The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

your so focused on politics you can't see the wood for the trees.

No , I don't think so. I would support coal if not for the fact that it is a polluting and expensive way of power generation which we are stuck with for historical reasons and will be for a number of years, and if you pulled your head out you would see that one of Australia's largest operators of coal fired power stations (Energy Australia) agrees :

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


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."

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

So that is Labor Party propaganda is it ?

 

[moXJO]

New coal fired power stations won't cut it. They are simply more expensive than wind or solar alternatives.
Adding some form of battery or pumped hydro component to ensure certainty of supply is just the most practical solution.
The only reason coal fired stations are currently more cost effective is because they have been paid for. But the ongoing reality is they are old and getting past their use by date. As Smurph has noted inevitable costly maintenance is going to kill the coal stations.

Pumped hydro as storage over battery. But we are going to need big investment soon and solar or wind don't look to be able to fill the gap.
Wind and solar alone won't meet demand.

 

[moXJO]

No , I don't think so. I would support coal if not for the fact that it is a polluting and expensive way of power generation which we are stuck with for historical reasons and will be for a number of years, and if you pulled your head out you would see that one of Australia's largest operators of coal fired power stations (Energy Australia) agrees :

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


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."

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

So that is Labor Party propaganda is it ?

The maintenance on older plants is expensive but they lasted 50+ years. Solar 25 years at diminished returns and only when the sun shines. Wind works intermittently.
If all those older plants are going down then you still need coal. Nuke and gas I thought were more expensive.
Build the base load first then plan and fit the renewables to the grid.

 

[moXJO]

Hydro would probably be the cheapest and longest lasting, but I'm not sure how many you could practically set up across the nation.

 

[SirRumpole]

Build the base load first then plan and fit the renewables to the grid.

Yes, that's a good plan. The question is , what sort of baseload ?

Gas turbines that can run on a variety of fuels seems to be the go.

Gas is expensive here because of the export contracts that create a shortage here. That can be corrected by reserving a suitable portion of our gas for domestic use. We can also turn sugarcane into ethanol and burn that. Coal plants can only run on coal.

As for renewables, we live in a large country. The sun will be shining and the wind will be blowing somewhere in the country, the point is to scatter these installations over a wide area to make the most of the resource, and to provide adequate storage.

Tides are as regular as clockwork day and night and hot rock geothermal has potential for baseload so there are plenty of options.

 

[PZ99]

Some people might view this as an assault and battery of the land

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-20/new-solar-battery-storage-project-for-nowingi/8632628

 

[basilio]

I thought the story earlier this year about just printing solar panels off a commercial press was pretty exciting.

It is at production and testing stage and apparently could end up cost $10 a sq metre. The panels themself are also not as sensitive the light ie they will work in a wider variety of situations than current solar panels.
Well worth a read.

[URL='http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/printed-solar-trials-helping-energy-crisis-in-australian-first/8526868#'][URL='http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/printed-solar-trials-helping-energy-crisis-in-australian-first/8526868#'] Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Lightweight 'printed solar' touted as a way to provide electricity in times of disaster
1233 ABC Newcastle
By Kerrin Thomas [/URL][/URL]

A solar panel development that has taken decades is a step closer to reality.

Final trials of printed solar panels on sheets of plastic are underway at the University of Newcastle in the New South Wales Hunter region.

Using conventional printing technology, electronic ink is printed onto clear plastic sheets with the finished product incredibly lightweight.

The creator of printed solar, Professor Paul Dastoor, said the emerging technology is expected to shine in disaster-affected areas.

"What we do know right now is that if there's a disaster the first thing people need is power," Professor Dastoor said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/printed-solar-trials-helping-energy-crisis-in-australian-first/8526868

 

[moXJO]

We are probably screwed either way. Coal is cheap but dirty. However you would expect the newer generators to be less polluting then what we have.
Solar and wind seems great for reducing pollution and adding to the grid. I'm not convinced it is where it needs to be in servicing the country's needs. Realistically higher electricity prices now is probably making everyone put one on their roof anyway.
Looking towards Germany to see what issues they have had and how they are moving forward is probably a safe bet.
Something needs to be done though. There are too many party lines being drawn in parliament just for points scoring.

 

[moXJO]

I thought the story earlier this year about just printing solar panels off a commercial press was pretty exciting.

It is at production and testing stage and apparently could end up cost $10 a sq metre. The panels themself are also not as sensitive the light ie they will work in a wider variety of situations than current solar panels.
Well worth a read.

Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Lightweight 'printed solar' touted as a way to provide electricity in times of disaster
1233 ABC Newcastle
By Kerrin Thomas

A solar panel development that has taken decades is a step closer to reality.

