The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

FWIW significant problems both SA and NSW at present.

NSW - in short there's a lot of twisted metal lying on the ground which, until that happened, was the transmission line running to Broken Hill. Supply to the area is now reliant on local generation, in particular the 2 x 25MW gas turbines (diesel-fired). 7 towers are down apparently.

For those in WA, that situation with Broken Hill is directly comparable to that in Kalgoorlie. A single 220kV line and other than that there's some limited local generation. And both are, of course, mining areas.

For SA there's been a similar incident due to the storms last night. Still being assessed.

 

[Smurf1976]

For SA there's been a similar incident due to the storms last night.

As an update, the extent of damage is substantial indeed. Not a good situation......

Note that Davenport is near Port Augusta.

Four towers down on the Davenport to Pimba 132kV line and 3 towers down on the privately owned (by BHP) Davenport to Olympic Dam 275kV line.

Explaining that a bit, these two are effectively going to the same place despite different voltages and owners.

132kV runs Davenport > Pimba > Olympic Dam

275kV runs Davenport > Olympic Dam

With a 132:275 transformer at Olympic Dam. So effectively two lines from Davenport to OD, both of which are damaged.

Practical effect is Olympic Dam mine, other mines in the area fed from OD's substation, and the surrounding towns are now without any connection to the main grid. There are some diesel generators at Olympic Dam (owned by BHP) continuing essential "keep safe" type operations and providing supply to towns etc but the mine's shut as such, the generators have nowhere near sufficient capacity to run it.

Now for the next problem, six Stobie poles are damaged in the 132kV line between Brinkworth and Bungama. This is south of Port Augusta / North of Adelaide and of relatively minor consequence. It's a nuisance.

And there's 19 towers down on the Davenport to Leigh Creek 132kV line which is a more substantial problem, there being no other supply at all to the area and noting this line is tapped off along the way to supply other towns also. Current plan is to install diesel generators and run these towns as separate islanded (off-grid) small systems until the line can be restored which is likely to take some time. All up there's ~800 customers involved. Aim is to have the generators in over the next few days.

That's separate to the line down in NSW to Broken Hill.

 

[Smurf1976]

NSW - in short there's a lot of twisted metal lying on the ground which, until that happened, was the transmission line running to Broken Hill. Supply to the area is now reliant on local generation

It was going so well until 17:40 when the generation failed, leaving Broken Hill and surrounds completely blacked out.

That wasn't the plan......

 

[SirRumpole]

It was going so well until 17:40 when the generation failed, leaving Broken Hill and surrounds completely blacked out.

That wasn't the plan......

Will take weeks to repair apparently.

 

[finicky]

Won't bother Chris Bowen in a few years.

 

[Smurf1976]

Will take weeks to repair apparently.

Broken Hill and surrounds are presently running on diesel but at least they have power.

That hasn't been continuous however, there was a 6 hour outage of the generator overnight on Monday morning, and a far more serious 24.5 hour failure from Monday afternoon to late Tuesday afternoon.

So off for 6 hours, back on for 11 hours, then off for 24.5 hours, now back on.

Here's a chart that shows its output:

Generator off, under present circumstances, means no supply at all.

Noting the mines are shut, the generator's just supplying homes, small business etc.

 

[mullokintyre]

Broken Hill and surrounds are presently running on diesel but at least they have power.

That hasn't been continuous however, there was a 6 hour outage of the generator overnight on Monday morning, and a far more serious 24.5 hour failure from Monday afternoon to late Tuesday afternoon.

So off for 6 hours, back on for 11 hours, then off for 24.5 hours, now back on.

Here's a chart that shows its output:

View attachment 186418

Generator off, under present circumstances, means no supply at all.

Noting the mines are shut, the generator's just supplying homes, small business etc.

not a problem, Broken Hill is not in one of the Capital cities, its out the back of beyond which does not count.
mick /sarc

 

[SirRumpole]

Broken Hill and surrounds are presently running on diesel but at least they have power.

That hasn't been continuous however, there was a 6 hour outage of the generator overnight on Monday morning, and a far more serious 24.5 hour failure from Monday afternoon to late Tuesday afternoon.

So off for 6 hours, back on for 11 hours, then off for 24.5 hours, now back on.

