The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

Syngas is a reality: electricity plus air/co2 and you can get petrol like compounds and aviation fuel

It's one of those things that's fine technically but economics is a problem.

Plenty have tried to produce synthetic fuel of some sort over the past century and ultimately most failed not with doing it as such but on the economics.

Germany did it during WW2 for obvious reasons using coal as the feedstock and South Africa built some facilities during the sanctions era and still runs them producing a reported 150,000 barrels per day from coal.

There's nominally 233,700 barrels per day of gas to liquid fuel capacity worldwide, three quarters of that in Qatar and the rest in South Africa and Malaysia. For coal to liquids nominal capacity is about 150,000 barrels per day in South Africa.

Historically the world's first two stage gas to petrol plant operated in New Zealand from 1985 to 1997. Nominal capacity was 14,450 barrels per day of 95 RON petrol.

Historically there's also been a very large number of attempts to produce liquid petroleum from oil shale (not to be confused with shale oil being extracted in the US and elsewhere which is a very different thing). Locally some was produced successfully in Qld, NSW and Tas indeed the latter even has a specific type of shale named after it (Tasmanite).

Ultimately though it's a problematic process economically and today the only real production of liquid petroleum from oil shale occurs in China (reported to be about 82,000 barrels per day) and Estonia (about 4500 bpd). There's also historically been production of gas from oil shale in various countries, most notably in Estonia. Of all oil shale used, most was simply burned as pulverised solid in a coal-like manner to generate electricity with no attempt made to produce liquids or gas.

Now consider the world uses over 100 million barrels per day of oil and that the sum total of the synthetic fuel plants, all based on fossil feedstocks, is less than 0.5% of that. Attempts to produce liquid fuels from something other than oil pumped from the ground have really only succeeded at all in countries with low labour costs, minimal regulation and/or outright subsidies and even there they haven't grown beyond a very limited scale. And that's with using fossil feedstocks available locally at well below world market prices and without any regard to CO2.

Hence my personal view, although hard to prove, is a pessimistic one. If it's so hard and expensive to make jet fuel, diesel etc economically when starting with cheap or even free coal, gas or shale rock, which are already hydrocarbons, then it's going to be at least one and perhaps two orders of magnitude harder and more expensive to do it using CO2 extracted from an extremely dilute source combined with hydrogen from electrolysis.

Biofuels are different, in that the economics are a lot better, but they are extremely scale limited. Well, they are unless we're going to outright trash the natural environment to obtain sufficient biomass.

There's a proposed plant in Tasmania that if built will produce sufficient methanol that, if converted in a second stage process to hydrocarbon fuels, yields about 6PJ per annum of liquid fuel.

To put that into perspective, Australia uses about 325PJ per annum of aviation fuel alone and it uses 2190PJ of liquid fuels for direct uses in total (in layman's terms that means all uses except electricity generation).

So this plant in Tasmania will replace about 0.27% of Australia's oil use and to do that it needs, wait for it.....

500,000 tonnes of green wood (or 300,000 tonnes if it's dry wood) per annum as the carbon source.

Plus 240MW of electricity constantly to produce the hydrogen.

There's a very real limit on how far this can be scaled up before it runs into major resource constraints and environmental objections with that biomass consumption.

Even just scaling it up to replace aviation fuel, nothing else, needs over a million tonnes of wood each and every fortnight. Obviously all that doesn't have to be done in Tasmania, but even spread nationally over a million tonnes of wood per fortnight, every fortnight forever, is a lot of trees.

I'm not against it as such, and I'm not suggesting it won't be done to some extent, but there's a foreseeable scale problem here. It works to the extent there's waste wood or at least wood that nobody objects to being cut but there's a scale limit to that.

 

[sptrawler]

Fine in theory but can it be produced at sufficient at an affordable cost?

As with electricity, cost wont come into it, if there is no other choice.
The limiting issue will be how many can use it, we need air travel to move critical products and people quickly, it may be too expensive to move tourists on leasure trips.

 

[qldfrog]

As with electricity, cost wont come into it, if there is no other choice.
The limiting issue will be how many can use it, we need air travel to move critical products and people quickly, it may be too expensive to move tourists on leasure trips.

If you look at the WEF reset plan, something i hate but is very well costed and full of logic for the uberclass ( nothing to do with Uber ) the populate ak 9999 out of 10 thousand will not travel, fly or drive, 15 minutes cities on public transport, no ownership etc
Add reduced population and total control
There will be plenty of petrol left for the elite, as for costs even if no petrol left and syngas required,from hydrogen or coal, this will be a no issue
As an aside
Shorten salary revealed today at $800k a year, even if unleaded was at 100$ a litre, he could fill a Nissan Patrol and the cost would have less effect on him than a tank for a city car for the average Aussie.
So cost is relative
The real issue as you pointed is quantity, let the populace rent it all , live in rabbit hutches, "save the planet"lol by bringing the lot back to Dickens underclass and it becomes a no problem for the rulers.