Final trials of printed solar panels on sheets of plastic are underway at the University of Newcastle in the New South Wales Hunter region.

Using conventional printing technology, electronic ink is printed onto clear plastic sheets with the finished product incredibly lightweight.

The creator of printed solar, Professor Paul Dastoor, said the emerging technology is expected to shine in disaster-affected areas.

"What we do know right now is that if there's a disaster the first thing people need is power," Professor Dastoor said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/printed-solar-trials-helping-energy-crisis-in-australian-first/8526868

Bluescope had something in the pipeline 12 or so years ago. They had some kind of coating for colorbond sheets I think it was. I've been waiting years for all this stuff to hit the building market and I am still waiting.
I always hear stories, enquire and then find its not going ahead. Very frustrating.

In the next 20-30 years I'm sure we will have tech advancement in renewables that will do away with the need for dirty energy. I'm not seeing reliable, cost efficient, long lasting solutions beyond hydro just yet.

Theres a tidal generator rusting off port kembla. Was destroyed in a storm.

 

[basilio]

Just came across across an innovation that makes so much sense.
One of the realistic problems with electric cars is recharging them away from home. Setting up charging stations is expensive and takes up more space.
How about turning current power poles into charging stations ?
It's been done. Relatively cheap and currently operating in London .

Simple conversion that could turn our 7.5m street lamps into electric car chargers - and they're already being used in London

• A panel on existing streetlamp posts is replaced with a socket in 30 minutes
• Users will have to buy the smart cable which holds all the usage information
• Billing details are sent to the user's rolling monthly electricity contract
• The cost of electricity is similar to domestic rates, currently around 15p per kWh
• Councils can apply to tap into a £2.5m government pot for residential chargin

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...turn-lampposts-EV-chargers.html#ixzz4kXnCbiSP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[sptrawler]

Gas is expensive here because of the export contracts that create a shortage here. That can be corrected by reserving a suitable portion of our gas for domestic use. We can also turn sugarcane into ethanol and burn that. Coal plants can only run on coal.

Where the hell do you get your information from?
Many coal fired thermal stations, can run on other fuels. There is one in W.A, that could fire gas, coal or oil, in any combination.
It could run on gas only, coal only or oil only and as I said any combination of the fuels.
But don't let facts, ruin your stories.

 

[Smurf1976]

Where the hell do you get your information from?
Many coal fired thermal stations, can run on other fuels. There is one in W.A, that could fire gas, coal or oil, in any combination.
It could run on gas only, coal only or oil only and as I said any combination of the fuels.
But don't let facts, ruin your stories.

Would that be a certain plant built as 4 x 120 MW + 2 x 200 MW all originally oil-fired?

With 2 x 200 MW and 2 x 120 MW converted to also fire coal following the 1970's oil price hikes and all units converted to also fire gas from the NW Shelf once that became available?

From memory I think there was a 21 MW or thereabouts oil-fired gas turbine there too prior to the much larger ones being built far more recently.

Just a guess...

I don't know if this was something those working there ever realised but plenty of other utilities held SECWA in pretty high regard for the engineering in that place and, more critically, the speed at which it was all done. SECWA had largely done it in terms of moving away from oil whilst others were still firming up their plans.

 

[Tisme]

Where the hell do you get your information from?
Many coal fired thermal stations, can run on other fuels. .

How many is "many" and what % of total domestic generation do they represent?

I recall kwinana was converted from bunker oil to coal in the 70's with a couple of the generators able to run on gas coal and oil, but not sure how that is readily deployed and if they work in combination?

 

[sptrawler]

How many is "many" and what % of total domestic generation do they represent?

I recall kwinana was converted from bunker oil to coal in the 70's with a couple of the generators able to run on gas coal and oil, but not sure how that is readily deployed and if they work in combination?

When Kwinana was converted to coal, in the 1970's, the station consisted of 2 x 200MW units and 4 x 120MW units, making it the largest Station on the grid by a large margin.
The next largest was Muja with 4 x 60MW units.
The 2 x 200MW units and 2 of the 120MW units were converted to fire both coal and oil. So as a percentage of domestic generation, they were the largest by far, Muja didn't get any 200MW units until the early 80's. Funnily enough I did my apprenticeship at Muja A/B and worked on the construction of Muja C.
When the natural gas pipeline to Perth, was completed in the mid 1980's, all six units at Kwinana were converted to run on gas.
As for the flexibility of fuel usage, the Kwinana Stage C 200MW units and the 2 x 120MW that were converted, could fire any or all of the fuels in any configuration.
Power System Control, loved them, they could expedite fuel usage to match gas supply requirements. If they hadn't used enough gas as per contract obligations, the phone rang "take the mills out and go to maximum gas firing" or "take out x number of mills".
As for flexibility, the Kwinana units were the ones taken off and returned to service every night, they were great units. As per usual politics became involved.

