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
From a technical perspective if it moves or gets hot then it can be used to produce electricity.

So using trains to store energy is certainly doable, no question about that, since once moved up hill they'll come back down due to gravity and return most of the energy used to push them up hill in the first place (80% or so). So it's the same concept as pumped hydro albeit with a very different form and means of moving the physical mass required to make it work but it's ultimately the same principle being applied. Concrete on rails versus water in penstocks but it's still just a physical mass being moved up hill then back down.

One thing though would be durability. Hydro is among the most durable things built by man. There's plenty of old hydro stations still happily roaring away today ("roaring" being an appropriate term since the old machinery isn't exactly quiet). Lake Margaret is 103 years old and Tarraleah (both in Tas) is 79 years old and both still run base load today. Build it properly to start with, do proper maintenance on it and it's incredibly durable.

Railways aren't too bad in that regard but they're higher maintenance than hydro certainly.

It's an interesting concept though and there are certainly places where something based on trains could be built where pumped hydro couldn't and vice versa. AS with all this, cost will be what it comes down to in terms of viability.
 
sptrawler said:
A few questions jump out, like is there 8 hours of storage, when it is running?
Click to expand...
I assume it will operate in much the same way as a hydro scheme with limited storage.

Eg Trevallyn (Tas) has only minimal storage in Lake Trevallyn. 8 GL of water stored with an average daily inflow of a bit over 5 GL. So not much storage relative to inflows.

If it's raining a lot then Trevallyn runs base load. If it's dry then it runs for peak load only. Run it during business hours but not overnight when flows are in between the extremes. And if there's an outright flood well then the rest goes over the top of the dam and half of Launceston turns up to take photos (it's a pretty spectacular sight downstream in the Gorge with a decent flood going through).

End result is it never runs dry and the power station can always operate at full capacity during demand peaks if required. All that changes is the daily energy output and that is balanced using other parts of the system with larger storages (eg Gordon has 30% of system storage, it stores 2.5 years of average inflows, and thus runs hard when it's dry and is used for peak load only (and then only if demand is high enough to need it) when it's wet.

Same basic concept would apply to the solar thermal I expect with the only real difference being that the balance is being met by gas-fired generation rather than drawing on another storage as is done with hydro but it's the same concept on an individual power station basis. Always run for the peaks and use whatever energy is available beyond that at other times.
 

So if it is running at MCR all day, would there be 8 hours of storage, when the sun goes down?

On an overcast day, what would be the output and what would be the reserve capacity, when the sun goes down?

Will it be just another scam perpetrated on S.A, at a huge cost?
I hope not, it will have far reaching ramifications for the Greenies, if it all turns out to be a joke.
Seriously it seems that S.A is becoming a test bed, the initial post commented on the cost of molten salt vs coal. What has to be remembered, S.A just knocked over a fully functioning coal fired power station.
 
SirRumpole said:
A very interesting development.

Solar thermal power plant announced for Port Augusta 'biggest of its kind in the world'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-...r-plant-announcement-for-port-augusta/8804628
Click to expand...

These solar thermal plants often still use a fair bit of natural gas, they use gas to kick start them as the sun comes up, and then as the sun goes down, and also on cloudy days.


Not a big problem, because over all it's less carbon intensive than pure gas plants, I just thought it's an interesting point.

http://theconversation.com/if-a-solar-plant-uses-natural-gas-is-it-still-green-50046
 
Ivanpah doesn't have storage.

http://helioscsp.com/brightsource-i...oure-going-to-see-storage-in-future-projects/
 

That makes a bit more sense, thanks for the post Value Collector.
Using gas to prewarm and keep the medium heated, makes sense, but could be costly.
However, cycling steam turbines, has its own issues as steam temps have to be kept within limits.
My guess, after your post is once the thing is running, it keeps running. The long term costs will be interesting, I think everyone is buying the dream, reality may not live up to it, time will tell.
The other issue of course is cleaning the solar panels, I know they have vibrating technology, but with the dust from the Flinders Ranges I think it will create a lot of cleaning jobs.LOL
 

So what do you think that would add to the $kwH price for wind ?
 
SirRumpole said:
So what do you think that would add to the $kwH price for wind ?
Click to expand...
It would be dependent on a few factors, the load/size of the network, the amount of renewable capacity installed and what percentage is dispatched as a safe maximum.
Then it would depend on the type and size, of synchronous spinning reserve, you choose to install.
 
The commissioning of a cost competitive solar thermal power station looks like a milestone in moving away from the gross pollution of coal fired stations.
Perhaps it's worth recognising one of the big reasons (and certainly not the main one) to retire coal in power generation.

