The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

Energy infrastructure can be put to other good uses too, like this...

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3189819/down-to-earth-thrills-photos-video/?cs=95#slide=16

 

[sptrawler]

Energy infrastructure can be put to other good uses too, like this...

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3189819/down-to-earth-thrills-photos-video/?cs=95#slide=16

There is absolutely no way, I would be getting over that handrail.

 

[Smurf1976]

There is absolutely no way, I would be getting over that handrail.

I haven't done the abseil but it's on the list of things to do someday.

Anyone can visit Gordon Dam however, and if you're in Tas then it's worth the trip for the scenery alone (with or without actually going onto the dam) and the road is sealed all the way.

As for the dam itself, anyone can have a look from the top and it requires no special physical fitness - just the ability to walk down then back up some ordinary stairs from the car park. No chance of accidentally falling off as the rails are chest height.

Back to the future of energy generation and storage, Gordon is a highly unlikely place for a pumped storage scheme since doing that would require another dam downstream. That debate was done to death in spectacular fashion a third of a century ago and won't likely be revived anytime soon - let's not go there now. But there's space in the power station for another 2 machines (there's 3 at present) which would add more peak generating capacity. That would be of use if, at some future time, wind and solar are far larger contributors to the grid than they are at present.

At present, Gordon power station runs inverse to system inflows. That is, it generally runs base load during dry weather and peak load when it's wet. That's in order to use the very large storage capacity to take load off / put more load on other parts of the system which have much smaller storage (relative to annual inflows) according to prevailing weather conditions. It was more of a base load operation, with only 2 machines, when first built but the third machine was added in 1988 to offset seasonal fluctuation in output from the Pieman scheme (which has relatively little storage) commissioned in the 1980's.

It takes about 2.5 years, with zero operation of the power station and assuming average inflows, to raise the storage level from empty to full. That's massive storage and potentially very useful to integrate with intermittent renewables.

 

[sptrawler]

I haven't done the abseil but it's on the list of things to do someday.

Anyone can visit Gordon Dam however, and if you're in Tas then it's worth the trip for the scenery alone (with or without actually going onto the dam) and the road is sealed all the way.

As for the dam itself, anyone can have a look from the top and it requires no special physical fitness - just the ability to walk down then back up some ordinary stairs from the car park. No chance of accidentally falling off as the rails are chest height.

Back to the future of energy generation and storage, Gordon is a highly unlikely place for a pumped storage scheme since doing that would require another dam downstream. That debate was done to death in spectacular fashion a third of a century ago and won't likely be revived anytime soon - let's not go there now. But there's space in the power station for another 2 machines (there's 3 at present) which would add more peak generating capacity. That would be of use if, at some future time, wind and solar are far larger contributors to the grid than they are at present.

At present, Gordon power station runs inverse to system inflows. That is, it generally runs base load during dry weather and peak load when it's wet. That's in order to use the very large storage capacity to take load off / put more load on other parts of the system which have much smaller storage (relative to annual inflows) according to prevailing weather conditions. It was more of a base load operation, with only 2 machines, when first built but the third machine was added in 1988 to offset seasonal fluctuation in output from the Pieman scheme (which has relatively little storage) commissioned in the 1980's.

It takes about 2.5 years, with zero operation of the power station and assuming average inflows, to raise the storage level from empty to full. That's massive storage and potentially very useful to integrate with intermittent renewables.

Was that the Gordon on Franklin, loonie tunes green fiasco, about twenty years ago?

Now it would save the planet, then it was all about the wilderness, best the greens decide what is important.

Rather than just stopping everything.

 

[Smurf1976]

Was that the Gordon on Franklin, loonie tunes green fiasco, about twenty years ago?

It was settled in the High Court 32 years ago and the rest is history. A lot of people still have strong views over that issue but my personal view is very much "let it rest" so far as that one's concerned.

From a purely practical perspective, there's a lot that can be done with solar, wind definitely and maybe geothermal before there's any need to re-run debates about dams in the wilderness. Those things weren't options in an economic sense (technically yes but not economically) back then but they are now.