As per usual smurph had the facts right,

 

[SirRumpole]

I humbly apologise for one inaccurate statement.

Good to see Turnbull finally having the guts to restrict gas exports. Lets see what it does to prices, we may end up paying as little as the Japanese or maybe they will pay as much as we do.

 

[sptrawler]

I humbly apologise for one inaccurate statement.
.

It isn't the inaccuracy that is the problem, in the scheme of things it is the general perception that is the problem, coal station = dirty so knock it down.

In South Australia's situation I think, it would have been far smarter to convert the Port Augusta station to fire gas/coal.
Firstly it could have been done quickly and then used as standby, until a long term solution was decided upon.
The advantages would be, the high voltage transmission line and switchyard are already there and the plant was still available.
The second major point would be, the gas turbines that they are going to install, could be installed there and utilise the same gas supply and H.V electrical infrastructure.
Then when the gas turbines are commissioned, knock over the old station, only my humble opinion.
Of course it would depend on the age and serviceability of the plant, but with current perceptions, nobody would have given a thought to its viability.
Especially politicians, knee jerk vote stunts, are the call of the day.

 

[SirRumpole]

In South Australia's situation I think, it would have been far smarter to convert the Port Augusta station to fire gas/coal.

Sounds reasonable if the station was serviceable and not so neglected by lack of maintenance that it was going to fall down.

 

[sptrawler]

Sounds reasonable if the station was serviceable and not so neglected by lack of maintenance that it was going to fall down.

The difference is, you now have a tiny bit more knowledge and hopefully it gives you a more tempered attitude toward coal Power Stations.

The only reason they are coal fired, is because coal was the fuel of choice, at the time they were built.
They can be operated on gas,oil,coal or bio fuel.

The real problem is people with no knowledge making assumptions, then they espouse those assumptions as fact, to anyone who will listen to them.

That is why politicians make so many stupid decisions, they listen to the white noise, rather than the experts.

 

[Tisme]

When Kwinana was converted to coal, in the 1970's, the station consisted of 2 x 200MW units and 4 x 120MW units, making it the largest Station on the grid by a large margin.
The next largest was Muja with 4 x 60MW units.
The 2 x 200MW units and 2 of the 120MW units were converted to fire both coal and oil. So as a percentage of domestic generation, they were the largest by far, Muja didn't get any 200MW units until the early 80's. Funnily enough I did my apprenticeship at Muja A/B and worked on the construction of Muja C.
When the natural gas pipeline to Perth, was completed in the mid 1980's, all six units at Kwinana were converted to run on gas.
As for the flexibility of fuel usage, the Kwinana Stage C 200MW units and the 2 x 120MW that were converted, could fire any or all of the fuels in any configuration.
Power System Control, loved them, they could expedite fuel usage to match gas supply requirements. If they hadn't used enough gas as per contract obligations, the phone rang "take the mills out and go to maximum gas firing" or "take out x number of mills".
As for flexibility, the Kwinana units were the ones taken off and returned to service every night, they were great units. As per usual politics became involved.

As per usual smurph had the facts right,

Interesting you worked on Muja C. I was a trouble shooter for some of that project. I remember all too well staying at the Crown Hotel in Collie and freezing my a4se off. Also worked on Callide, etc.

In the scheme of things what % of total gneration in Oz is dual or triple fuel optioned these days?

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting you worked on Muja C. I was a trouble shooter for some of that project. I remember all too well staying at the Crown Hotel in Collie and freezing my a4se off. Also worked on Callide, etc.

In the scheme of things what % of total gneration in Oz is dual or triple fuel optioned these days?

Well we would have met.

As for what the East Coast is doing I have no idea.
My career is limited to maintenance, installation and operation of W.A power infrastructure.
Large thermal, down to small remote diesel and solar thermal generation.
What amuses me is the current trend to just blow up viable plant, with no regard for the possibility of extending its life, also no regard for the capital cost to replace it.
I'm guessing the gas pipeline from the Cooper basin, down to Adelaide, goes fairly close to Port Augusta.
Therefore, from what I've read, the Power Stations at Port Augusta could probably been saved if converted.
But as is the way with politicians, no way we are not going coal, blow it up.
Just dumb politics.
If they had converted it to run gas/coal, maybe the transition to renewables wouldn't be so painfull, for S.A.
But on the other hand, it does give the ignorant empowerment, to just bag dirty coal and highlight their limited knowledge of thermal generation.