The future of energy generation and storage

[qldfrog]

Hmnn SPtrawler. Not quite sure what you mean by politically motivated lunacy in the context of this topic.

I believe SPtrawler is also refering to the change of mind in the last 10 years with each new PM/government unable to made a consistent and technically motivated decision on carbon credit, funding or not of coal/infrastructure/green power;
Which CEO in his right mind would invest the couple of billions required to create new generating power [of any kind] in these circumstances.
a bit like our super/private healthcare but without the legal mandatory stick australians are subject to...
Our politicians be they right or left [as per most of the policies absences in the last 10y or so ] are definitively responsible. you do not govern a country like a facebook page based on number of likes or not.

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem with politics is the uncertainty rather than any specific policy as such.

Nobody wants to build coal in case a carbon tax is introduced. Nobody's too keen on renewables in case a carbon tax isn't introduced. Gas is way too risky now that we've tied the Australian gas price to the international oil price which has historically been extremely volatile.

The end result of all that is that right now on Good Friday, when most businesses are closed, the weather is mild and demand is low, we've got prices around the $100 mark.

Go back a few years and prices that high were seen only on hot Summer afternoons or cold Winter evenings and then only on a working weekday.

A mild Winter followed by a mild Summer next year could make a fool of me and others worried about physical supply problems. If it doesn't get cold or hot and demand stays down then we'll scrape through and the lights will stay on. What won't likely go away though is the problem of price. You know things aren't good when old, inefficient and expensive to run gas turbines are roaring away and price is at levels which used to only be seen during the peaks even on a major public holiday with mild weather.

 

[SirRumpole]

So if the Vic government is going to regulate prices then it's going to have to do it in a manner that is still profitable for retailers otherwise they can and will simply walk away.

So I'm wondering what will happen if retailers "walk away" ?

The poles and wires won't get maintained so the State government will have to pick up the tab for that, but the gov't will also have access to that retailer's revenue. If it's a profit making business which it must be otherwise they would have walked away before then it's a net win for the government who can then control the prices charged by that retailer and force the prices down. If other retailers then walk away the gov't could take them over too.

I really can't see the point of having multiple retailers, because the original idea was that it would lower prices, but for essential services the competition is likely to be in the other direction, everyone raising prices to get the best return.

The retailers seem to be a middleman that achieves nothing except giving private companies (a lot that are offshore) a chance to rip off consumers for an essential service.

 

[Smurf1976]

There's a few people, me included, starting to wonder about the macro economic impacts of the electricity price situation.

Looking at the prices seen since Hazelwood closed, in rough terms the rise is equivalent to about 0.9% of GDP nationally. To put it another way, the increased cost is also equivalent across the entire national economy to an interest rate rise of about 0.64%

If we confine that to the affected states, that being all except WA and NT, then it becomes about 1.1% of GDP. I couldn't find loan data by state but assuming it's roughly proportional to GDP and population then it becomes equivalent to an interest rate rise of about 0.78% in those states.

Now, if the RBA hiked rates 0.75% (since they generally move in 0.25% increments) in one step then I think that would cause a degree of concern. Well the RBA hasn't hiked rates but closing Hazelwood power station has brought about something rather similar via higher energy prices.

Whilst these figures are all a bit rubbery, it's early days yet, what's happened so far is starting to cause a bit of alarm for those with an interest in broader economics. Whilst electricity isn't interest, the overwhelming majority of economic activity involves electricity in some way so it seems reasonable to assume that electricity price hikes would have a similar effect, albeit with some differences, as an interest rate rise.

The above figures are based on the increase in electricity prices since Hazelwood closed as compared to the 2015-16 financial year average (using AEMO data) and comparing that to total Australian GDP, GSP of the states and APRA data for gross loans and advances for banks operating in Australia with an assumption (based on what seems to happen in practice) that interest rate movements tend to flow through to loans far more than they do to deposits.

Not considered is the impact on the broader economy of increased profits for the power industry. Acknowledged that could be a flaw in my analysis but given at least some of that will go offshore (foreign owners) there's still an impact on the Australian economy.

Where the real pain could be is if the higher prices kill off a few industries. In that case the impact becomes potentially far more significant particularly in the areas where those industries are located.