Here's a chart that shows its output:

View attachment 186418

Generator off, under present circumstances, means no supply at all.

Noting the mines are shut, the generator's just supplying homes, small business etc.

And 37C days. Very warm.

 

[qldfrog]

And 37C days. Very warm.

A bit coolish for the area
As implied before, sadly not in the right place to affect the city masses

 

[IFocus]

Broken Hill and surrounds are presently running on diesel but at least they have power.

That hasn't been continuous however, there was a 6 hour outage of the generator overnight on Monday morning, and a far more serious 24.5 hour failure from Monday afternoon to late Tuesday afternoon.

So off for 6 hours, back on for 11 hours, then off for 24.5 hours, now back on.

Here's a chart that shows its output:

View attachment 186418

Generator off, under present circumstances, means no supply at all.

Noting the mines are shut, the generator's just supplying homes, small business etc.

A bit of a look into what's coming for the rest of Australia, not too far off.

 

[sptrawler]

This doesn't sound good either.

Gas industry in damage control as landmark study finds LNG 'worse than coal' for the climate

For years, the mantra from the industry has been that gas is a bridge between coal and renewable energy. A landmark study has sensationally challenged that idea.

www.abc.net.au

 

[IFocus]

This doesn't sound good either.

Gas industry in damage control as landmark study finds LNG 'worse than coal' for the climate

For years, the mantra from the industry has been that gas is a bridge between coal and renewable energy. A landmark study has sensationally challenged that idea.

www.abc.net.au

If true or proven further its a massive spanner in the works emissions will keep rising same or more rapidly gas is the answer to most of the gaps whether nuclear and renewables or each on their own.

Can image the size of the disagreement over this.

 

[Smurf1976]

Broken Hill

Experienced some dark times again last night, power was off for about 6 hours.

Cause of the latest incident = fuel pump broke.

That's an additional outage, separate to all the previous ones.

 

[Smurf1976]

If true or proven further its a massive spanner in the works emissions will keep rising same or more rapidly gas is the answer to most of the gaps whether nuclear and renewables or each on their own.

Can image the size of the disagreement over this.

I'll avoid commenting beyond saying that I've got a bit of a reputation for saying gas won't end well and that alternative solutions are needed.

Alternatives as in hydrogen and hydro.

Reasons are many but there's an awful lot of issues on the upstream side of gas that nobody wants to face for political reasons.

And yes I'm confident it can be done with the alternatives, in a technical sense it's possible, the numbers add up at least in the Australian context for the eastern states (WA is somewhat harder).

The problem of course is the fundamental conflict between hydro development and conservation. The sites suitable for development as deep firming mostly are in places that would be contentious.

Like this:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Pan left and right and you'll see the land slopes upward, quite steeply to the left, more gradually to the right, but you can visualise a dam filling that valley and storing water behind it.

Yes it's in a National Park. That a road just happens to go straight past the potential dam site is not a coincidence, the idea was thought of a very long time ago. If built, it'd flood the area looking away from the camera with about 40 gigalitres of water, the idea being to run that through two new power stations as well as enabling higher sustained output when required from three existing stations.

Should it be built? Well that's a value judgement about relative impacts. It's a subjective question that has no definitive answer. I'll argue though that if the concerns about climate change are real, well then putting a relatively small amount of land under water isn't necessarily a bad alternative.

FWIW there is a modification of the original design, done by myself, which avoids the originally intended destruction of an Aboriginal heritage site nearby whilst still building the dam and reservoir. Only real downside is some net energy loss but it doesn't impact the storage or ability to fill it, just requires pumping, and whilst it puts a lake near the heritage site it doesn't harm it as such. Reason being it avoids diverting the river, instead pumping that from a lower pond (existing) using surplus wind and solar energy - and that works because the river doesn't actually have much water in it during the times when wind and solar are short (hence needing to store it not run of river use).

It is of course still a dam in a National Park, and a particularly well known NP at that, which wouldn't be without objections.

It's not a total solution by any means, but it does provide some generation with 10 days' storage at constant full output and does so largely by repurposing existing infrastructure. Road is already built, most transmission is existing, etc.

There's quite a few more like that, but they all involve similar issues. They involve putting land under water that someone's going to object to at least in principle.

 

[Smurf1976]

Further to previous post, there's also an alternative dam site here:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Construction of that would back up the water toward and behind the camera, including submerging the present road. The two sites being mutually exclusive, it's one or the other.