Energy efficiency too. There's no point ramping up supply just so that we can leave a few million office PC's running all night for no real benefit. Etc.

The point stands however that hydro, be it natural flow or pumped, is an extremely fast response means of generation and also the only "conventional" source which offers storage as an inherent part of it. It has a role to play in the future from existing schemes certainly and no doubt we'll see some re-working of some of them to direct production to a different profile.

Go forward another decade or two and by that time it ought to be a lot clearer where we're really heading. If solar and batteries haven't worked out on a large enough scale then, and only then, it might make sense to look at more contentious options such as big dams, nuclear etc.

That aspect, time, is why I have no problem with the continued operation of the brown coal plants in Victoria. Close them today and there's not too many real alternatives to building another fossil fuel plant. We're not going to get 6000 or even 1000 MW of base load generation up and running from solar in the next year or three. As such, it's a question of old coal for another 20 years versus new coal for another 50 years, no coal isn't an immediate option. But keep them going and within a decade it ought to be much clearer. With a bit of luck and sensible politics we'll be well down the track of a clear strategy that doesn't require a direct replacement such that a gradual, orderly wind down of coal-fired generation over the period 2025 - 2050 won't be a problem.

If it becomes clear that we can't achieve a real switch to wind and solar etc, for whatever reason, that's when we're faced with the hard choices about nuclear power, dams in the wilderness and so on. Right now there's no actual need to do either.

 

[sptrawler]

It was settled in the High Court 32 years ago and the rest is history. A lot of people still have strong views over that issue but my personal view is very much "let it rest" so far as that one's concerned.

From a purely practical perspective, there's a lot that can be done with solar, wind definitely and maybe geothermal before there's any need to re-run debates about dams in the wilderness. Those things weren't options in an economic sense (technically yes but not economically) back then but they are now.

Energy efficiency too. There's no point ramping up supply just so that we can leave a few million office PC's running all night for no real benefit. Etc.

The point stands however that hydro, be it natural flow or pumped, is an extremely fast response means of generation and also the only "conventional" source which offers storage as an inherent part of it. It has a role to play in the future from existing schemes certainly and no doubt we'll see some re-working of some of them to direct production to a different profile.

Go forward another decade or two and by that time it ought to be a lot clearer where we're really heading. If solar and batteries haven't worked out on a large enough scale then, and only then, it might make sense to look at more contentious options such as big dams, nuclear etc.

That aspect, time, is why I have no problem with the continued operation of the brown coal plants in Victoria. Close them today and there's not too many real alternatives to building another fossil fuel plant. We're not going to get 6000 or even 1000 MW of base load generation up and running from solar in the next year or three. As such, it's a question of old coal for another 20 years versus new coal for another 50 years, no coal isn't an immediate option. But keep them going and within a decade it ought to be much clearer. With a bit of luck and sensible politics we'll be well down the track of a clear strategy that doesn't require a direct replacement such that a gradual, orderly wind down of coal-fired generation over the period 2025 - 2050 won't be a problem.

If it becomes clear that we can't achieve a real switch to wind and solar etc, for whatever reason, that's when we're faced with the hard choices about nuclear power, dams in the wilderness and so on. Right now there's no actual need to do either.

To me the issue is, what is sustainable, with minimal impact.

Hydro is retention of normal weather events, over a small catchment area, then controlled release of the water.

It has a minimal footprint impact, who knows what impact geothermal heat recovery, will have?
Especially on multiple large scale installations, that really is a step into the unknown.IMO

 

[DB008]

Could this have something to do with the massive supply charge increase (39% in 1 year) ?

Queensland Budget: $4.1 billion of State debt to be transferred to power distributors​

ELECTRICITY prices won’t rise and no one will be forced from their job when the Government shifts $4 billion in debt on to power company books, according to Treasurer Curtis Pitt.

Mr Pitt has the revealed plans to reduced Government debt by $4 billion by moving to Government-owned corporations

Power distributors Powerlink, Energex, Ergon Energy as well as generators CS Energy and Stanwell will pick up the debt, but Mr Pitt said it would not force power prices up.