Australian coal-power pollution would be illegal in US, Europe and China – report
Environmental Justice Australia report says Australian coal-fired power plants regularly exceed lax limits imposed on them



A representative of Victoria’s Yallourn power plant, pictured, told the EPA it did not report when pollution levels were exceeded. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images


Shares
547

Comments
259
Michael Slezak


@MikeySlezak


email

Tuesday 15 August 2017 04.00 AEST Last modified on Tuesday 15 August 2017 07.25 AEST

Australian coal-fired power stations produce levels of toxic air pollution that would be illegal in the US, Europe and China, and regularly exceed even the lax limits imposed on them with few or no consequences, according to an investigation by Environmental Justice Australia.

The report reveals evidence that operators of coal power plants in Australia have been gaming the systems that monitor the deadly pollution, while others have reported figures the federal government says are not reliable.

EJA’s investigation reveals further cases of allegedly misleading behaviour. In Victoria, regulators are investigating one case in which a representative of a coal power plant allegedly said it regularly “simplifies” reporting during periods of excessive pollution by just reporting the figure allowed by its licence, rather than the actual amount.

Pollution from coal power plants kills hundreds of people each year in Australia. In Sydney alone, about 130 premature deaths are thought to be caused each year by coal-fired power stations, with worse impacts in regions near the stations.

Nationally, the health effects from the pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants are estimated to cost $2.6bn – a figure that would amount to $13.20 a megawatt hour if it were added to power costs.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ould-be-illegal-in-us-europe-and-china-report
 

Attachments

  • 3000.jpg
    11.2 KB · Views: 20
I'm unconvinced that it's killing people in Sydney given that the nearest coal-fired power station is rather a long way away and there are a lot more significant air pollution sources within Sydney itself.

Find some old photo of Hazelwood, Yallourn etc and you'll see very clearly that the SECV did reduce emissions over the years very considerably. Needless to say once it was all sold off the new owners weren't so interested in that sort of thing as it's a cost which produces no revenue.

It's sad when you consider that at various times NSW and Vic were both world leaders in this area. Still would be if the old research labs and so on still existed.

Here's an old photo of Yallourn showing, from left to right, C, B, A, D & E stations all in operation. Vic government photo from 1964. Note the two stacks on the right, that's E station and almost new when that photo was taken showing that things were getting cleaner as technology improved.

http://www.victorianplaces.com.au/s...ked/public/exhibits/JYB0207.jpg?itok=B3ljWnrT
 
Last edited:
Tasmania has decided to boost large scale renewable (hydro and wind) generation by 10% as a priority.

It's somewhat of a triumph politically to have a situation in any policy area with Labor, Liberal and the Greens all on the same page. It's an even bigger one given that it involves the power industry.

The details of how to do it are still being worked out but the short answer is more wind and hydro since those are the resources we've got with substantial potential at an affordable cost.

At an organisation level there's also a lot of acknowledgement within Hydro Tas that there's a need to better communicate all this to the general public. Letting the public have a look inside power stations, running traveling exhibitions, printing books and making films is one thing but that hasn't been enough since it only reaches those keen to know and with time to spare. There's a real need to get the message across to the rest of the community as to how such an incredibly complex system actually works and what's being done to ensure the lights stay on into the future.

So SA has their plan to fix their problems, Tas is doing OK anyway but has a plan to make sure it stays that way. Meanwhile Victoria seems to be blissfully unaware that they're staring down the barrel of a crisis with NSW next in line. Interesting times.
 
https://www.wired.com/story/bill-joy-finds-the-jesus-battery
could be the revolution we needed battery wise:remove need for liquid in battery replacing it by a 'plastic"-> far far less wear, less fire and safety risk and allow rechargeable batteries made from less expensive material; could be a deal breaker especially for static application: a big but cheap and going forever battery in each house/flat, massive storage capacity on the grid
.wait and see
 
At least the article was honest about the limitations of batteries, as we know them. I think your last statement is accurate "wait and see". Batteries have to move away from chemical reaction, how that is done, is the $60B question. IMO
 
sptrawler said:
At least the article was honest about the limitations of batteries, as we know them. I think your last statement is accurate "wait and see". Batteries have to move away from chemical reaction, how that is done, is the $60B question. IMO
Click to expand...
by moving away from liquid, we are half way there.in a (remote...) way in a semi conductor, you have a chemical reaction (exchange of electron from one atom to the other) so chemistry is not bad in itself;
The point they do not mention is the interface behaviour between that solid conductor and the various metallic components of the battery.I would expect some "wear"(pollution there) but not my domain of expertise.
 
I've dealt with plenty of different battery types over the years and they all have something in common. They work just fine until the inevitable happens - either capacity is lost or one or more cells fail completely.

If someone can come up with a practical, light weight, safe and truly durable battery then that will be right up there with electricity itself as a real game changer. No doubt about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
823
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
591
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
675
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
352
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...