Noting for the avoidance of doubt that neither dam impacts the Blue Lake Ramsar listed wetland in any way. It's nearby but not in any way interfered with.

Environmental impacts there are, that's undeniable. But as a means of firming VRE well gas has impacts too, that's the point I'm making. As someone who likes bushwalking I'm not seeking to submerge anything for the sake of it, but hard choices need to be made in all this, without which we'll end up with society on its knees in more ways than one.

To be clear, the idea is using hydro as storage, not as bulk energy. Store the natural flow of the creek at this location plus other water pumped into it (so an "upside down" hydro scheme basically) for use when the sun and wind aren't delivering.

Bearing in mind this isn't a closed system, it has net flow, ultimately the water ends up in the Murray. So the basic flow hydraulics when filling are are:

Natural Creek > New large storage

Natural River > Existing small storage > pumped into new larger storage

Existing Snowy scheme infrastructure > Pumped via new power station into new pond > pumped via new pumps into existing small storage > next step as above, pumped into new larger storage.

No diversion or aqueducts due to the Aboriginal heritage site issues.

Then for generation when required it's

New large storage > New power station 1 > Existing Guthega power station > New power station 2 > existing Island Bend pond > existing tunnel > existing Geehi reservoir

Second new storage > New power station 3 > existing Geehi reservoir. Noting I haven't detailed this bit but it's conceptually similar to the rest, a duplication basically.

Existing Geehi Reservoir > Existing Murray 1 power station > existing Murray 2 power station.

What all that does, is it overcomes the inability for the existing stations to run continuously during a VRE drought due to water constraints. Plus the output of the new stations on top. Overall it adds no new water, it doesn't change total annual output, but it enables it to be shifted to run at maximum when it's most required.

Added bonus that it also creates new pumped storage, since pumping is a feature of the new stations, for routine daily operation without net discharge from the scheme.

That's a very "light" explanation technically of the concept but there's plenty more like that, it's entirely possible to firm VRE with hydro in Australia.

Whether that ought be done or not is, of course, the question and realistically I don't see any chance of a consensus being formed on that. At one end are the hard headed engineers who, seeing gas and oil as inherently flawed, will reason that hydro's a better alternative. At the other end conservationists will never agree, indeed they'll fight to the death over that point.

What I expect to actually happen = gas turbines burning fossil natural gas or diesel aren't about to disappear. They're the path of least resistance politically and the one most likely to be chosen until such time as it's accepted that there are very real downsides to that.

 

[SirRumpole]

Further to previous post, there's also an alternative dam site here:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Construction of that would back up the water toward and behind the camera, including submerging the present road. The two sites being mutually exclusive, it's one or the other.

Noting for the avoidance of doubt that neither dam impacts the Blue Lake Ramsar listed wetland in any way. It's nearby but not in any way interfered with.

Environmental impacts there are, that's undeniable. But as a means of firming VRE well gas has impacts too, that's the point I'm making. As someone who likes bushwalking I'm not seeking to submerge anything for the sake of it, but hard choices need to be made in all this, without which we'll end up with society on its knees in more ways than one.

To be clear, the idea is using hydro as storage, not as bulk energy. Store the natural flow of the creek at this location plus other water pumped into it (so an "upside down" hydro scheme basically) for use when the sun and wind aren't delivering.

Bearing in mind this isn't a closed system, it has net flow, ultimately the water ends up in the Murray. So the basic flow hydraulics when filling are are:

Natural Creek > New large storage

Natural River > Existing small storage > pumped into new larger storage

Existing Snowy scheme infrastructure > Pumped via new power station into new pond > pumped via new pumps into existing small storage > next step as above, pumped into new larger storage.

No diversion or aqueducts due to the Aboriginal heritage site issues.

Then for generation when required it's

New large storage > New power station 1 > Existing Guthega power station > New power station 2 > existing Island Bend pond > existing tunnel > existing Geehi reservoir

Second new storage > New power station 3 > existing Geehi reservoir. Noting I haven't detailed this bit but it's conceptually similar to the rest, a duplication basically.

Existing Geehi Reservoir > Existing Murray 1 power station > existing Murray 2 power station.

