This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new

Wouldn't it just be easier, to run all the cars on lpg or cng, rather than burning gas to make electricity to charge your silly car batteries?

It's a bit like running gas turbines to make electricity, to send down the line, to boil the water in your kettle.
Why not cut out all the losses, and run gas to the house, oh they do that.
 
SirRumpole said:
Alinta Energy drafting plans for 300MW power plant north of Adelaide
Click to expand...

In some ways that's great but in other ways it's terrible.

The good news is that it's more generating capacity in a place that desperately needs it.

The bad news is that this is yet another sub-optimal committment to infrastructure with a long lifespan. Alinta and this plant. AGL with theirs. Origin built some stuff a while ago and so did others.

Trouble is that none of this is anywhere close to optimum from a scale and efficiency perspective. In other words, it works but costs far more than it should.

SA is too small (electrically) for a single company to achieve optimum scale, indeed Victoria and Qld are barely big enough either. It thus goes without saying that further fragmenting the industry into multiple competing companies each building their little plants and with their own retailers and all the associated costs is slowly but surely sending prices through the roof and there's more to come.

An economist will tell you that, all other things being equal, increased demand will mean higher prices. An engineer will note that increased scale lowers the cost and thus price. That we have so many generation and retail companies, each too small to be efficient, is a big part of the problem. That the networks are separately owned and not taking a holistic generation (including fuel supply) + networks + retail view is the other big part of the story. Everything else is comparatively minor.

That the economists are calling the shots but fail to grasp this basic reality is really the crux of the problem we have. There simply isn't room for so many companies to be in the business and if we're going to achieve an efficient industry then a lot of mergers, either outright or at least in a practical operating sense, are required.

As I've said many times, I am not ideologically opposed to the concept of privately owned utilities be they gas, electricity or whatever. But we do need them to be efficient and the harsh reality is that despite economists' theories to the contrary the competitive market model is leading to far higher prices not lower. Lack of scale and co-ordination at all levels is the underlying reason for that.

The ACCC and others are still scratching their heads about what happened with Tamar Valley in Tasmania. Long story short - it was privately built, Hydro ended up owning it following a long saga and upon returning to what amounts to an effective monopoly position promptly cut prices. An outcome that makes absolute sense to engineers, tradies and everyone else other than economists who fail to grasp that achieving scale and a unified approach to operations is far more important than anything else so far as minimising costs is concerned.

There's no reason why we can't have AGL, Alinta, Engie, Origin and others as joint owners of the power system in SA or any other state. But we desperately need them to join forces and implement one unified plan rather than each doing their own thing at far too small a scale with a mix of technologies and an operating strategy that has more to do with trying to out maneuver each other than with actually generating power. If they want to put 4, 5 or however many names on the front gate then that's fine with me but please stop the nonsense, join forces and do things efficiently.

As it stands right now, the brilliance of this fragmented "competitive" approach has pushed prices up approximately 80% in real terms in SA compared to the old days with ETSA. It's time for those who thought this approach was going to work to accept that it in practice it has failed miserably.

In the immediate term, with flat rate electricity prices for households now around 40 cents / kWh in SA, recently increased 20% or so in some other states and with gas prices having also gone through the roof there's about to be an awful lot of pain as the Winter bills start turning up and ordinary people find themselves struggling to pay.
 

Maybe a reasonable model is that governments own large scale infrastructure like gas turbine generators, what coal is left and large storages like hydro and big batteries, and private operators get paid to fill up the storages with their own generators. That will allow small scale private enterprise like wind and solar farms to invest amounts that private enterprise are willing to invest without taking huge risks on large infrastructure, similar to a feed in tariff paid to roof top solar.
 
I remember seeing the QEGB (queensland electricity genarating board) business in the main street. On research I found that first there was local gov. control and then it went state.

It is still believed gov. assets are better sold off for, I assume, a professionally focussed business management.

Interesting picture of the Brisbane Power House chugger.

 
Interesting picture of the Brisbane Power House chugger.

 
To expand on my point about scale and industry structure, here's a list of generation that the private sector has actually built as stand alone power stations in SA since the demise of ETSA.

Angaston - 50 MW, diesel engines

Hallett - 216 MW, open cycle gas turbines (OCGT), gas / diesel. Machines are low efficiency, second hand units from overseas.

Ladbroke Grove - 84 MW, OCGT, gas

Lonsdale - 21 MW, diesel engines

Pelican Point - 474 MW, combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), gas

Port Lincoln - 74 MW, OCGT, diesel

Port Stanvac - 58 MW, diesel engines

Quarantine - 220 MW, OCGT, gas / diesel

Wind - 1595 MW at numerous sites mostly not far apart in the SE of the state

Now, looking at thermal plant only this comes to:

474 MW of combined cycle plant at one location

594 MW of open cycle plant at 4 locations and all with different machine types and sizes. Some are gas-fired, some are diesel-fired, some use either. Some are new, some are second hand.

