The future of energy generation and storage

[PZ99]

QLD already rolling it out. They're calling it a super highway...

... off memory I think LPE are involved in it. (Not holding at present)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...boost-queensland-electric-car-numbers/8748246

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, pumped storage everywhere, so we can recharge our Tesla on the go.

Some people think it can all be done on renewables + storage. I don't know about that.

How much solar and wind are needed to supply daytime power AND recharge the pumped storages for overnight ?

Where is the spinning reserve ?

What about periods of adverse weather conditions, overcast and little wind ?

I think we need thermal backup, coal or gas as well.

 

[Value Collector]

?
I think we need thermal backup, coal or gas as well.

Coal will be phased out very slowly, that should allow for a steady ramp up of renewables.

Then you also have natural gas, which should be there to fill any gap.

I don't see storage (in the shorter term) as a way of getting rid of coal and gas, but as a solution to the current problems we have in meeting peak demands, while also allowing us to run the most efficient power plants at higher utilisation rates.

e.g. currently the most efficient power plants can't meet peak demand, so we have to switch on less efficient plants at peak times, but at off peak times the really good plants might drop to 60% capacity.

The storage would allow those efficient plants to operate at higher rates for longer periods, which is good for the environment, customers and the plants owners.

 

[Value Collector]

Check out this state by state real time 24 hour demand charts, you will see some pretty big peaks and valleys that storage will be able to level out, meaning we could actually deal with less over all capacity.

https://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-efficiency/electricity-demand-price/

looking at the demand charts (the green line), I just realised that the Tesla power wall would be perfect to help shift loads, because the middle of the day is quite low demand, so the market doesn't need all that solar energy peoples empty homes are producing, so its best to put most of it into the battery, then use that when we get home at night, because thats when demand sky rockets.

It also means that there is capacity to charge cars not only at off peak at night, but also while people are at work, when demand is low during the day.

 

[Wysiwyg]

And those are model S and X, which are well over $100K.

Yeah well

 

[sptrawler]

Where is the spinning reserve ?

What about periods of adverse weather conditions, overcast and little wind ?

I think we need thermal backup, coal or gas as well.

So does South Australia.

The major issue is, who the hell is going to pay for this pie in the sky stuff, in the timeframe that is being banded around.

 

[PZ99]

I don't want to burn anything. I'd rather export it - and use the money to build pumped hydro.

That article Horace linked to earlier said there are 20,000 available sites for pumped hydro - far in excess of our needs.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The major issue is, who the hell is going to pay for this pie in the sky stuff, in the timeframe that is being banded around.

That is my cue to introduce you to Sarah Hanson Young.

 

[Smurf1976]

Pumped hydro storage 'could make Australia run on renewable energy alone within 20 years'

Smurf's known that for a very long time.....

If we're going to use energy sources which are inherently intermittent then we need some means of storage. Batteries and things like compressed air have a role certainly but hydro is the big gun with that one in terms of scale, technical suitability (big rotating machines win over anything else when it comes to inertia) and cost.

From a technical perspective it's certainly possible to have a fully renewable electricity supply system if we build enough storage facilities to make it work. Not all but most of those storage facilities will in practice need to be pumped hydro.

 

[SirRumpole]

From a technical perspective it's certainly possible to have a fully renewable electricity supply system if we build enough storage facilities to make it work. Not all but most of those storage facilities will in practice need to be pumped hydro

I heard a suggestion of covering the surface of these storages with solar PV panels to reduce evaporation. Practicable ?

There seemed to be a bit of blue sky optimism in the article I quoted.

Professor Blakers said if pumped hydro storage facilities were built at just a handful of sites spread out nationwide, Australia could run on renewables alone.

A "handfull" is 5 sites ? Surely it can't be that easy ?

