The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Well maybe it's because off moving targets.lol

https://thewest.com.au/politics/sta...n-50pc-renewables-target-for-wa-ng-b88381004z

Jeez, you guys will have an answer for all the slimy mud.lol
All of a sudden after the poo hits the fan in S.A.
W.A Labor tries to spay on non stick.lol

 

[sptrawler]

Why don't you actually do a bit of reading before shooting your mouth off ?

Actually, I've always said, to shut down coal is dumb, also I think smurph agrees.
The problem is we have an abundance of coal, and by World emissions are really non existent.
To shut our cheap power production down, in the name of World emissions, is a token gesture which decimates our industry for an ideological belief.
Which might give you a warm feeling, in he pit of your tummy, but it will kill our industry and jobs.

You two, getting some kind of mutual satisfaction off each other, doesn't make your case correct.

 

[SirRumpole]

Actually, I've always said, to shut down coal is dumb, also I think smurph agrees.
The problem is we have an abundance of coal, and by World emissions are really non existent.
To shut our cheap power production down, in the name of World emissions, is a token gesture which decimates our industry for an ideological belief.
Which might give you a warm feeling, in he pit of your tummy, but it will kill our industry and jobs.

You two, getting some kind of mutual satisfaction off each other, doesn't make your case correct.

Of course you don't go around shutting down baseload stations without replacing them with something else, so do you replace them (as you will need to because they have a defined life) with other coal stations or something newer and better ?

Gas looks the goods at the moment, plus more hydro plus renewables with storage. There are always options.

Maybe some of the gas turbines can run on biofuels as well, so that's another option.

 

[Tisme]

Actually, I've always said, to shut down coal is dumb, also I think smurph agrees.
The problem is we have an abundance of coal, and by World emissions are really non existent.
To shut our cheap power production down, in the name of World emissions, is a token gesture which decimates our industry for an ideological belief.
Which might give you a warm feeling, in he pit of your tummy, but it will kill our industry and jobs.

You two, getting some kind of mutual satisfaction off each other, doesn't make your case correct.

I have no particular reason, but a myriad of comfort points knowing old clunker technology is chugging along and in govt hands. So I think we should be keeping coal fired stations public and allowing private enterprise to develop alternatives that eventually overtake the fossil fuel production.

 

[Smurf1976]

Actually, I've always said, to shut down coal is dumb, also I think smurph agrees.

My personal view is to take a pragmatic approach.

If the whole world is going to move away from coal then pouring new investment into coal-fired generation in Australia would seem a high risk strategy.

On the other hand, we need reliable and economical power and I see no valid reason to close existing coal-fired plant and leave ourselves literally in the dark. That's just silly unless the world as a whole really is going to move away from coal far more quickly than seems likely.

So some balance is needed. If it were up to me then I'd be continuing to run existing coal-fired plant for the remainder of its useful life but I would't build new capacity unless it were the only option in a given circumstance. That still moves us away from coal, just in an orderly manner instead of the chaotic one we're pursuing at the moment.

So far as my view on specific energy options we have:

Nuclear - forget it. Too much expense and it will take too much time that we don't have. At best it would be a long term option but it's not a solution to our problems right now or within the next 20 years. Plus I do worry that we'd do it properly. If we can't get wind turbine protection settings right and we end up running coal plants into the ground then I do worry as to how safely we'd do nuclear in practice. "She'll be right" just won't cut it and nor will a focus on profit (noting that if we did have nuclear, then it would have lost money every single year for as long as we've had the National Electricity Market so unless the operator was an actual government department propped up by taxes they'd be under massive financial pressure and that's not a good thing when it comes to safety). I base that claim on the actual cost of nuclear in other developed countries, most notably recent projects in the UK.

Geothermal - closest thing to a "silver bullet" if we could get it working. We ought to put some serious $ in and prove it one way or the other just as we did decades ago when we too big risks with hydro and brown coal, the latter being something we didn't really have a clue about even after construction had started but we made it work.

Hydro - there's a massive resource in PNG being used for absolutely nothing. Origin did look at a 1200 MW (base load) project to supply Queensland but lost interest given all the political risk. Ultimately it could go to at least 4000 MW (base load) and that's enough to run two thirds of Qld (roughly) with 100% renewable and pretty reliable energy (hydro is vulnerable to drought yes, but its actual track record in most places is still better than coal, gas or nuclear). On a smaller scale there's still some undeveloped potential in Australia, outside high conservation value areas, that is worth looking at. It's by no means a total solution but could make a contribution with the key benefit being that it's firm, dispatchable power - works when we need it to work.