“All of our advice is there should be no direct impact what so ever on electricity prices as a result,” he said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-budget-41-billion-of-state-debt-to-be-transferred-to-power-distributors/story-fntuy59x-1227435905506​

 

[Smurf1976]

To me the issue is, what is sustainable, with minimal impact.

Hydro is retention of normal weather events, over a small catchment area, then controlled release of the water.

Hydro is sustainable, there's no real question about that. You build the scheme, it runs for a century or more, and there's nothing to prevent running it basically forever.

But there's no denying that in order to create a storage reservoir, an area that is currently land ends up under water and as was spectacularly demonstrated a third of a century ago not everyone agrees with that idea....

http://www.hydro100.com.au/sites/hy..._timeline_image/public/GbF2.png?itok=3cx_XGri

I do think that the debate may be re-run someday but it won't be anytime soon in my opinion. There's a lot of easier options now that weren't available back then, so logically we'd build those before getting excited about putting anything under water.

That said, if Abbott continues on the current path then we'll end up with a conflict sooner rather than later. The rest of the world will decide for us that coal isn't the future, the Qld LNG plants have killed the idea of gas for baseload generation whilst government is making sure that non-hydro renewables don't work on a decent scale either. That leaves, in practice, three choices. Nuclear, hydro or shivering in the dark. Well, it's 3 choices unless you count the ridiculous idea of burning forests to keep the lights on.

 

[DB008]

LG Chem pushes Australian battery storage prices further down the curve​

The competition in the nascent battery storage market continues to intensify, with South Korean appliance manufacturers LG Chem launching a new 6.4kWh battery storage system that approaches the key $1,000/kWh mark.

The new battery storage system is being made available to consumers in the next few weeks, and follows the release into the Australian market of AU Optronics, promoted by AGL Energy, and rival offerings from Samsung, Enphase, Panasonic and SMA.

But the LG Chem system is already bringing costs down at the top end of the market – matching the assumed pricing of the much vaunted Tesla Powerwall, with the advantage that it is actually in the market.

LG’s Chem Residential Energy Storage Unit (RESU) 6.4kWhr battery is similar in size, shape and capacity, to the Tesla offering, and is expected to last 15 to 20 years, or at least 6,000 cycles. It is being offered in Australia at $A6,898. The first supplies have arrived in Australia via wholesalers Solar Juice.

http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/lg-chem-pushes-australian-battery-storage-prices-further-down-the-curve/​

 

[overhang]

Energy infrastructure can be put to other good uses too, like this...

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3189819/down-to-earth-thrills-photos-video/?cs=95#slide=16

Isn't the worst part of the abseil the staircase back up?

 

[ghotib]

Smurph? Anyone? Does this apply in Oz? Is it significant as well as astonishing?

...The reality is that a thousand gas-fired power plants built in the U.S. do not operate properly in white knuckle emergencies. In the discussion with regulatory staff, Troy Blalock, reliability expert at South Carolina Electric & Gas, explained how jaws hit the floor as NERC’s investigation into reliability questions found that all three of the gas generator manufacturers (GE, ABB, Siemens) predominant in the U.S. had for years been delivering equipment that fail to provide this “essential reliability service”. As word spread around the 3-day NARUC conference, this news caused the same speechless, open-mouth expression.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/jaw-dropping-news-in-the-solar-vs-fossil-fuels-debate-37496

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurph? Anyone? Does this apply in Oz? Is it significant as well as astonishing?

In layman's terms:

The grid operates with all generation and loads in parallel. That is, your solar inverter at home in, say, Queensland and your toaster are in parallel with the alternators at Loy Yang (Vic), Eraring (NSW) and every other power station in the grid.

Grid frequency is a constant across the entire AC grid. Whatever it is in Adelaide, it will be exactly the same in Brisbane since they are connected to the same AC grid. The only exception is Tasmania, which is linked to Victoria by DC and thus can operate at a (slightly) different frequency. But with AC, frequency is a constant across the grid.