But this is one generation away and hopefully never, the issue now is the grid.
Tomorrow, next month, next year
Yes fossil fuels are limited but RE is not ready yet for full replacement whatever people say.
When you have to change your way of life..in real term reduce your options, it is not progress
The West got asleep at the wheel and few revolutionary innovations were added in the energy field.
Incremental not revolutionary, even EVs are not revolutionary in term of technology/science.
Now the focus and centre of powers are changing, we could hopefully see some giant steps, not increasing solar panel efficiency by .5% or new wind farms inspired by 1700's designs
If fusion appears in 10y time commercially, that would change everything.
Or even just cheap, safe and env friendly battery tech...
Germany is the perfect example of what not to do with the grid, yet we are rushing to check if we can make a bigger mess while anyone sensible knows that Australia is in no position to trial, let alone innovate or research ..
And Germany could and does rely on neighbouring countries to cover its mistakes.
PNG for us?

 

[qldfrog]

Porsche efuel

eFuels in detail

Together with international partners and the Chilean operating company Highly Innovative Fuels (HIF), we have ensured that synthetic fuel has been produced industrially in Punta Arenas in Chile since the end of 2022.

newsroom.porsche.com

 

[qldfrog]

Porsche efuel

eFuels in detail

Together with international partners and the Chilean operating company Highly Innovative Fuels (HIF), we have ensured that synthetic fuel has been produced industrially in Punta Arenas in Chile since the end of 2022.

newsroom.porsche.com

Back to the grid now

 

[mullokintyre]

Fine in theory but can it be produced at sufficient scale at an affordable cost?

The scale up is a question yet to be answered.
However, the cost factor will be manipulated to become acceptable.
The Europeans in particular, have set some high standards on what can and cannot be used for the feedstock, limiting it to used cooking oil and biomass leftovers.
There is not enough cooking oil to cover all the commercial aviation flights.
Starting this year, all fuel deliveries to EU airports must have 2% SAF.
The Americans are not so fussy, they will use anything that is carbon based.
Europe will force the use of SAF whether anyone wants to or not, by just adding further taxes, levies, carbon credit costs etc, they will make the cost of SAF closer to the cost of exiting aviation fuels.
Mick

 

[Smurf1976]

Germany could and does rely on neighbouring countries to cover its mistakes.
PNG for us?

Well they do have enough hydro for 4GW base load....

As for fuels versus electricity, the common problem is when someone suggests installing gas turbines as part of the generation fleet.

Then someone else points out that a gas turbine installed in 2030 will need fuel until ~2080.

 

[qldfrog]

Well they do have enough hydro for 4GW base load....

As for fuels versus electricity, the common problem is when someone suggests installing gas turbines as part of the generation fleet.

Then someone else points out that a gas turbine installed in 2030 will need fuel until ~2080.

I see your last point as a plus, not a negative?
You do not save the planet and the environment, past the co2 gw BS, by using 10y life disposable systems in loop...

 

[sptrawler]

The EU is showing just how critical electricity is, to a stable political climate.
The importance of a well managed and low cost electrical grid, is really hard to explain, until people experience problems with it.

MSN

From the article:
The eurosceptic Centre Party has pulled out of a fractious coalition government over opposition to European energy market rules, leaving prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre to head a minority Labour Party government.

While not an EU member, Norway is subject to a raft of EU regulation in return for single market access as part of the wider European Economic Area (EEA) that also includes Iceland and Switzerland.


Although a major exporter of oil and gas, Norway relies on abundant hydropower for most of its electricity. But as links with the EU electricity market have deepened, the Scandinavian country has seen prices rise, with recent spikes prompting calls to cut power links with the bloc.

In a statement posted on the Centre Party’s website today, leader and finance minister Trygve Slagsvold Vedum said Norway must “take back national control” of electricity prices.

Vedum also blamed previous conservative governments for exacerbating price rises by allowing the construction of two new undersea power lines to Germany and England.
“The price contagion through the last two cables gives us high and unstable prices, and the EU prevents us from implementing effective measures to control electricity exports out of Norway,” Vedum said.

The outgoing minister also pointed the finger at “several countries in the EU” who were relying on exports of Norwegian hydropower after deploying renewable generation capacity that “to a large extent only produces electricity when it is windy or the sun is shining”.