Gas - dumbest thing we've ever done as a country is sell practically the whole lot thus depriving ourselves of what would otherwise be a reasonably cheap (not much more costly than coal) and reasonably clean (60% lower emissions than coal for base load operation) energy source. Too late now unfortunately. I reluctantly agree with those opposed to coal seam gas development on farms etc. In theory I'm not opposed but there's just no point in taking even the slightest risk given that any increase in supply just means we'll give more of the stuff away to someone overseas, it won't do anything at all to help Australian industry or homes with energy supply.

SA - building a pumped hydro scheme would make an awful lot of sense given that the basic problem is one of meeting peak demand and that SA has already built a lot of intermittent generation, which at times exceeds the total load within the state, and remains a good place to build more of it. Yes there are plenty of sites in SA where pumped hydro could be built and no they don't involve flooding anything of particular note in terms of nature conservation etc so there's no real reason not to go down that track. It's the one thing that could fix the current problems without investing a cent into new fossil fuel generation that may be rendered obsolete depending on what really happens internationally with the CO2 issue. There are 3 such schemes presently in Australia, two in NSW and one in Qld, and another one planned for Qld but we need to put one in SA and do it ASAP. Also it removes the need for more interconnectors between SA and anywhere else so saves on that cost.

Solar - it was worth building some, which we did (mostly on roofs) as that reduced the summer afternoon peak. That opportunity is now fully exploited in most parts of the country however and building more solar will not greatly reduce the problem we have with meeting peak loads which have now been delayed until after 6pm and being driven by the sun getting lower and solar output falling off. Further development of solar only makes real sense if it is either (1) cheaper than the marginal operating cost of conventional power generation (2) has storage attached (eg solar thermal or the Qld solar + pumped storage project) or (3) we're going to build storage elsewhere in the grid (see point above about pumped hydro).

Wind - much the same as solar. Building more really only stacks up as a solution to the extent that it's either saving on operating costs (which generally it isn't) or if we build storage. Which brings me back to pumped hydro again....

Coal - makes sense to keep what we've got while it lasts but I personally wouldn't build more unless as a last resort option. My reasoning is simply that a new plant will be around for about 60 years from today, that's the time from deciding to build it until it closes, and is far too likely to be rendered obsolete in that time unless the internationally community decides to ignore the CO2 issue (or science finds it's not a problem). I'd get Northern (SA) and Anglesea (Vic) running again though if at all possible and I'd look very seriously to see if Hazelwood can be patched up for a reasonable and run for a few more years - my understanding is it could be done for about $140 million which isn't huge and that would keep it going for 10 - 15 years (after that it really is the end). Reason being to keep the lights on until we get something else built - otherwise we're in a very serious mess less than a year from now.

Biomass - burning it for power generation makes a lot more sense than dumping it in landfill or setting it on fire in the open but there's only a limited amount of it so it's a supplement to other power sources but not a replacement. I personally wouldn't want to see forests being logged for wood to fuel power stations for reasons of nature conservation and suffice to say I don't trust the forestry industry when it comes to that given the track record of woodchipping of "waste" timber which ended up being practically every log taken from the forest in the first place. So waste biomass yes, logging forests no.

Landfill gas - another supplement that can add a bit but nowhere near enough. Makes more sense to burn it in a generator than just letting it escape to the atmosphere though and I think it ought to be mandated at any landfill that has a power line reasonably close by unless there's a good reason to not do it at that specific site.

Wave, tidal etc - worthy of ongoing research and has a lot of potential given the predictability of the tides but it's not ready yet to replace coal etc.

Oil - simply too expensive, as is gas these days, for base load but has a limited useful role as peaking or backup power. Plus it's still the only real option in many remote areas. Given that we're a net importer for two thirds of the oil we use in Australia, from a supply security perspective it's really not a good option to be using it for power generation. Adding wind or solar to remote systems to save on fuel consumption generally does stack up economically so ought to be pursued more aggressively. No major infrastructure is required, just plonk the solar panels or a wind turbine or two somewhere in the the "grid" being supplied by those systems and that's it really.

 

[SirRumpole]

My personal view is to take a pragmatic approach.

Any possibility for diesel or gas turbines running on ethanol from sugar cane ?

I don't know about the gas contracts that have been signed, but I reckon we should tear a few of them up and reserve gas for our own use before it goes OS.

 

[Smurf1976]

Any possibility for diesel or gas turbines running on ethanol from sugar cane ?

For gas turbines they can be set up to burn pretty much anything as long as it's a liquid or gas and doesn't contain solid contaminants (eg heavy fuel oil contains solids).

I haven't heard of anyone using ethanol to run one but I can't see a reason why it couldn't be done if set up properly.