129 MW of diesel engine plant at 3 locations, two of which are right next to each other.

It would be hard to come up with a more costly and inefficient way of building 1197 MW of generation if you tried and that is my fundamental point here. 8, yes 8, power stations in order to get 1197 MW. That would be unavoidable if we were talking about building hydro and all you've got in terms of resources is a lot of individually small sites and thus no choice but it's pure madness when we're talking about using easily transported gas or oil as the fuel in a place where 70% of the population lives in a single city.

I left Osborne power station off the list since that was built where it was for specific reasons of using the waste heat from generation at a factory next to the power station (though that factory has since closed). Plus there was no shortage of distribution infrastructure nearby given that Osborne is the historic heart of SA's power industry anyway with 2 previous power stations having operated pretty much next door to where the present one is. So that one actually did make sense.

There's some logic in the gas turbines at Port Lincoln too as they're intended for islanded operation in the event of a network failure (though they failed to work following the statewide blackout last year) but the rest could have been built far more simply, cheaply and efficiently as a single power station somewhere near Adelaide which is exactly what any sensible utility, regardless of ownership, would have done.

Then there's the closure of Northern which didn't really stack up either once all the costs are considered. Cost of running it was less than the cost to consumers of not running it but, due to the multiple companies involved and resultant accounting, Alinta themselves were actually better off without it. Heck, they even tried literally giving it away at one point.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Or too many power companies make it so expensive that nobody can afford to cook in the first place.

My point isn't about private ownership versus government. I've no doubt that AGL in particular are capable of effectively running an entire power system with private ownership just as ETSA did under government ownership. Some of the others, notably Origin, could also probably do it as a single utility. The trouble is having so many parties involved and a complete lack of any real plan.

Right now we've got Alinta planning some gas tubines, AGL planning some major new internal combustion plant and the SA government also planning some gas turbines. And yes, you guessed it, all at 3 separate sites, all using different machinery, all done as expensively as possible with no real plan.

Building one proper power station would be a far more rational way to go about it and it matters not who owns it. They can have a dozen different names on the front gate if they want - but building all these separate little plants is just inefficient and silly.

It is quite literally taking the industry back to the approach that existed a century ago and which the likes of the SECV, ETSA and so on spent much of the 20th Century getting rid of and for good reason. It's just too expensive using that approach.

Even worse, you could just tally up the numbers and realise that the sum total of those 3 power stations proposed, built at a cost of many $ hundreds of millions which will ultimately be paid by consumers somehow, is almost exactly the same as what Alinta just closed and literally blew up at Port Augusta. I kid you not.

Public, private or whatever - it just needs one utility running the show and able to get on with it efficiently without being almost totally focused on trying to out maneuver their rivals just to stay in business. There have been many such organisations run successfully in Australia and overseas under either private or government ownership with appropriate regulation so it's a question of structure not who owns it as such.

Competition? Well with the old state owned monopolies we had the third cheapest electricity in the OECD. Now with a competitive market we've got among the most expensive power anywhere on earth. However imperfect the single utility model might be, it was approximately 45% cheaper for consumers, and somewhat more reliable at least at the generation level, than the mess we've got now (referring specifically to SA there).

I do grasp the theory about competition leading to lower prices and so on and I don't dispute that as a broad concept it does work. But in the specific case of the power industry it has failed dismally for the simple reason that the loss of scale and technical efficiency outright swamps any savings achieved through innovation elsewhere. It's like spending $100 in order to pick up a few coins, it just hasn't been a winner overall from the consumer's perspective and nor has it done much good for the environment, workers or anything else I can think of.
 
I suppose from the perspective of the major electricity suppliers, the headlong push toward renewables, is a win, win situation.
They can install large scale solar and wind, which from a capital and operational point is relatively cheap, when compared to a major steam plant.
The resultant loss of system stability, is worn by the Government, as they are the ones driving the agenda.
If the situation becomes critical, and it requires some serious thermal plant to be built, the Government will have to either sign long term supply contracts or build it themselves.
Maybe the major players are working on the long game, while the Government thrashes around, trying to find batteries?
 
Nice work Smurf (as usual.)

Really think an edited collection of many of your posts with an Executive Summary and recommendations would make excellent bed time material for a few pollies.
I remember from my history that the establishment of the SEC in Victoria in the mid twenties was against the fierce opposition of the then fragmented private electricity suppliers.
But it's success was the very best outcome for the State, our industry and the people.
 
No, using using fuel in a combustion engine to power the drive chain directly is inefficient.

If you used 1 liter of fuel to run an efficient generator to charge an ev, you would get more kilometers of driving than you would if you were to use that same amount of fuel to run a similar size internal combustion engine car, that's why hybrids beat regular cars.
 

To explain what I mean, the Holden/chevy Volt, Is a fully electric car with a built in Petrol engine used drive a generator to charge a battery (it can also be plugged in).