What all that does, is it overcomes the inability for the existing stations to run continuously during a VRE drought due to water constraints. Plus the output of the new stations on top. Overall it adds no new water, it doesn't change total annual output, but it enables it to be shifted to run at maximum when it's most required.

Added bonus that it also creates new pumped storage, since pumping is a feature of the new stations, for routine daily operation without net discharge from the scheme.

That's a very "light" explanation technically of the concept but there's plenty more like that, it's entirely possible to firm VRE with hydro in Australia.

Whether that ought be done or not is, of course, the question and realistically I don't see any chance of a consensus being formed on that. At one end are the hard headed engineers who, seeing gas and oil as inherently flawed, will reason that hydro's a better alternative. At the other end conservationists will never agree, indeed they'll fight to the death over that point.

What I expect to actually happen = gas turbines burning fossil natural gas or diesel aren't about to disappear. They're the path of least resistance politically and the one most likely to be chosen until such time as it's accepted that there are very real downsides to that.

What sort of output would these proposals produce?

 

[Smurf1976]

What sort of output would these proposals produce?

There's some complexity in that one......

At present there's Guthega power station (66MW) then downstream of that is Murray 1 (950MW) and Murray 2 (550MW).

Now what the issue is, is that Guthega has essentially no storage, it's a small pond that when full stores 0.53% of annual flow or in other words 2 days' worth. Bearing in mind that's 2 days' worth at average output - at maximum generation it's just 13.5 hours and that's it, no more without flow down the river.

Since most precipitation falls as snow, that leads to a situation where most generation is in spring when it melts. Average % of generation by month since 2001 is as follows:

January = 3.6%
February = 2.9%
March = 3.0%
April = 4.0%
May = 6.1%
June = 6.6%
July = 5.5%
August = 7.4%
September 17.7%
October = 22.5%
November = 14.1%
December = 7.4%

Doesn't quite add to 100% due to rounding.

With two problems, first simply being drought risk. A lack of storage means it's highly dependent on weather and that has a somewhat nasty correlation with wind. Eg 2024 was a bad year for wind generation during the second half of Autumn and first half of winter. It was also a bad time for rain, output from Guthega throughout the April to July period.

Second is simply that it's only the April to July period that's useful for firming wind and solar, that's when the problem arises that hydro (or gas) is needed to resolve. So most of the present generation from Guthega is simply useless in that regard. It displaces coal / gas and it works as peaking plant but it's no good for firming wind and solar.

Now this isn't just about 66MW, it's far more than that.

First because the new stations required to implement this themselves add another 100MW capable of constant operation (on an intermittent basis) when required to firm VRE. They're using the same water, just exploiting the head above and below the present station as well as providing the pumping function.

Second, and this is the key reason, because the ability to move water from bulk storage (Lake Eucumbene) to the Murray 1 (and then reused at Murray 2) station is only sufficient to enable a bit under 10 hours' per day running. That's fine as peaking plant to support coal, but not so good as deep firming plant to support wind and solar through a period, days, of poor yield when sustained operation is required.

Now additional to water transferred from Lake Eucumbene is water released from Guthega. Ah ha, see where this goes.....

If Guthega can be held at constant maximum release then that raises the operating hours at Murray 1 from 9.7 hours per day to 12.5 hours per day.

So in total, storing more water above Guthega enables:

Constant operation, for up to 10 days (24 hours / day) of the existing 66MW Guthega station.

Constant operation of two new small stations total 100MW.

Increase the daily operation of 1500MW at Murray 1 & 2 by 2.8 hours.

That isn't perfect of course, but there's a second stage to address that:

I haven't gone into such detail but in short it's another new dam and a new 190MW power station (with pumping) directly above Geehi pondage, which is the feed pond for Murray 1.

What this does, apart from generating 190MW itself, is in conjunction with operating the Jindabyne pumps (existing), plus the new storage above Guthega as above, provides additional storage to enable Murray 1 & 2 to operate constantly at full capacity for a full three day period, using the water released from this second new storage and power station.

So both schemes are aimed at increasing the operability of the existing large (1500MW) capacity at Murray 1&2, that's a common objective of both.

First one enables increased operation for 10 days straight but still not at constant full capacity. It also provides another 166MW constantly for that 10 days.

Second one provides 190MW for three days, plus the water to enable constant unrestricted operation of Murray 1 & 2.