For diesel engines, and in the context of main grids SA is the only state using them on a permanent basis (apart from backup generators in hospitals etc which are everywhere) they really do need diesel fuel or a direct substitute. So ethanol is a no but things like biodiesel are a possibility within the normal limits applying to diesel engines in general.

For gas-fired internal combustion engines there's a few in most states but they're not a major source of power for the grid, just a supplement. It would be pretty difficult to run them on anything other than gas really since the compression ratios are normally too high to permit the use of liquid fuels (though ethanol is high octane so might be doable, I'm not certain on that point).

Of all that though, gas turbines are the main one. Diesel engines are significant only in SA. Gas engines are a minor source usually associated with co-generation (simultaneous production of power and hot water) at places where electricity generation is not the primary activity (eg there's one at Launceston General Hospital and that's certainly not the only hospital with one. Crown Casino in Melbourne runs some too).

Gas fired steam turbines are a different story and just involve a boiler. If you really wanted to then it's not impossible to modify it to burn just about anything although avoiding air pollution would be important given that the main such facilities we have running in Australia are in the Adelaide and Melbourne metropolitan areas so you don't want clouds of smoke coming out that's for sure.

 

[SirRumpole]

Thanks.

 

[overhang]

Gas - dumbest thing we've ever done as a country is sell practically the whole lot thus depriving ourselves of what would otherwise be a reasonably cheap (not much more costly than coal) and reasonably clean (60% lower emissions than coal for base load operation) energy source.

Spot on. To give you an idea how stupid the Australian government/s have been at giving away our gas.

By 2021 Australia will eclipse the Persian Gulf state of Qatar to become the world's biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas.
In that year, when both countries are forecast to pump and ship roughly 100 billion cubic metres of LNG each, Qatar's government will receive $26.6 billion in royalties from the multinational companies exploiting its offshore gasfields.

According to Treasury estimates, Australia will receive just $800 million for the same volume of gas leaving its shores.

Our 2nd cheapest option for base load energy and we practically give it away while seeing an enormous increase in the price of gas nationally and then they also complain of a gas shortage due to the CSG moratorium in NSW. I'm not sure why conservatives aren't up in arms about this.

 

[basilio]

Good analysis of options for power Smurf. On any analysis continuing to invest new funds in coal fired power stations is nuts.

I disagree however on the timetable you propose. The rate at which climate change is happening as a result of CO2 emissions means we have to ramp up no carbon power (and energy conservation) at a far greater rate than if this was a purely economic decision. The consequences of continuing on our current path are too dangerous to allow.

 

[Tisme]

Spot on. To give you an idea how stupid the Australian government/s have been at giving away our gas.



Our 2nd cheapest option for base load energy and we practically give it away while seeing an enormous increase in the price of gas nationally and then they also complain of a gas shortage due to the CSG moratorium in NSW. I'm not sure why conservatives aren't up in arms about this.

We do the same with a lot of our produce too.

 

[SirRumpole]

Energy Australia boss backs renewables.

If there are still coal heads out there, you need to read this.

The solution to high prices, she said, was a national plan to transition to the future of energy into renewables.

Energy Australia, which is one of the country's largest operators of coal-fired power stations, took the unprecedented move of taking out a full-page advertisement in a national broadsheet declaring its support for a non-partisan push for clean energy.


While renewables are more expensive now, Ms Tanna told The Business they were the better option in the long-term.

"As at today, newer forms of energy are more expensive than some of the older forms of energy, but over the next 20 years those older, cheaper forms of energy are going to retire," she said.

"That's a reality and that's why we need a plan to transition into those newer forms of energy."

Her comments echo the sentiments voiced in a joint statement issued from an unlikely alliance of 18 groups — including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Aluminium Council and World Wildlife Fund — demanding a non-partisan approach to energy policy.

"Let's understand what the problem is, get the facts on the table and then altogether we have to work on solutions," Ms Tanna said.

"The single-biggest barrier to investment is uncertainty around policy settings," she said.

"So when there is a lot of rhetoric about policy settings changing, no matter who it comes from, or a lot of flip-flopping about the fiscal assumptions it makes it very, very difficult for anyone to make a commitment to new projects."

My bolds and italics

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/energy-australia-boss-worried-about-power-bills/8267070

 

[Tisme]

Energy Australia boss backs renewables.

If there are still coal heads out there, you need to read this.



My bolds and italics

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/energy-australia-boss-worried-about-power-bills/8267070

Yeah I watched that last night. Very well tempered woman

 

[noco]

Spot on. To give you an idea how stupid the Australian government/s have been at giving away our gas.