 

[Jorgensen]

I heard the last head of ETSA,before it was privatised,speaking about electricity prices.He,rightly stated,that the public had paid for privatisation every year since with the increased electricity prices.The state government got a one off boost to their budget,of course.
Incidentally he also said that ETSA had bought land for a pumped hydro plant in the early nineties,but sold it back to the farmer when it was not viable to proceed.

 

[Smurf1976]

ETSA and the others had it all worked out with long term plans for all sorts of things which could be built if the need arose.

Victoria had plans for a 4000 MW coal-fired plant plus the mine and everything to go with it. Never happened but the plans were ready in case they were needed. Also had plans for gas-fired generation and pumped hydro if needed.

Tasmania looked into just about every possible option in considerable detail and went as far as identifying suitable sites, costs and so on should we ever need to build a coal-fired plant. Likewise monitoring wind and solar long before they were put to use.

In SA ETSA did a lot of work to identify future options. A lot of drilling exploring for coal and even a small scale "test" mine to validate the suitability of what the drilling had shown to be the best option. Plus they had plans for pumped hydro that go back to the 1980's. Plus they built the last part of Torrens Island to be suitable for conversion to coal just in case it became necessary (and there were indeed plausible scenarios where it would have become necessary hence the planning).

Vic and Tas both had sites identified for nuclear power stations by the way. Tas in particular was never seriously considering doing it, in Vic it was considered more likely, but both thought it prudent a very long time ago to identify where such a facility would be built if it ever was and to make sure nothing else was put on that land. We're talking back in the early days of nuclear power globally here - neither state had a need for it at the time but both thought it was something that might be relevant someday so planned accordingly.

So the big difference is short term thinking versus long term. Have plans on what to do in practically any circumstance and implement them according to what becomes necessary versus virtually no planning at all.

The barrier to transitioning to renewable energy is not a technical one, there are workarounds for every single problem it presents, but rather is a political one. If ETSA were still around then they'd have built storage before the system fell in a heap without it rather than waiting until there was a crisis. Same approach with the other issues.

 

[macca]

Interesting comparison with an interest rate hike, I would think it is in fact far worse than your figures show.

If it had been an interest rate hike then the people with mortgages would suffer but those with money in the bank would benefit and spend up a bit but an increase in power costs effect all households and businesses.

Some economists theorise that merely adjusting interest rates is far too simplistic in today's affluent world. In the past when most people had little spare money it worked well but today, when we take interest rates down the older generation stop spending which has a Much bigger effect than retailers will tell.

In our area, when interest rates are high tradies and home maintenance people are flat out, now that interest rates have dropped they are much quieter. Noticeably less money flowing through the area because of it according to my tradie mates.

 

[SirRumpole]

Some good news for Smurf after today's announcement ?

 

[SirRumpole]

Tasmania could become 'battery of Australia' through increased dam storage, Turnbull says

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-...t-to-double-under-plan-to-reuse-water/8457572

 

[sptrawler]

It is the best sounding 'plan', I've heard so far, hydro storage and pumps powered by renewable energy makes perfect sense.
It makes sense, therefore it probably won't happen.
IMO a lot better than sea containers, full of batteries.lol

All sites in Australia, where pumped storage is feasible, should be assessed for their viability.
At this point in our renewable journey, it is the only realistic large scale option, for storing renewable energy.IMO
Batteries will have their place, but it will be for small scale, their place as large scale backup is very limited.IMO

 

[boofhead]

I'm not sure how Tasmania could be the battery of Australia if the rest of Australia has limited access to it. Will the feds part fund extra Basslink like cables?

 

[sptrawler]

I'm not sure how Tasmania could be the battery of Australia if the rest of Australia has limited access to it. Will the feds part fund extra Basslink like cables?

They would have to, no private concern, would foot the bill for it. Also the capital cost, of the pumped storage, would have to be part if not all Government funded.

But it will be small change, compared to the NBN, high speed internet that is going to make Australia great again.lol

On a more serious note, we really are getting ourselves wedged, we need to keep the cost of power down to attract business.
The problem is, we have taken a huge step, toward expensive renewable energy.
Now we have to make it work, therefore energy storage is the issue.
If you are relying on intermittent power sources, you have to put in place reliable storage, for the times that the wind solar isn't working.
Hydro is a very low maintenance, very reliable energy source, if you have the water, that is where pumped storage comes in to its own.

