Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Thousands of viable pumped hydro sites in Australia researchers say.
Click to expand...

There certainly are, no question there whatsoever.

There's a place for batteries certainly but at present the fundamental problem with storage isn't technical but cost. Pumped hydro isn't cheap and batteries cost even more over the long term.

That being so we'd logically use pumped hydro as the backbone and use batteries where they gain additional benefits through addressing network limitations. That is, do what's cheapest.

I personally don't accept the "there's no time" argument as a reason to favour batteries simply because that's just getting someone off the hook for truly crap planning. We know right now that every single coal, gas and oil-fired plant will close and we've even got a reasonable idea as to when that's likely to occur since they do have a finite life. Waiting until it's too late and then going for high cost solutions is the sort of nonsense that happens when politicians have too much say and we'll all end up poorer if we go down that track. With even the cheapest option costing more than we'd like we really can't afford to not keep costs to a minimum.

There's a role for batteries though and that is especially so where network constraints exist. Here in Tas there's a "trial" (permanent as such but the "trial" bit is to assess costs, any technical hassles with a view to wider deployment in the future) using battery storage to overcome constraints in the distribution network. The batteries will replace a diesel generator presently being used for that purpose. That's a good use of batteries certainly. :2twocents
 
For those who haven't heard the news already, the SA government's power station is to comprise 9 x OCGT's (Open Cycle Gas Turbines) with a combined output of about 275 MW (the actual figure will vary with ambient temperature so that's an approximation).

They're being installed at two sites and will initially be fired with diesel. In the longer term the intention is to put them at a single site and use gas as the fuel but they don't seem to have worked out where to put them in the long term yet.

They're not a guarantee of no blackouts, they can meet less than 9% of the state's peak demand, but certainly they'll help close the gap and reduce the risk very substantially.

Fuel consumption I haven't seen the actual specs but it would be roughly 70,000 litres of diesel per hour with all 9 units at full output. :2twocents
 
SirRumpole said:
Why wouldn't they use a combined cycle system ?

Aren't they more efficient ?

Cost ?
Click to expand...
Combined cycle results in about 50% more output from the same fuel so it's far more efficient yes.

Downsides are several however:

1. Less flexible in operation. Slower ramp up and down.

2. Very much more expensive to build.

3. Zero chance of getting it built in time for next Summer due to the substantial on-site work required verus the literally trailer mounted OCGT's being used.

4. It's not impossible but is somewhat problematic to fire diesel in a CCGT. Doable yes but there's risks with soot going through the HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) such that gas is the preferred fuel.

Given the intent is to not run them very often the approach does make sense.

Where it fails however is, as I've said previously, the lack of a co-ordinated approach across the industry.

SA already has diesel engines in the grid. They already have OCGT's both gas-fired and diesel-fired. It would be more rational to build a new CCGT and use the existing plant for peaking but because there's zero co-operation between the SA government, AGL, Alinta, Origin and others that's not happening so we end up with a less efficient, higher cost and more polluting outcome.

So we've got AGL and their proposal, Alinta with theirs and the SA government with theirs. All smallish and sub-optimal. The smartest move would be to combine the three into one proper power station incorporating some of Origin's existing generation into that as well.

That makes absolute sense from an engineering perspective as a means to drive efficiency and minimise costs but it's at odds with prevailing economic theories and would have the ACCC up in arms big time.:2twocents
 
Someone may have already posted this but going on what this company states, salt for energy storage is the best method. Can someone ring the Premier of S.A. and advise him. On a side note, congrats. to Elon Musk for reaping millions from the early adoption fanatics. http://www.solarreserve.com/en/technology/molten-salt-energy-storage
Untitled.png

 
Last edited:
In response to posts in another thread which mentioned the closure of Liddell power station (NSW) in 2022 I thought it would be useful to put it all into perspective in terms of the impact of these closures.

So I've listed for each relevant National Electricity Market state the year of maximum installed generating capacity and deemed this to be 100% as the starting point. Subsequent years indicate what % of that capacity is expected to still be working at that time.