Noting that both schemes are refillable either by pumping or by natural rainfall / snowmelt. Eg when the wind and sun returns, they can be refilled rapidly by maintaining the tunnel flow from bulk storage at Lake Eucumbene and pumping that up into the new storages. Or if that isn't required then they can be left to fill naturally.

Noting the new stations can of course also be used as a regular pumped storage facility for daily peaking operation, without releasing any water downstream. That isn't their primary purpose but can certainly be done, and would be done eg hot summer evenings, they can be used for that too.

Overall this isn't about more water, it doesn't add a single drop of extra water in total and the water released via Murray 1 and 2 continues to go down the Murray River and ends up in the Hume reservoir just as it does now. What it does though, is enables a shift in when generation takes place, pushing more to the April - July period to firm VRE at the expense of less during the rest of the year, especially spring.

Does that affect agriculture? Not really no, because the large storage at Hume downstream re-regulates the flow anyway. It would lead to some more variation in the water level at Hume, but given it's a completely man-made (by a dam) storage, it's not as though it's some pristine natural environment where varying the water level might stuff it up. It's a reservoir.

Overall there are many such opportunities involving the repurposing of existing hydro, to intentionally concentrate production into the times when wind and solar yields are low.

Another I've mentioned previously being the existing Kiewa stations in Victoria, total capacity of which is 397MW. There's an opportunity to raise that to about 430MW, turn it into a pumped storage scheme, and have 2.5 year's worth of water stored up the top in reserve. The idea being it would normally operate as pumped storage only, then release water "in anger" when wind and solar fall short.

Plenty more, those are just examples but they all take the basic form of storing a substantial volume of water that's held in reserve specifically to fill major gaps in wind and solar. Plus with the ability to run the hydro scheme as a pumped storage facility, without releasing water downstream, on a day to day basis so it's dual purpose.

In term of land area, it's about 0.15% of Alpine National Park (Vic) and about 0.1% of Kosciuszko (NSW) that would be submerged beneath newly created water storages. Plus some smaller disturbance for access roads, power stations etc.

So technically it's possible.

Whether it ought be done is a value judgement. Value of the hydro-electricity versus value of the National Park in its present state. That's not an engineering question, it's not something that can be objectively measured and calculated, but rather it's a value judgement as to the importance of one thing versus another.

In saying that however, the alternatives also have an environmental impact. It's not a dam versus nothing but rather, it's a dam versus gas. That's what any debate is about.

I can't speak for them but suffice to say I doubt AGL or Snowy are keen to start a war there. At present gas or diesel are the path of least political resistance.

 

[sptrawler]

There are a couple of sites in SW W.A that were suggested a long time back, but they wont be big enough, our rainfall is inadequate and the public backlash would be huge.
As I said a long time back, some nuclear in W.A will be the goto answer, sooner or later depending on demand.
But with the huge ramp up in immigration, demand will be climbing quickly so it will be gas or coal firming for the foreseable future IMO.
As usual the answer will become obvious, eventually.

 

[mullokintyre]

Broken Hill has been without power for some time now.
because its not Canberra, or Sydney or Melbourne, it basically gets left to fend for itself.
And yet just 5km south of the Town, AGl has a giant solar farm, that according to This Feel Good Advertising Blurb from AGL

On an annual basis, the Broken Hill Solar Plant will produce enough electricity to meet the needs of approximately 19,000 average Australian homes.

Broken Hill Solar Plant was one of two large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants delivered by AGL in 2015, jointly funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the NSW Government.

The 53 MW solar plant is expected to generate approximately 126,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of clean, renewable electricity each year.

It will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by over 103,710 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum, assuming a rate of 0.84 tonnes per MWh of electricity. Particulate and heavy metal emissions will also be reduced.

So why the F%$# is Broken Hill without power?
Just to add insult to injury, AGL also has a large 50 MWHR battery bank that has sat idle fpor 10 days since the towers fell down,
For reasons beyond comprehension, it took 10 days to get an agreement with AGL.

Like I said in an earlier post, the people who have to give up the most to the satisfy the environmental demands of city dwelling folk, get SFA out of their sacrifice.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

So why the F%$# is Broken Hill without power?

As the towers are down maybe they can't get the power from the solar farm to the town.