 

[SirRumpole]

Hydro is a very low maintenance, very reliable energy source, if you have the water, that is where pumped storage comes in to its own.

Also the fact that you can get "free" energy when rainfall fills the storages and you don't need power to recirculate it.

 

[sptrawler]

Also the fact that you can get "free" energy when rainfall fills the storages and you don't need power to recirculate it.

Yes, great point, we're obviously over thinking it.

 

[basilio]

Our energy future - coming now

Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs
By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM

An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer

A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.


Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.


It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.


Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827

 

[basilio]

Have to say the proposal to look at extending pumped hydro power in Tasmania seems eminently logical. It will be interesting to see if the figures stack up versus smaller pumped hydro plants around the country.

____________________________________________________________________________
If I was coalifile in the coalition I'd be wondering where my next lobbying cheque was coming from.

 

[sptrawler]

Our energy future - coming now

Queensland company to build Australia's largest solar farm, creates 450 jobs
By Frenalyn Wilson on April 19 2017 6:12 PM

An employee walks on solar panels at a solar power plant in Aksu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region May 18, 2012. Reuters/Stringer

A Queensland company proposes to build the largest solar farm in Australia amounting to $2 billion. The facility is expected to eventually supply at least 15 percent of power needs in south-east Queensland and would create 450 jobs during construction.


Solar Q lodged a development application with the Gympie Council in order to build a solar farm and battery storage facility 30 kilometres north-west of the city. According to ABC, the project would be built in stages. A350-megawatt facility is expected to be built initially as soon as approval is granted.


It will go as high as 800 megawatts after four years. It aims to produce enough electricity that could power at least 315,000 homes.


Managing director Scott Armstrong said the facility is set to be the biggest in the country, but "the way the market is going is that there will be bigger projects that will come on.” He said the project will meet at least 15 percent of south-east Queensland's energy requirements from the 4,000 megawatt hours of energy storage, as well as solar panels.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/queenslan...s-largest-solar-farm-creates-450-jobs-1550827

I love your enthusiasm basillio, unlike smurphs posts, it is all vegie no meat.

 

[sptrawler]

Have to say the proposal to look at extending pumped hydro power in Tasmania seems eminently logical. It will be interesting to see if the figures stack up versus smaller pumped hydro plants around the country.

____________________________________________________________________________
If I was coalifile in the coalition I'd be wondering where my next lobbying cheque was coming from.

That fits better with my limited knowledge, it would probably be cheaper and more efficient to run a second and third Bass link, than to pursue ridiculous amounts of solar generation with no storage facility.
The other upside is, it makes Tassie worthwhile and pays its way, rather than a home for retirees.
O.K sorry, out of line, not acceptable, I'll take myself down the back and give myself a thrashing.

 

[Smurf1976]

With regard to what's going on in Tasmania, well a few things have changed in a broader context so at the stage it's simply a case of re-evaluating all the options.

What changed?

Electricity prices in Victoria have almost tripled.

Brown coal is now a post-peak and declining energy source. There's not much future, at least at an economical cost, for gas or black coal either.

So the harsh reality is that approximately 90% of Australia's present power generation is either becoming uneconomic to operate or is ceasing production altogether. Swanbank A, B, C and D, Collinsville, Callide A, Munmorah, Redbank, Morwell, Hazelwood, Anglesea, Playford B and Northern are all gone with Smithfield Energy Facility about to join that list in a few weeks. Then there's the reality that Liddell is going in 2022, Torrens Island is getting very tired, Yallourn is old and so on.

Meanwhile in Tasmania we've got plenty of opportunities to add either energy, peak power or both. Technically they're doable, they're not new ideas and have been looked at in the past, but the questions are about economic viability.

Pumped storage - we could build more of that than anyone's likely to want so it's a question of picking what's cheapest and seeing if that's cheap enough.