The issue relates to what happens when something goes wrong. For example, suppose that a major fault occurs at Bayswater power station (NSW) and trips two units offline removing 1300 MW of generation. That's a plausible fault and it's not overly unusual for such things to happen. In that scenario grid frequency will start to fall across the entire grid and the reliance is upon remaining generation as the first action to stabilise that frequency by increasing output, the only other defence to prevent an outright system collapse being load shedding (blackouts).

So some generation trips, other generation ramps up output in the short term with the medium term (beyond the first few minutes) solution being to reallocate supply via normal processes which may involve bringing additional machines online (hydro, gas, diesel) or increasing the output of any unit (coal, gas, hydro, diesel) already in operation.

But it's the immediate response that's critical to stabilising the situation. If frequency falls too far then a point comes where other generation units will start to trip involuntarily thus losing more supply and load will be shed. But load shedding isn't the objective, it's the last resort to avoid total system collapse and whilst it works in theory there have been plenty of examples in practice where it has failed to keep the system live. So the immediate response really is critical.

What the problem is, is that the governor settings are wrong. They don't respond to an incident (loss of generation or transmission) in the way that they should. Have enough plants like that and there's a real risk that we all end up in the dark for quite a while.

I don't know if it affects any Australian plants or not. Our frequency is different to the US (they have 60Hz, we use 50Hz) and there are some technical differences in the required response. So there's no chance they have the exact same settings, but it's not impossible that some Australian plants might not behave as desired.

If you were to visit a power station as a member of the public then one thing that's pointed out on tours (here in Tas at least) is frequency control. Show people the equipment, explain how it works (apply more energy to the turbine if frequency drops) and explain that frequency control is a very major focus of operations and that there's very little tolerance allowed. As an analogy, it's the same concept as maintaining the speed of a car's engine at a constant level regardless of whether you're going up hill or down but with no gear shift. In a car, your brain and foot does this, you push harder on the pedal when going up hill so as to put more fuel into the engine and maintain speed then you take your foot off once you reach the top of the hill. Same concept in a power station apart from being automated.

What about wind and solar? Since the energy input is intermittent and highly variable they aren't well suited to frequency control other than by means of deliberately wasting some of the available energy so as to have more available if suddenly needed. Eg if you can produce 100 MW then for economic reasons that's what you normally produce and you can't suddenly ramp that up to 110 MW if something trips offline. But you could just run at 90 MW, wasting the other 10 MW, if you did want the ability to ramp up quickly. That's uneconomic however and with the relatively low proportion of wind and solar in most grids not really necessary at this point in time.

Other means used to lesser extent include flywheels, batteries and braking resistors. A braking resistor is just a load - turn it on if frequency rises too high (eg because a big factory or transmission line tripped offline) to put more load on the system and get rid of the surplus power as heat. That's just a temporary measure and not all grids have such things but they do exist. Batteries etc are normally either not used at all, or are are found only in very small systems. Eg on King Island we've got the lot in an effort to maximise the use of wind and solar energy and minimise the use of diesel. But that's a small system not a major grid.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's working nicely on King Island so now it's time to do the same on Flinders Island which currently relies on diesel for power supply.

http://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/ne...-work-start-flinders-island-hybrid-energy-hub

 

[sptrawler]

It's working nicely on King Island so now it's time to do the same on Flinders Island which currently relies on diesel for power supply.

http://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/ne...-work-start-flinders-island-hybrid-energy-hub

The way the diesel couples, and uncouples from the generator, is clever.

 

[Smurf1976]

The way the diesel couples, and uncouples from the generator, is clever.

Sure is. Already have one on King Island so this will be the second.

The idea of making it all modular is that it may open up the possibility of sales elsewhere as an off the shelf "packaged" and proven solution. Eg remote towns anywhere that aren't on the grid, mining industry etc. Anyone currently using diesel for permanent power generation.

 

[sptrawler]

Sure is. Already have one on King Island so this will be the second.

The idea of making it all modular is that it may open up the possibility of sales elsewhere as an off the shelf "packaged" and proven solution. Eg remote towns anywhere that aren't on the grid, mining industry etc. Anyone currently using diesel for permanent power generation.

Yes the synchronising time for the diesel has been a major hurdle, that overcomes the issue, great idea.