Støre confirmed the Centre Party's departure in a press conference today. He now faces heading a minority government until elections already scheduled for 8 September.

 

[SirRumpole]

The EU is showing just how critical electricity is, to a stable political climate.
The importance of a well managed and low cost electrical grid, is really hard to explain, until people experience problems with it.

MSN

From the article:
The eurosceptic Centre Party has pulled out of a fractious coalition government over opposition to European energy market rules, leaving prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre to head a minority Labour Party government.

While not an EU member, Norway is subject to a raft of EU regulation in return for single market access as part of the wider European Economic Area (EEA) that also includes Iceland and Switzerland.


Although a major exporter of oil and gas, Norway relies on abundant hydropower for most of its electricity. But as links with the EU electricity market have deepened, the Scandinavian country has seen prices rise, with recent spikes prompting calls to cut power links with the bloc.

In a statement posted on the Centre Party’s website today, leader and finance minister Trygve Slagsvold Vedum said Norway must “take back national control” of electricity prices.

Vedum also blamed previous conservative governments for exacerbating price rises by allowing the construction of two new undersea power lines to Germany and England.
“The price contagion through the last two cables gives us high and unstable prices, and the EU prevents us from implementing effective measures to control electricity exports out of Norway,” Vedum said.

The outgoing minister also pointed the finger at “several countries in the EU” who were relying on exports of Norwegian hydropower after deploying renewable generation capacity that “to a large extent only produces electricity when it is windy or the sun is shining”.

Støre confirmed the Centre Party's departure in a press conference today. He now faces heading a minority government until elections already scheduled for 8 September.

God help us if Tasmania secedes from the Commonwealth !

 

[Smurf1976]

God help us if Tasmania secedes from the Commonwealth !

Tas won't do that as long as it continues to receive a net benefit via taxation revenue.

What I absolutely do think will happen though, and I've raised this prospect in much higher places than here (no offence, just saying) is that we'll see the states act to protect themselves from what may occur elsewhere.

I don't expect that to involve physically disconnecting anything but I do expect to see administrative arrangements to that effect.

In practice that'll be Tas and SA protecting themselves from a mess in Vic and NSW. Because if we're going to have a state scheme to fund firm generation, and that is exactly what's proposed in SA via the FERM (Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism) and which Tasmania effectively already has via hydro, then ultimately that's the keep the lights on in SA and Tas, we're not going to want the suburbs of Adelaide blacked out only to find the generating capacity funded by SA consumers is being used to keep the lights on in Melbourne or Sydney.

With that in mind I'll post a direct and very recent quote from the SA Minister for Mining and Energy:

It is incumbent on a responsible Government to plan for the worst whilst demanding reliability. As far as I’m concerned, every state should have sufficient capacity to look after itself first and not rely on other jurisdictions.

I fully expect to see an escalation of such sentiments in due course.

 

[SirRumpole]

Tas won't do that as long as it continues to receive a net benefit via taxation revenue.

What I absolutely do think will happen though, and I've raised this prospect in much higher places than here (no offence, just saying) is that we'll see the states act to protect themselves from what may occur elsewhere.

I don't expect that to involve physically disconnecting anything but I do expect to see administrative arrangements to that effect.

In practice that'll be Tas and SA protecting themselves from a mess in Vic and NSW. Because if we're going to have a state scheme to fund firm generation, and that is exactly what's proposed in SA via the FERM (Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism) and which Tasmania effectively already has via hydro, then ultimately that's the keep the lights on in SA and Tas, we're not going to want the suburbs of Adelaide blacked out only to find the generating capacity funded by SA consumers is being used to keep the lights on in Melbourne or Sydney.

With that in mind I'll post a direct and very recent quote from the SA Minister for Mining and Energy:



I fully expect to see an escalation of such sentiments in due course.

Interesting.

Does AEMO have the authority to ORDER SA or Tas to supply power to other States? Is there Federal Legislation that covers such possibilities?

 

[sptrawler]

Tas won't do that as long as it continues to receive a net benefit via taxation revenue.

What I absolutely do think will happen though, and I've raised this prospect in much higher places than here (no offence, just saying) is that we'll see the states act to protect themselves from what may occur elsewhere.

I don't expect that to involve physically disconnecting anything but I do expect to see administrative arrangements to that effect.

In practice that'll be Tas and SA protecting themselves from a mess in Vic and NSW. Because if we're going to have a state scheme to fund firm generation, and that is exactly what's proposed in SA via the FERM (Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism) and which Tasmania effectively already has via hydro, then ultimately that's the keep the lights on in SA and Tas, we're not going to want the suburbs of Adelaide blacked out only to find the generating capacity funded by SA consumers is being used to keep the lights on in Melbourne or Sydney.