Energy - there are certainly some opportunities to enhance the existing hydro system. They're not new ideas, just things that weren't viable economically in the past or which simply weren't necessary in a situation where Vic had coal-fired plant running 24/7 and there's only one cable across Bass Strait such that Tas needs to run at least some hydro 24/7.

One specific idea is to put another machine into Gordon power station. There's physically space for 5 but only 3 have ever been installed as the rest just haven't been needed. The other part of that story is that due to an environmental constraint introduced well after the original construction, the power station spends a lot of time with one machine running at low output to maintain the minimum required water flow downstream.

That mode of operation is inefficient, hydro turbines are optimally efficient at higher output levels, so some gains could be made by adding an additional smaller machine to the station specifically to provide that minimum flow whilst operating at its optimum efficiency.

So basically that means using the space that's available for 2 extra machines to install one smaller machine and keeping open the option of a 4th large one at a later time. That gains energy via reducing losses at times of low output (and that's a very common situation).

Another specific idea is to redevelop Tarraleah power station.

When first proposed (1934) Tarraleah was a "make work" project in response to the Great Depression. Generating power would pay the bills but the real aim, at that time, was to put people to work building it and later via the use of that power in industry.

Out of necessity there were an awful lot of compromises made. Those canals were hand dug for the first part of construction. Getting concrete was a problem. Money was a problem too. Heck there wasn't even a road to or anywhere near the site - Hydro had to build that too.

To cut a long story short, the canals are the "weak link" and are sufficient to operate the present Tarraleah power station at an average 80% of capacity over 24 hours. It can reach 100% certainly, but it can't do that constantly as the canals aren't big enough.

That worked just fine back in the 1930's and indeed it still works pretty well at the moment but it's not going to be a good way to operate if we put more transmission across Bass Strait. Do that and then it becomes desirable to shut down Tasmanian generation when the wind and solar is going well interstate and then run at high levels when the reverse occurs. Those canals then become a problem of significance.

So the idea is to look at ways to get more flow from Lake King William to Tarraleah power station, a distance of 17 km in a straight line or about 20 km along the present canal route. That could be in conjunction with using either the present or a replacement power station depending on the economics - a new one of higher capacity has a lot of merit technically but obviously adds to the cost.

A point to mention there is that Tarraleah presently runs base load and does so to a greater degree than even coal-fired plant generally does interstate. It just sits there and runs 24/7 at the maximum flow rate of the canals. Only real exception is due to maintenance outages. Being able to operate intermittently but at higher output has a lot of advantages if the state is more strongly linked to the mainland and we're moving toward wind and solar.

Related to that is that a further 6 power stations re-use the water discharged by Tarraleah. Where part of the benefit of a capacity increase at Tarraleah comes from is being able to better manage that flow downstream. Hold back water when it's wet but then run at higher than presently possible rates when it's dry. That reduces water spilled over the dams downstream and increases overall production.

It's not really a past mistake that it is this way, it's just a case of nobody back in the 1930's having foreseen how it would be operated in 2020 or later. And even if they had foreseen Basslink and interstate reliance on wind and solar, amid the Great Depression they couldn't likely have afforded to build it with higher capacity anyway.

Gordon and Tarraleah aren't the only options by the way.

For example back in the early 1990's interest rates were high but electricity wasn't worth overly much hence Hydro decided to reduce the height of the dam being built at Lake Plimsoll so as to reduce costs. That comes at the expense of losing some water to spill during high rainfall events and with electricity now far more valuable it could well make sense to go back and raise the height. It was built to allow that to be done later, previous effort won't be wasted, but it just wasn't economic at the time to build it higher but it might be now so it's another one to look at.

So there's a lot of options. Most are individually small but collectively they are significant. With prices having tripled in Vic plus various governments in a panic about power supply now's the time to have a look at the economics of those options and see how they stack up.

Adding more peak generating capacity does, in order to be useful, require an increase in transmission capacity across Bass Strait. On the other hand, that's not really a requirement for things which simply add energy to the system but with no or minimal change in peak output. So intertwined with questions about adding to or improving the hydro system is a related question about building Basslink No. 2

 

[sptrawler]

Smurph, I think everyone loves your posts and it gives them a leg up at the BBQ discussions.
I really don't think many, understand the underlying problem, it is make or break the way we are going.IMO