The future of energy generation and storage

qldfrog said:

And even recently, after being connected

Council defends location of flooded $50 million solar farm

Sunshine Coast Council has defended the location of its solar farm after the $50.4 million facility was inundated with floodwaters, despite being built above the 1-in-100-year flood level. The Valdora farm was taken offline for 11 days after rising waters from extreme rainfall lapped the rows of...

www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au

Click to expand...

At least the panels would have been cleaned of dust( replaced by mud).

qldfrog said:

And even recently, after being connected

Council defends location of flooded $50 million solar farm

Sunshine Coast Council has defended the location of its solar farm after the $50.4 million facility was inundated with floodwaters, despite being built above the 1-in-100-year flood level. The Valdora farm was taken offline for 11 days after rising waters from extreme rainfall lapped the rows of...

www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au

Click to expand...

God that is classic.

We will have to call in the South Sea fruit pickers, to polish the panels when the water recedes, there is no way Australians will do it and water blasting will not take them back up to spec.

Oh what a mess, hopefully the mega grid batteries are on high ground.

sptrawler said:

On the subject of solar, I'm not really familiar with the topgraphy of Queensland, but this situation would have to be taken into consideration, that's a lot of flooded areas that wont be accessible.

Drivers and campers rescued as record rain hits Queensland

Several people had to be rescued from floodwaters overnight after record rain fell on parts of Queensland.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

On the other hand, it's working rather nicely for the Kareeya hydro scheme, it having achieved an 89.9% capacity factor for the year which exceeds most coal and gas plant.

Now suffice to say it's technically possible to redevelop that scheme. At present there's a little 7MW station and below that the main 86MW station but it's possible to replace those with a new ~1000MW station incorporating a lower pond for pumped storage operation, and at the same time to also increase both the upstream water supply and storage thereof via construction of new dams, tunnels etc.

What that'd do is create a pumped storage scheme for regular (daily) use with a large reserve of water at the top, filled naturally by the river, able to be released during a shortfall of wind and solar generation due to weather. In that case the water won't be re-pumped, it'll go over the spillway of the lower reservoir then down the river, but that isn't a problem since natural river flow returns that water to the scheme in due course.

Trouble is, the usual suspects would have a protest up and running in no time if anyone tried it.

The trouble with renewables isn't that they can't work. Rather it's that we're intent on not building adequate storage and that becomes their weakness, leading to nuclear as plausibly better option. Politically they've been hobbled.

Smurf1976 said:

On the other hand, it's working rather nicely for the Kareeya hydro scheme, it having achieved an 89.9% capacity factor for the year which exceeds most coal and gas plant.

Now suffice to say it's technically possible to redevelop that scheme. At present there's a little 7MW station and below that the main 86MW station but it's possible to replace those with a new ~1000MW station incorporating a lower pond for pumped storage operation, and at the same time to also increase both the upstream water supply and storage thereof via construction of new dams, tunnels etc.

What that'd do is create a pumped storage scheme for regular (daily) use with a large reserve of water at the top, filled naturally by the river, able to be released during a shortfall of wind and solar generation due to weather. In that case the water won't be re-pumped, it'll go over the spillway of the lower reservoir then down the river, but that isn't a problem since natural river flow returns that water to the scheme in due course.

Trouble is, the usual suspects would have a protest up and running in no time if anyone tried it.

The trouble with renewables isn't that they can't work. Rather it's that we're intent on not building adequate storage and that becomes their weakness, leading to nuclear as plausibly better option. Politically they've been hobbled.

Click to expand...

Those projects are the ones that need prioritising, whether it is renewables and gas or nuclear and gas and renewables, eventually it has to be renewables, gas and nuclear are finite at the moment.

It is just stupid by both sides, we have to have a logical progression, both sides of politics are being stupid, or the media is projecting stupidity to improve circulation.

There in lies the problem no one actually is well informed IMO.

We have been saying for years, storage is the issue, but it is expensive and it causes a lot of public backlash.
So the only storage the private sector are interested in are subsidised batteries and the Govt doesn't want to bite the bullet and commit to hydro even the Tassie link has been halved.
It's a bloody mess IMO, there doesn't appear to be anybody in the drivers seat.

Posting here for background information, could be in the science thread, a good article imho on thorium
Not that i advocate realistically thorium reactors here with our current technical and engineering/execution level.

sptrawler said:

So the only storage the private sector are interested in are subsidised batteries and the Govt doesn't want to bite the bullet and commit to hydro even the Tassie link has been halved.