With that in mind I'll post a direct and very recent quote from the SA Minister for Mining and Energy:



I fully expect to see an escalation of such sentiments in due course.

Which is exactly what should happen, that is exactly the situation with Norway, everyone else virtue signalling while Norway supplies the virtue and cops the crap.

Marinus link is a perfect example, from memory Tassie was helping fund it, Victoria reneged and the Feds would only stump up enough to cover one cable.
I may be wrong, only going from memory, but it just shows a lack of sincerity, as is happening in Europe.

The lack of commitment by the flagbearers is the scary bit IMO.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to add to an already confusing situation.

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting.

Does AEMO have the authority to ORDER SA or Tas to supply power to other States? Is there Federal Legislation that covers such possibilities?

My guess is in an emergency, the Federal Government could override the State Government, if a national emergency was called.

 

[Smurf1976]

Interesting.

Does AEMO have the authority to ORDER SA or Tas to supply power to other States? Is there Federal Legislation that covers such possibilities?

Quoting here from AEMO:

The pain sharing principle of the NEM states that load shedding should be spread pro rata throughout interconnected regions when this would not increase total load shedding. This is to avoid unfairly penalising one region for a supply deficit spread through several interconnected regions.

Specifically, the Equitable Load Shedding Arrangement states “as far as practicable, any reductions, from load shedding as requested by AEMO and/or mandatory restrictions, in each region must occur in proportion to the aggregate notional demand of the effective connection points in that region, until the remaining demand can be met, such that the power system remains or returns (as appropriate) initially to a satisfactory operating state.”

So to put that into practice with an example as follows. Note this is a hypothetical, it's a scenario I've made up to illustrate not something that actually happened, but the numbers are plausible.

Victoria load = 10,200 MW
Victoria available generation = 8,500 MW

SA load = 3200 MW
SA available generation = 3200 MW

Maximum transmission NSW > Vic = 300 MW with adequate generation available in NSW to fully utilise that.

Maximum transmission Tas > Vic = 594 MW with adequate generation available in Tas to fully utilise that.

SA + Vic combined load = 13,400 MW
SA + Vic combined generation including from NSW and Tas = 12,594 MW
Shortfall = 806 MW

Under present arrangements that would result in load shedding of 613 MW in Vic and 193 MW in SA.

Noting that this load shedding in SA results in a power transfer of 193 MW from SA to Vic. That is, the purpose of load shedding in SA is to reduce the extent of load shedding in Vic.

Now historically this just hasn't been enough of an issue to cause any real concern, and each state figured that rocking the boat wouldn't be wise given they'd likely benefit from it at some point themselves.

That changes however if any state falls in a heap and results in a neighbouring state routinely copping load shedding. That gets more painful again if the state that doesn't have a problem has spent consumer or taxpayer funds ensuring that, meanwhile the neighbouring state that's in trouble hasn't done so.

Now bear in mind that SA is planning exactly that, a funding mechanism to ensure adequate firm generation remains available. Noting that SA's own capacity is barely adequate, it doesn't reliably have any surplus at all - if it happens to then sure, no problem, but there's absolutely no certainties of that whatsoever. It's a very borderline situation.

Needless to say, the idea of blacking out the suburbs of Adelaide in order to keep the lights on in Sydney or Melbourne would likely wear rather thin politically after a few incidents. Doubly so if the SA government and thus taxpayers, or electricity consumers in SA directly, are funding firming generation intended to ensure supply to consumers in the state.

It's a bit like any situation of a socialist nature. Helping out your neighbour when they're unexpectedly in trouble due to some genuine bad luck is one thing but it's very different when the only reason they're in trouble is their own lack of planning and you're bailing them out repeatedly to your own detriment.

The key there is consequence. Right now there's plentiful supply so nobody at a political or general public level could care less that there's a net flow from Victoria to every other state. That is Vic > SA, Vic > Tas and Vic > NSW > Qld. Just not a problem since the reason is purely economic and the lights are still shining brightly in Melbourne.

Very different if Vic falls in a heap and takes SA or Tas down with it. In that case a Norway type situation, albeit more likely to be administrative than physical, is very foreseeable in my view.

 

[farmerge]

Quoting here from AEMO:





So to put that into practice with an example as follows. Note this is a hypothetical, it's a scenario I've made up to illustrate not something that actually happened, but the numbers are plausible.

Victoria load = 10,200 MW
Victoria available generation = 8,500 MW

SA load = 3200 MW
SA available generation = 3200 MW

Maximum transmission NSW > Vic = 300 MW with adequate generation available in NSW to fully utilise that.