All years are as at 31 December and all plant ratings are based on Summer conditions which take the impact of higher temperatures into account.

I have also indicated the basis of projections. It's either actual historic data, is based on what has been publicly announced or is my estimate. Since the vast majority of generation owners have not announced their long term intentions to anyone, a degree of crystal ball gazing is unavoidable and for that I have assumed that each generating unit operates for its full technical life and performs in the manner typically expected for that type of equipment in terms of lifespan.

So the figures are the % of "original" (pre-closures) capacity still operating by that time.

NSW:
2011 = 100%
2017 = 85% (so 15% of the capacity we had in the peak year, 2011, is now closed)
2022 = 75% (based on publicly announced closures)
2029 = 67% (my estimate)
2034 = 50% (my estimate)
2035 = 35% (part of which is due to publicly announced closures)
2043 = 27% (the end of coal-fired generation in NSW in the absence of new plant being built)

Qld:
2010 = 100% (actual)
2017 = 93% (actual)
2018 = 96% (publicly announced)
2021 = 95% (publicly announced)
2026 = 82% (my estimate)
2034 = 70% (my estimate)
2038 = 65% (my estimate)
2043 = 53% (my estimate)

Vic:
2010 = 100% (actual)
2017 = 82% (actual)
2019 = 83% (publicly announced)
2023 = 77% (my estimate based on condition of a particular plant that's very widely rumoured in the industry but not publicly announced)
2030 = 72% (my estimate)
2031 = 66% (my estimate)
2034 = 61% (my estimate)
2035 = 56% (my estimate)
2036 = 51% (my estimate)
2038 = 46% (my estimate)
2039 = 45% (my estimate)
2040 = 43% (my estimate)
2043 = 38% (my estimate)
2046 = 33% (my estimate and the end of coal-fired generation in Vic - for the record AGL has publicly announced "by 2050" which broadly aligns with my attempt to be more precise)

SA:
2010 = 100%
2016 = 79% (actual, noted due to the well known problems)
2017 = 91% (due to the new diesel-fired gas turbines and battery)
2019 = 90% (publicly announced)
2021 = 87% (my estimate)
2023 = 83% (my estimate)
2027 = 78% (my estimate)
2029 = 72% (my estimate)
2031 = 67% (my estimate)
2033 = 58% (my estimate)
2038 = 56% (my estimate)
2044 = 54% (my estimate)

In the context of all that I will point out that any economical replacement will take typically 5 - 15 years to go from concept to generation. Certainly things like diesels can be done quickly but that's a sure fire way to go broke with the running costs.

SA with its large wind and solar resources, modest demand most of the time and potential for individual pumped hydro schemes (or anything else) to make a meaningful impact is perhaps in the best position when it comes to finding a way forward.

At the other extreme NSW has one almighty problem to sort out if they don't want to end up either in the dark or spending $ billions on diesel fuel. Two thirds of all present generating capacity gone in 20 or so years and most of what remains is peaking plant not capable of sustained high output anyway. So they're pretty much starting from scratch, rebuilding the entire industry, and without the wind resources that SA has which is only going to make it harder.

I left WA and NT out of the list since they're not part of the NEM. I left Tas out since there are no likely plant closures in that state over the next 30 years apart from possibly some gas-fired plant which may become redundant (not worn out but simply redundant - it's a plausible outcome).

As a summary of it all:

Vic and SA = in trouble now.

SA is sort-of buying its way out, at high cost, assuming they can actually pull off their "closing the border" approach and that everything works 100% perfectly at a technical level. In practice they'll still have problems just nowhere near as often.

Vic doing pretty much nothing and that's where the next crisis is likely to be.

NSW OK for the moment but in serious **** five years from now and there's not enough time left to fix that in an economical manner. It's no secret that Liddell is patched up and limping along as it is so delaying the closure isn't a likely option. That's assuming it actually makes it through to 2022 of course - it's not in good shape that's no secret.

Qld is a decade away from any major problems but all that means is there's just enough time to build a solution if we get on with it ASAP.