Our 2nd cheapest option for base load energy and we practically give it away while seeing an enormous increase in the price of gas nationally and then they also complain of a gas shortage due to the CSG moratorium in NSW. I'm not sure why conservatives aren't up in arms about this.

The point you fail to make is the the Qatar Government has a 50% plus infrastructure stake in the gas industry where as neither the Australian Government nor the states have no investment outlay so therefore the state government ( not the Federal Government) are reliant on royalties as with other minerals taken out of the ground in that particular state...The Federal Government does not give away gas but they collect taxes from the operators and the states benefit with royalties.....There is another play that comes into contention and that is called competition...We have to accept the market price.

I went through this exercise with another ASF member some months ago.

Correct if I am wrong but the $26.6 billion you mention is not just royalties but made up of profit and royalties..

 

[Tisme]

http://reneweconomy.com.au/global-coal-plant-pipeline-slashed-in-past-year-68468/

 

[noco]

The point you fail to make is the the Qatar Government has a 50% plus infrastructure stake in the gas industry where as neither the Australian Government nor the states have no investment outlay so therefore the state government ( not the Federal Government) are reliant on royalties as with other minerals taken out of the ground in that particular state...The Federal Government does not give away gas but they collect taxes from the operators and the states benefit with royalties.....There is another play that comes into contention and that is called competition...We have to accept the market price.

I went through this exercise with another ASF member some months ago.

Correct if I am wrong but the $26.6 billion you mention is not just royalties but made up of profit and royalties..

Further to my post, I was able to find a link relating to the Qatar Government's investment of $10 billion in the gas industry back in 1996....I doubt if you would ever see an Australian Government invest that type of money.

http://www.wrmea.org/1996-may-june/...ive-qatar-world-s-highest-per-capita-gdp.html

 

[overhang]

The point you fail to make is the the Qatar Government has a 50% plus infrastructure stake in the gas industry where as neither the Australian Government nor the states have no investment outlay so therefore the state government ( not the Federal Government) are reliant on royalties as with other minerals taken out of the ground in that particular state...The Federal Government does not give away gas but they collect taxes from the operators and the states benefit with royalties.....There is another play that comes into contention and that is called competition...We have to accept the market price.

I went through this exercise with another ASF member some months ago.

Correct if I am wrong but the $26.6 billion you mention is not just royalties but made up of profit and royalties..

Thanks, I was not aware this was the case, the media were not pointing this out. Turns out Qatar nationalized the gas and oil industry in 1977 which the country has certainly benefited from. I think you may be wrong though about the royalties, it appears that figure is based on royalties only and does not include corporate taxes etc.

Royalties levied
on the two companies involved in LNG exports, Rasgas and Qatargas, account for a
third of total government revenues from natural gas production in Qatar. Government documents
show that in 2013-14, LNG royalties charged on exports of 104.26 billion cubic metres (bcm) came
to AU $17.68 billion.

This is equivalent to 23.35% of the industry's export revenues
Additional revenues streams include corporate income tax and returns on investments made by
state-owned companies in the sector. In 2015 alone, Qatar Petroleum's joint venture partner Shell which has only a 30% holding in one of the seven plant- paid almost US $1 billion in taxes, production share and fees to Qatari government bodies. Estimated combined total government revenues from LNG production in 2013-14 is AU $53.67 billion.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1749065/ITF+PRRT+Brief+2+Qatar+-+Sept2016.pdf

Australia is far too generous when allowing mostly foreign companies to take our finite resources. The Turnbull government would rather give a 1 billion dollar loan to a company known for tax avoidance and corruption.

 

[Smurf1976]

The big issue I see with gas is that the construction of the LNG plants in Qld has lead to:

Increase in gas costs for Australian consumers in the eastern states (including SA and Tas) of around $4 billion per annum.

Physical inability for some large users (heavy industry, power generation) to obtain sufficient gas under contract at any price thus leaving them exposed to the spot market.

Has linked Australian domestic gas prices to international oil prices. We'd have been seriously screwed if that had been the case a few years ago when oil prices were much higher and there's always the risk that oil goes up again.

In return we're getting $800 million in tax and that includes from the LNG exported from WA and NT whereas the $4 billion cost is for the eastern states alone.

I fail to see how this is a good deal for anyone really. Well, apart from those making money out of selling gas at triple the former price.

 

[SirRumpole]

I fail to see how this is a good deal for anyone really. Well, apart from those making money out of selling gas at triple the former price.

Maybe the Senate should hold an inquiry into this. There are probably some shady deals going on.

 

[SirRumpole]

Gas prices in Australia double those of exports

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-...australia-than-in-export-destinations/7680106