicted the claim of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that renewables and nuclear power can be 'companions not competitors', a claim that suggests a commitment to nuclear power will not derail the current transition to renewable energy.

As I may have said before, the Feds need to appoint a body of experts like AEMO, but responsible for grid planning. Their recommendations should be public so the politicians can't cover up bits that they don't like, and the gov't should accept their advice even if it is politically difficult.

Having said that, I'm afraid it looks like this will never happen, with the political situation being so fractured. Labor can't get anything through with the Greens stamping their feet over minor points and the Greens won't support the LNP's nuclear plan.

So where does that leave us?

 

[sptrawler]

As I may have said before, the Feds need to appoint a body of experts like AEMO, but responsible for grid planning. Their recommendations should be public so the politicians can't cover up bits that they don't like, and the gov't should accept their advice even if it is politically difficult.

Having said that, I'm afraid it looks like this will never happen, with the political situation being so fractured. Labor can't get anything through with the Greens stamping their feet over minor points and the Greens won't support the LNP's nuclear plan.

So where does that leave us?

Your absolutely correct Rumpy, it is so important to Australias future, a panel of experts in all the technical fields should be gather together for a summit.
Then all the options should be worked out with no constraints.
Then add the constraints in eg ecological, economical, limitations to economic growth etc
The constraints are endless, but if unattractive choices have to be made to maintain our welfare society, they should be considered.

The problem at the moment, everyone is on a political agenda, rather than what is the best for Australia and its future economic growth.

It is just so important, but no one is addressing how important the issue is, if we stuff it up it's game over really.
Not that it will affect us.
But you only have to be on the forum to realise that people will chant to the party line, to the bitter end, whether it is right or wrong doesn't come into it.
Fortunately the next generation aren't as infactuated with the mainstream media, which IMO are just public relation companies for hire.

 

[Smurf1976]

So where does that leave us?

Ultimately there'll be some incident that forces reality.

Nobody's likely to correctly guess what that incident will be other than by sheer luck but at some point it happens.

Noting the incident doesn't need to be technical. I mean it could be, it could be the lights go out, but it could just as well be an undeniable severe recession or a mass protest movement about the overall situation in society (eg housing etc) that prompts change.

Ultimately though it's not sustainable and if something isn't sustainable then the question is when and how, not whether, it comes to an end.

 

[IFocus]

As I may have said before, the Feds need to appoint a body of experts like AEMO, but responsible for grid planning. Their recommendations should be public so the politicians can't cover up bits that they don't like, and the gov't should accept their advice even if it is politically difficult.

Having said that, I'm afraid it looks like this will never happen, with the political situation being so fractured. Labor can't get anything through with the Greens stamping their feet over minor points and the Greens won't support the LNP's nuclear plan.

So where does that leave us?

Kean said in an interview I heard that they were following the advice of the AEMO and CSIRO, make of that what you will.

Dutton has said the CSIRO advice is discredited while stating how cheap nuclear is. I thought the CSIRO timeline to build nuclear was extortionary hopeful as in way to short.

The Coalition is running a full on anti renewables campaign while Ted O'brien shadow minister for energy says renewables is part of their policy mix but nuclear is the answer.

In my electorate Hastie is running an anti turbine pro nuclear power station.

Where does it leave us... f*cked.

 

[sptrawler]

Kean said in an interview I heard that they were following the advice of the AEMO and CSIRO, make of that what you will.

Dutton has said the CSIRO advice is discredited while stating how cheap nuclear is. I thought the CSIRO timeline to build nuclear was extortionary hopeful as in way to short.

The Coalition is running a full on anti renewables campaign while Ted O'brien shadow minister for energy says renewables is part of their policy mix but nuclear is the answer.

In my electorate Hastie is running an anti turbine pro nuclear power station.

Where does it leave us... f*cked.

I find Hastie extermely annoying, he doesn't appear to have an original idea on any subject, maybe it is his military background but he just sounds as though he paste and copies script.
THe main stumbling block with the grid debate IMO seems to be, that Labor are 100% committed to renewables and the coalition is 100% committed to whatever is opposite to what Labor are wanting to do, as usual I feel the best outcome will be somewhere in the middle.
Nuclear has its benefits and disadvantages, as do renewables, the sad part is the issue is being decided on ideologic issues, not on what will work in the longer term to keep Australia competitive and support ongoing growth.
The CSIRO and AEMO are excellent organisations, but both may not be given an open brief when making their assements, @IFocus it is a bit like your past career in control systems if you were getting advice on putting in an Australia wide standard distributive control system that all companies would have to use.
Would you give the brief of what is required to CSIRO, or would you get a group of experts in the field to workshop the concept and put forward alternatives and the strenghs and weakness of each options ?
Maybe that has been done I don't know, but the only really strong arguement against nuclear I have heard being pushed is cost and the only strong one against renewables is cost, when IMO that is the least important issue, it will cost twice as much if the correct option or compromise isn't used and the grid end up a mess.