 

[sydboy007]

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/net...ry-fees-for-all-to-stop-grid-defections-28523

The Energy Networks Association says the proposals are deliberately calibrated to stop people from leaving the grid, and kicking off what is often described as the “death spiral”, as the networks seek to recover lost revenues from those consumers who remain.

The change to a decentralised grid, based around solar and storage rather than big centralised generation, is seen as inevitable, and many analysts say that networks – which in Australia account for more than half of most bills following a massive ($45 billion) and questionable spending splurge in recent years – will have to change the way they do business, or even write down the value of their assets.

But the networks are digging in, refusing to countenance write-downs, and now want consumers to pay for the networks whether they use them or not. Alternatively, they want any households that leave the grid to pay their “historic” share of grid capacity as a penalty for leaving.

Grid defection is likely to become a real option for many consumers, because of the huge falls in the cost of rooftop solar PV, and the falling cost of battery storage. Soaring network fees and rising fixed charges is reducing the pay-back for solar-only installations, but is likely to encourage more battery storage.

Funny how large foreign and / or well connected local companies never seem to have to pay for their mistakes. Over invest and just work out a way to make the community pay for it.

 

[SirRumpole]

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/net...ry-fees-for-all-to-stop-grid-defections-28523



Funny how large foreign and / or well connected local companies never seem to have to pay for their mistakes. Over invest and just work out a way to make the community pay for it.

And shows what a con privatisation of the grid system is. It's one of the few times you have to pay for not using a service.

 

[Smurf1976]

And shows what a con privatisation of the grid system is. It's one of the few times you have to pay for not using a service.

That could be shortened to "shows what a con privatisation is" since it's not just electricity where what used to be cheap now costs a relative fortune.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's now official public news that Hydro Tas will be permanently closing and decommissioning the Tamar Valley Power Station combined cycle unit.

This is a 208 MW combined cycle gas-fired plant, the only such unit owned by HT. Technically it's fine, but it's just not economic to turn gas into baseload electricity these days and likely won't be in the future hence the decision to sell the equipment for relocation somewhere else (likely offshore).

It was first conceived by Alinta aiming to compete against HT. Then Babcock and Brown owned it but never finished building it, ultimately selling to Aurora Energy who completed the plant but almost went broke running it.

HT acquired it last year and promptly shut the operation down. The contracted loads and also the gas supply contracts are where the value is, the power station itself is a financial loser. Hence HT shut the plant down as soon as ownership was transferred, supplied the contracted loads from other sources of generation and set up a gas retail business (within Momentum Energy which is owned by HT) to sell the gas to homes and business in Victoria.

The 4 small open cycle gas turbines which can burn either natural gas or diesel (gas is the main fuel in practice) at the site will remain at least for now. 3 x 40MW and 1 x 58MW so nothing major. They're rarely used but are flexible enough in operation to make some $ running during the peaks so might as well keep them.

It's the the first CCGT plant to actually be decommissioned in Australia and with gas prices going up it won't be the last.

Collinsville (Qld, coal, 190 MW) = closed in practice
Swanbank B (Qld, coal, 480 MW) = closed
Swanbank E (Qld, gas, 385 MW) = mothballed (not closed as such)
Wallerawang (NSW, coal, 1000 MW) = closed
Munmorah (NSW, coal, 600 MW) = closed
Redbank (NSW, coal, 150 MW) = closed
Morwell (Vic, coal, 190 MW) = mothballed
Anglesea (Vic, coal, 150 MW) = closing in a few weeks
Tamar Valley (Tas, gas, 208 MW) = closed
Northern (SA, coal, 540 MW) = closing in a couple of years
Playford B (SA, coal, 240 MW) = mothballed now and closing along with Northern
Torrens Island A (SA, gas, 480 MW) = announced closure 2017

All up there's 4613 MW on that list. That's more than enough to run all of SA and is bigger than any coal (or nuclear or gas) plant we're likely to see in Australia within the next few decades. It's a lot of power.

Meanwhile NZ is soon to close the last two steam units at Huntly which will mark the end of large scale coal-fired generation in that country (they still have significant use of gas and a modest amount of oil however).