Maximum transmission Tas > Vic = 594 MW with adequate generation available in Tas to fully utilise that.

SA + Vic combined load = 13,400 MW
SA + Vic combined generation including from NSW and Tas = 12,594 MW
Shortfall = 806 MW

Under present arrangements that would result in load shedding of 613 MW in Vic and 193 MW in SA.

Noting that this load shedding in SA results in a power transfer of 193 MW from SA to Vic. That is, the purpose of load shedding in SA is to reduce the extent of load shedding in Vic.

Now historically this just hasn't been enough of an issue to cause any real concern, and each state figured that rocking the boat wouldn't be wise given they'd likely benefit from it at some point themselves.

That changes however if any state falls in a heap and results in a neighbouring state routinely copping load shedding. That gets more painful again if the state that doesn't have a problem has spent consumer or taxpayer funds ensuring that, meanwhile the neighbouring state that's in trouble hasn't done so.

Now bear in mind that SA is planning exactly that, a funding mechanism to ensure adequate firm generation remains available. Noting that SA's own capacity is barely adequate, it doesn't reliably have any surplus at all - if it happens to then sure, no problem, but there's absolutely no certainties of that whatsoever. It's a very borderline situation.

Needless to say, the idea of blacking out the suburbs of Adelaide in order to keep the lights on in Sydney or Melbourne would likely wear rather thin politically after a few incidents. Doubly so if the SA government and thus taxpayers, or electricity consumers in SA directly, are funding firming generation intended to ensure supply to consumers in the state.

It's a bit like any situation of a socialist nature. Helping out your neighbour when they're unexpectedly in trouble due to some genuine bad luck is one thing but it's very different when the only reason they're in trouble is their own lack of planning and you're bailing them out repeatedly to your own detriment.

The key there is consequence. Right now there's plentiful supply so nobody at a political or general public level could care less that there's a net flow from Victoria to every other state. That is Vic > SA, Vic > Tas and Vic > NSW > Qld. Just not a problem since the reason is purely economic and the lights are still shining brightly in Melbourne.

Very different if Vic falls in a heap and takes SA or Tas down with it. In that case a Norway type situation, albeit more likely to be administrative than physical, is very foreseeable in my view.

@Smurf1976 Thankfully WA is sooooooooo far away as to not have any of our power stolen for the rust bucket States.
Not that I and She really give a rats because we are pretty much self-contained at home with roof top solar and generators.

 

[Smurf1976]

Adding to the previous post that there's zero issue when interstate transfers cause no shortfall in any region or are done for purely economic reasons.

Eg right now Victoria is exporting and every other connected state is importing. That is, transmission flow is:

Vic > SA
Vic > Tas
Vic > NSW > Qld

Noting for clarity that doesn't mean all electricity in any other state is coming from Vic, only that the flow is in that direction.

For reasons best explained by pointing out that it's late at night so demand is low meanwhile there's over 2000 MW of wind generation running in Vic right now, plus with one exception all Vic coal units are operational, and they're running the Eildon hydro station fairly heavily at the moment to release water downstream (for farm irrigation and other non-electrical uses). Put all that together and Vic has an abundance of low cost electricity right at this moment and that being so, sending it to other states where it's saving gas, high grade coal or hydro water is entirely rational.

So that's an example of an actually good, rational outcome despite all the politics and troubles in the industry. It causes no problem, nobody's going to complain about it.

 

[Smurf1976]

@Smurf1976 Thankfully WA is sooooooooo far away as to not have any of our power stolen for the rust bucket States.
Not that I and She really give a rats because we are pretty much self-contained at home with roof top solar and generators.

Though your state government is I think very wary of any ideas of a gas pipeline being built that leads anywhere east of WA.

 

[sptrawler]

Though your state government is I think very wary of any ideas of a gas pipeline being built that leads anywhere east of WA.

Yes the only one with any vision, has long gone from politics, he was hammered by the media also.
2024

Gas shortfalls for eastern states worse than predicted just months ago, ACCC warns

Projections of shortfalls – and calls for more production – come even as the bulk of gas produced in Australia is exported

www.theguardian.com

2019

Think big: fix the eastern energy crisis with western gas

A pipeline from the gas fields of WA to Moomba might cost $6 billion. But it would buy back our domestic energy advantage.

www.afr.com

2008

Barnett emissions trade a pipe dream - Conservation Council

Premier Colin Barnett’s belief that a gas pipeline from the Kimberley to eastern Australia could replace a national emissions trading scheme is simplistic, says the Conservation Council of WA.

www.watoday.com.au