Click to expand...

Don't put all the blame on the 'government', Labor is only in power with the blessing of the Greens and we know what the Green's attitude towards dams and hydro is.

SirRumpole said:

Don't put all the blame on the 'government', Labor is only in power with the blessing of the Greens and we know what the Green's attitude towards dams and hydro is.

Click to expand...

All the parties are to blame, Snowy2.0 is underway, but several other similar projects need to get underway, if there is to be any chance of successfully transitioning to renewables.
These are long term projects, that will take years to complete and will have to be done whoever is in office, it isn't about blame it is about having a realistic approach to the issues and currently no one has taken it seriously.
To tell you the truth, the only ones that did show any real commitment was the last government and that is crazy when you consider the coal in parliament parody.
But they did start Snowy 2.0, Kurri Kurri and twin new feeder cables to Tassie (Marinus Link), now we have the situation of the Tassie link capacity being reduced to one cable and no new Government hydro or gas projects.
So it really is beyond the pale that they keep championing the cause verbally, but are actually doing very little other than now paying the coal stations to stay open longer.
I'm not having a go at the ideology, just the absolute lack of action behind the rhetoric, when are they actually going to announce something major or is this just going to slide into chaos?
Turning peoples power off wont be an acceptable long term solution, but I could be wrong, no one seems too upset, yet.

SirRumpole said:

I don't think we can afford to rely on private investment, I think the government needs to put an export tax on all natural resources and build and run the required infrastructure themselves, otherwise it gets very messy trying to keep private companies happy.

Click to expand...

SirRumpole said:

Don't put all the blame on the 'government', Labor is only in power with the blessing of the Greens and we know what the Green's attitude towards dams and hydro is.

Click to expand...

Sums it up perfectly IMO.

sptrawler said:

Sums it up perfectly IMO.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately The Loon Party has too much power and in put.

Replacing fossil fuels for industrial heat generation.

The hydrogen hype is evaporating.

Good example of ideology vs practical science/engineering.

SirRumpole said:

The hydrogen hype is evaporating.

Good example of ideology over practical science/engineering.

Click to expand...

Yes unless they can get the cost down, it's a dead duck IMO.
Another one of those great ideas that will join the queue of great ideas that are just around the corner.

sptrawler said:

Yes unless they can get the cost down, it's a dead duck IMO.
Another one of those great ideas that will join the queue of great ideas that are just around the corner.

Click to expand...

Same as lithium batteries? Cost is no issue there is it..more willingness and different agenda..
I never saw hydrogen past a solar wind farm surplus tank storage.
And for heavy engine use thru ammonia: shipping especially, trucking and earth movkng/mining equipment

qldfrog said:

I never saw hydrogen past a solar wind farm surplus tank storage.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough I suggested that to Colin Barnett, when he was minister for energy back in the days when the first wind farm was built at Cervantes. Lol

On the subject of batteries and what has been mentioned on this thread several times, our over exposure to Chinese grid batteries and no production facility here.
Time will tell, as usual.

And where people think money first:
Perfect post timing.....

SirRumpole said:

The hydrogen hype is evaporating.

Click to expand...

Physics wins every time.....

There are niche situations where it'll work but it has the same basic problem as most flammable liquids or gases that aren't produced from fossil oil or natural gas. Scalability.

Countless people and organisations have tried or at least investigated all manner of things. Everyone from Shell and Mobil through to the Nazis during WW2 through to (in separate efforts) the Victorian and Tasmanian state governments have given it a go with an assortment of ideas based on coal, oil shale, turning gas into oil, oil seed crops, sugar beet and many more.

Invariably they've all run into the same basic problem. Either too expensive outright, or the opportunities for doing them cheaply exist but only on a small scale, usually because they're making use of some otherwise wasted resource.

About the only one that's really a success is Shell is turning natural gas into diesel, jet fuel and other conventional liquid fuels (as distinct from simply producing LNG) in Qatar. But the numbers explain why, even though it's successful, that idea hasn't been scaled up all over the place.

The plant involves about 700,000 individual synthesis tubes across 24 process reactors. Construction required 77 million hours of human labour and the technology is covered by 3500 separate patents. Construction cost is reported to have been about $18 billion USD, and that was in the 00's so it'd be a lot more today. For that it produces 0.14 million barrels per day of oil-like fuels and another 0.12 million barrels of LPG, ethane etc.