Its petrol engine does not power the drive chain of the car directly, when it burns petrol it is simply charging the battery.

By using the petrol motor to charge the battery, the motor can sit at its peak load/RPM efficiency, meaning it can operate more effectively than an engine who's load/RPM have to keep fluctuating and sometimes just idles at traffic lights, and can't recoup energy through regen braking.

The Chevy Volt in Petrol mode uses 5.64 Litres / 100km, it's sister vehicle the chevy Cruze uses 7.4L / 100km.

--------------------------

However, Combustion engines only operate at around 25% efficiency, So an electric vehicle charged using the grid where efficiency is often over 60%, is even more efficient than the chevy volt style of hybrid.

using home solar, even better.

But yeah, in Rumpoles hypothetical world where electric vehicles some how lower the price of petrol to less than the price of electricity, electric cars could be charged using petrol generators and still be better than ICE cars (but that won't happen)

 

Hang on a minute here VC.

Efficiency of power generation to customer is about 30% after losses and inefficient burning of fuels.
A car is about 32% efficient burning fuel.
 
Tisme said:
Hang on a minute here VC.

Efficiency of power generation to customer is about 30% after losses and inefficient burning of fuels.
A car is about 32% efficient burning fuel.
Click to expand...

No, A car engine might be 32% efficient, but only about 6% of the total energy ends up moving the car, there rest is lost in the process I described.

----------------------

power plants are generally over 60% efficient, but yes you lose some in transmission to, but that is nothing compared to the energy lost in getting the 1L of petrol to the car.

For example,

to get the 1L of petrol into your car you lose heaps of energy along the way, much more than electrical transmission.

1, Oil is transported from wells in Middle East to a port (using energy)
2, Loaded onto a ship (using energy)
3, Shipped 14,000 Km's to Sydney on a ship (using energy)
4, Unloaded from ship (using energy)
5, Refined into unleaded fuel (using and losing heaps of energy)
6, chemical additives added (using energy to produce)
7, Trucked to service station (using energy)
8, Pumped into your car (using energy)

Then after all that loss, the remainder that is left is burned in the engine at 32% efficiency, but the mechanical drive chain wastes most of that 32% through.

1, idling losses
2, not regenerative braking
3, gear box losses etc

So if you want to compare the energy losses of the grid, compared to the supply chain of the petrol, you would have to say the petrol is about 1% efficient "Well to wheels"

------------------
So comparing a petrol engine efficiency of 32% to loses of the electrical grid, while Ignoring all the energy lost id transporting and refining Oil is not the correct view.
 
Last edited:

All those things are factored in to the price of the fuel, in a lot of places the infrastructure needed to produce the fuel was paid for by other countries, oil wells etc.

The generation infrastructure to charge all your electric vehicles will have to be paid for by the consumer (us), it currently does not exist. That charge has to be factored in and the consumer will pay for it. One charge might end up being the same cost as a tank of petrol.
 
SirRumpole said:
All those things are factored in to the price of the fuel,

The generation infrastructure to charge all your electric vehicles will have to be paid for by the consumer (us),
Click to expand...

Aren't those two statements the same thing???

But, we are talking about which is the most efficient way to use fuel, lets not derail my point with a discussion on pricing
 
Value Collector said:
Aren't those two statements the same thing???

But, we are talking about which is the most efficient way to use fuel, lets not derail my point with a discussion on pricing
Click to expand...

Yes, but you seem to be claiming that EV's will always have a lower cost per km than other vehicles.

Correct or not ?

What matters in the end is how far you can go per $.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes, but you seem to be claiming that EV's will always have a lower cost per km than other vehicles.

Correct or not ?

What matters in the end is how far you can go per $.
Click to expand...

Yes they do provide more Kilometres per $1,

1, partly because they use the in energy a more efficient way so require less raw energy material input, and

2, partly because they can take advantage of cheaper energy sources not available to ICE cars.

for example,

1, If you burned a barrel of oil in a really efficient power plant, and used all the energy out put to charge cars, you would get more Kilometres than you would if you refined that same barrel into petrol, diesel and LPG, and burned it in ICE cars.

That alone saves $$$ and less waste, but then add.

2, Rather than use Oil which is currently much more expensive fuel, you can use a selection of alternatives such as burning a cheaper fuel e.g. coal, or using renewables. which lowers the cost down even lower.
 
Value Collector said:
No, A car engine might be 32% efficient, but only about 6% of the total energy ends up moving the car, there rest is lost in the process I described.

----------------------
Click to expand...

I don't think so. When you do those tractive effort calcs for gear box ratio selections, do you use 6% or the actual power? You know what the irreversible losses (e.g. friction, combustion heat, etc) are so what's left is the work extraction efficiency.

Sure there are drivetrain losses, etc, but ~30-32% is a number you should be using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
820
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
589
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
672
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
315
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...