Not much to worry about in WA as long as the gas keeps flowing and the coal mines don't go broke. That bit about mines going broke is serious by the way - it's a risk certainly.

NT all good as long as they've got gas to run their power stations with.

Tas all good as long as it rains.

Biggest problem with it all is the complete lack of planning.

Northern (SA) had another 20 years left in it when it closed. It wasn't old by any measure.

Anglesea (Vic) could have gone at least another 5 years.

Wallerawang (NSW) was big, 1000 MW, and could have gone another 10 - 15 years pretty easily but it was closed instead.

Fail to plan = plan to fail. :2twocents
 
In short the SA government is trying to guarantee the viability of synchronous generation within SA by forcing retailers to buy 36% of their power from such sources.

Synchronous generation? In practice that's what most people understand to be a "conventional" power station. Coal, gas, oil, hydro, nuclear - all use synchronous machines. So it's not wind or solar and they're not including power supplied from synchronous sources interstate either.

My view is that it's a clumsy workaround at best. Using laws in order to force the market to deliver one aspect of an engineering requirement but not the rest.

As for the cost, well the basic premise is forcing the use of high cost generation in place of lower cost generation. In the short term at least that pushes prices up not down but the SA government's hope seems to be that it avoids more closures and thus may keep prices lower in the long term.

It's a workaround to the reality that government can't, or at least won't, tell the generation owners to not shut down and walk away.

My view is that the engineering aspects need to come first and the market and economic theories adjusted to fit around that. The trouble there is, of course, politics and ideology which places engineering well down the list of priorities and which lead to the mess in the first place.:2twocents
 
Wysiwyg said:
Bird and insect kills from irradiance.

Click to expand...


Poor little fellas.

I have actually driven past that tower, it's located on the drive between Las Vegas and LA.

I stopped to take a photo, and if you look at the top of the tower for to long you get sore eyes, it's a pretty intense amount of light being reflected up on those things.
 
http://interestingengineering.com/concrete-gravity-trains-may-solve-energy-storage-problem/
interesting, could be more applicable to Australia actually, when you look at the Toowomba range or any of the great dividing range to coast road-> and we can have rail easily done regarless of water scarity;
Smurf-> would also provide regulation/restart capacity no?
And can be automated....obviously friction, wear and tears etc but maybe not be that stupid, think about the way your great grandfather wall clocks were powered....
 
qldfrog said:
http://interestingengineering.com/concrete-gravity-trains-may-solve-energy-storage-problem/
interesting, could be more applicable to Australia actually, when you look at the Toowomba range or any of the great dividing range to coast road-> and we can have rail easily done regarless of water scarity;
Smurf-> would also provide regulation/restart capacity no?
And can be automated....obviously friction, wear and tears etc but maybe not be that stupid, think about the way your great grandfather wall clocks were powered....
Click to expand...

No big deal, its still using gravity to generate power, only pushing concrete uphill instead of water.

With pumped hydro though, if rain fills up the storage you essentially get free power, I don't see a concrete equivalent of that.
 
I am impressed with the concrete trains concept of storing and reproducing energy. It would be interesting to see independent analysis of the companies figures and comparison with alternatives.

I think various pumped energy solutions will depend on the physical geography of locations. It sounds like the Nevada location is well suited to this particular application.
 
SirRumpole said:
No big deal, its still using gravity to generate power, only pushing concrete uphill instead of water.

With pumped hydro though, if rain fills up the storage you essentially get free power, I don't see a concrete equivalent of that.
Click to expand...
true, but we often have a power issue here in Oz so that is one way around, obviously, given the choice, hydro is much better, but with rail, you do not have to wait for 10y of green tape
 
basilio said:
I am impressed with the concrete trains concept of storing and reproducing energy. It would be interesting to see independent analysis of the companies figures and comparison with alternatives.

I think various pumped energy solutions will depend on the physical geography of locations. It sounds like the Nevada location is well suited to this particular application.
Click to expand...
with rail, you need space, pb with water, and not too high a slope..which is what we have here
a modern clockwork mecanism..so my interest
 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
520
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top