 

[IFocus]

I find Hastie extermely annoying, he doesn't appear to have an original idea on any subject, maybe it is his military background but he just sounds as though he paste and copies script.
THe main stumbling block with the grid debate IMO seems to be, that Labor are 100% committed to renewables and the coalition is 100% committed to whatever is opposite to what Labor are wanting to do, as usual I feel the best outcome will be somewhere in the middle.
Nuclear has its benefits and disadvantages, as do renewables, the sad part is the issue is being decided on ideologic issues, not on what will work in the longer term to keep Australia competitive and support ongoing growth.
The CSIRO and AEMO are excellent organisations, but both may not be given an open brief when making their assements, @IFocus it is a bit like your past career in control systems if you were getting advice on putting in an Australia wide standard distributive control system that all companies would have to use.
Would you give the brief of what is required to CSIRO, or would you get a group of experts in the field to workshop the concept and put forward alternatives and the strenghs and weakness of each options ?
Maybe that has been done I don't know, but the only really strong arguement against nuclear I have heard being pushed is cost and the only strong one against renewables is cost, when IMO that is the least important issue, it will cost twice as much if the correct option or compromise isn't used and the grid end up a mess.

I have like most the greatest respect for Hastie the SAS soldier, his politics however puts him in the hard religious right I assume he is part of the Clan and has played a part in the Federal Liberal party leadership battles / turmoil.

Could write a few volumes on DCS's was lucky to endup with a Rosemount RS3 and later a Rosemount DeltaV running 5000+ loops hooked up to 8000 instruments.... a beautiful thing but like any thing get the engineering done on purpose / reliability look at cost talk to suppliers, availability etc, proper experts go back to the engineers pick the obvious, not hard.

Ironically there would be more engineers / experts in Oz that would know about power distribution and generation than most other areas and the answers would be obvious

Back to Kean who has said they are not closed to nuclear power but will look at it when its becomes viable and the legislation changing the legality, I think the government should go further and use the nuclear subs as a conduit to setup the require structures and change the legal status allowing nuclear power I guess the politics would be impossible at this stage Greens would oppose it out right and Coalition would play games.

 

[SirRumpole]

Back to Kean who has said they are not closed to nuclear power but will look at it when its becomes viable and the legislation changing the legality, I think the government should go further and use the nuclear subs as a conduit to setup the require structures and change the legal status allowing nuclear power I guess the politics would be impossible at this stage Greens would oppose it out right and Coalition would play games.

Indeed.

We need to develop the capability over time, but expecting such a large project to fall into place within a time constraint( when the coal plants fall over) is lunatic.

A couple of nukes to supply resource intensive industries like steel, aluminium and cement is viable, but to bet the grid on it is stupid and will mean shutting off rooftop solar systems to let nuclear into the grid and inflate prices.

Coalition’s nuclear plan to switch off solar for up to 3 million homes - Smart Energy Council

New analysis from the Smart Energy Council shows the introduction of seven nuclear reactors to Australia will shut down solar panels in millions of households.

smartenergy.org.au

 

[mullokintyre]

Indeed.

We need to develop the capability over time, but expecting such a large project to fall into place within a time constraint( when the coal plants fall over) is lunatic.

A couple of nukes to supply resource intensive industries like steel, aluminium and cement is viable, but to bet the grid on it is stupid and will mean shutting off rooftop solar systems to let nuclear into the grid and inflate prices.

Coalition’s nuclear plan to switch off solar for up to 3 million homes - Smart Energy Council

New analysis from the Smart Energy Council shows the introduction of seven nuclear reactors to Australia will shut down solar panels in millions of households.

smartenergy.org.au

The article is a tad misleading.

There would be no need to actually shut down all together, only shut down the feed back into the grid.
Which of course the power companies do all the time, so they can maximise their own prices.
Nobody would need to be forced to shut down their rooftop solar to supply their own homes/electric cars.
Mick