Therein lies a problem. To scale that sort of thing up it's mega $ and physical resources given the world uses in excess of 100 million barrels per day of oil at present. Even if it's profitable to do it, the logistics of scaling up become problematic.

Hydrogen's another like that. Use won't be zero but it has some very definite difficulties, it's not something you're likely to be using at home and it's not something we're likely to see used everywhere in the way that (say) diesel is used pretty much everywhere.

In the Australian context the Whyalla project should, in theory at least, work out reasonably but that's a niche case for an assortment of reasons. First because it's being built right next to a steelworks which presently uses some hydrogen trucked in from interstate. Second because the land's literally worthless, being useful for not much else. Third because it requires essentially no electrical (grid) or water supply infrastructure beyond that which already exists. Fourth it's very close to an existing natural gas pipeline and separate bulk LPG terminal which can provide supplementary fuel should the need arise. Fifth because it's being added to a grid that's among the peakiest in the world due to SA's relative lack of heavy industry and the highly variable heating / cooling load.

Thing is, those circumstances don't exist in most places and this isn't some great unknown. It's not like someone who comes up with a novel work of art or a new musical genre and has no real idea whether the public will like it or not and can really only find out by doing it and seeing what the response is. This isn't like that, because the physical principles are all well understood and the economics are readily calculated at least with ballpark accuracy. This isn't something where trial and error is necessary at least not in terms of the big picture side.

And the last click bait on news limited fully bribed by your taxes.
scare tactics nearing comedy show
How do we want these older voters to have any clue..the young ones just do not read these news
We will really need to go full collapse of the grid before we can hope seeing a sensible plan..i reinforce..plan...and solutions will be years away

sptrawler said:

On the subject of batteries and what has been mentioned on this thread several times, our over exposure to Chinese grid batteries and no production facility here.
Time will tell, as usual.

China to choke West’s supply of electric car battery parts

Beijing considers export restrictions as it prepares for the threat of a US trade war

www.telegraph.co.uk

Click to expand...

More on the same theme.


Chinese tech giant has been added to a US military blacklist in a shock move that could have huge ramifications in Australia.

The United States Department of Defence has added Chinese battery manufacturing giant Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL) to its list of companies linked to China’s military.

It’s uncertain what the move means for US automaker Ford who recently revealed it would invest $2bn USD to build a battery plant in Michigan, with plans to license technology from CATL.

What this means for Australia is uncertain but the Pentagon’s decision reflects growing concerns over national security and foreign influence.
Given Australia’s reliance on Chinese-made battery technology, the decision could prompt Australia to re-evaluate its strategies.

qldfrog said:

We will really need to go full collapse of the grid before we can hope seeing a sensible plan..i reinforce..plan...and solutions will be years away

Click to expand...

On the politics of all this one thing I think few would be willing to acknowledge, but which I'm very sure is true, is this.

Take the present policy position of the ALP.

Take the present policy position of the Coalition.

Compare that to the policy position of what became the Greens, that is Bob Brown as an independent, ~45 years ago.

Having previously read Bob's work on the subject in detail, something stands out and it's a decidedly uncomfortable truth politically.

Back then Bob argued that capital needed to earn a return and he was quite pedantic in crunching the numbers on the implications of that. For those unaware, he didn't challenge the capital cost estimates of the hydro projects to which he was opposed on conservation grounds but he did argue strongly about the cost of capital itself and that commercially appropriate rates ought be applied to the assessment. Bearing in mind interest rates circa 15% at the time so the cost of capital was undeniably significant.

The counterargument was that interest rates weren't normally that high and the situation was likely temporary, hence the justification for using lower rates in the assessment. The counterargument also focused heavily on the notion that renewable energy would likely be more highly valued by society in the future on account of the finite nature of fossil fuels and pollution resulting from their use. Both points have turned out to be at least partially true in practice.

Overall we've fallen a very long way since then. I'm not putting the Greens or their founder on a pedestal but it says an awful lot comparing the standard of arguments made. We've gone from calculations accurate to two decimal places to simple "I believe" statements and that sure ain't progress, not even slightly. Australia in general is in serious trouble if this is what passes for leadership these days.

What I want to know is, is Labor's renewables plan viable without building more hydro capacity (in excess of Snowy 2.0) ? If not then they are selling a fantasy imo. Dutton is selling a fantasy about nuclear too, plugging SMR's which have not been demonstrated to work.

I can't get more unpolitical than that, both sides are selling snake oil, and we are stuffed.