 

[Smurf1976]

Rottnest Island in WA is getting more serious about renewable energy:

https://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/news/2017-09/renewable-rottnest

 

[Wysiwyg]

From a technical perspective it's certainly possible to have a fully renewable electricity supply system if we build enough storage facilities to make it work. Not all but most of those storage facilities will in practice need to be pumped hydro.

That's it! A solar power plant (panels and batteries) to run pumps. Multiple pumps for maintenance/backup purpose. Pump the water straight back up again. As Rumpole posted evaporation and water loss rates would have to be known.

 

[basilio]

That's it! A solar power plant (panels and batteries) to run pumps. Multiple pumps for maintenance/backup purpose. Pump the water straight back up again. As Rumpole posted evaporation and water loss rates would have to be known.

And guess what ? The first candidate for such a project can come online by 2021.. It will provide 25% of the soon to be closed Liddel power station.

Pumped hydro project that reuses old goldmine expected to win federal funding
Combined solar and pumped hydro generator set to provide quarter of shortfall from Liddell power station’s closure

• How an abandoned goldmine will be converted into pumped hydro storage



The two disused pits that will be repurposed as part of the combined solar and pumped hydro project at the old Kidston goldmine in north Queensland. Photograph: Genex


Shares
23

Comments
182
Australian Associated Press

Thursday 21 September 2017 08.42 BST Last modified on Thursday 21 September 2017 08.52 BST

A pumped hydro project that reuses an old goldmine in north Queensland is close to securing federal funding.

The combined solar and pumped hydro generator is set to provide a quarter of the power needed to cover the shortfall from the closure of the Liddell coal-fired power station in New South Wales and can do it before 2021.

Experts have also identified more than 22,000 prime sites around Australia where additional pumped hydro storage could be quickly built.

The Kidston mine project, being built by Genex Power with some assistance from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, starts with a solar farm that will be ready to send power to households during the coming summer.

The Genex executive director, Simon Kidston, says the first electricity will be generated in the first week of December and it will be brought up to the full 50 megawatt capacity by early February.

The company is finalising its finance to build the second phase of the project and is close to receiving approval for a loan from the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.

The plan is to build a world-first integration of solar generation and pumped hydro storage, repurposing the two 300-metre deep disused mine pits to create 250MW capacity that can run for six hours continuously.

“It really makes intermittent energy reliable and dispatchable – and that’s really the holy grail of the renewable energy industry,” Kidston said.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-old-goldmine-expected-to-win-federal-funding

 

[Smurf1976]

I heard a suggestion of covering the surface of these storages with solar PV panels to reduce evaporation. Practicable ?

There seemed to be a bit of blue sky optimism in the article I quoted.

A "handfull" is 5 sites ? Surely it can't be that easy ?

5 sites is not enough but the real point is that there's truly massive potential compared to what we actually need. So we can pick the best ones and ignore the rest.

Best? Low cost, near existing transmission lines, not going to upset anyone due to environmentla or other reasons, reasonable distance from a town so there's somewhere to base the maintenance workers without huge commuting distances. Bonus points if the water reservoir has some other practical use in addition to power.

As for covering it with solar panels, well I suppose that could be done but it's not a necessity. How much it would cost I've no idea but it sounds like a rather complex way of generating solar power compared to just putting the panels on conventional mounts sitting on the ground. Less evaporation yes, but evaporation isn't a massive issue anyway for most potential sites (especially those using sea water or in places with lots of fresh water available).

Key point though is that there's thousands of potential sites and we only need to use a few % of them to make this work. If there's some problem with one particular site such as geology or an endangered species living there then just cross that one off the list and develop a different one instead. There's plenty to choose from.

The technology is all absolutely proven. Water storage, pipes, pumps, turbines and generators, conventional high voltage electrical equipment. Absolutely noting needs to be invented, it's just a case of designing, building and operating.

Lifespan? As with any hydro scheme it's indefinite with proper maintenance but for accounting purpose 90 or 100 years is normally used as the lifespan. It's not like coal where there's a practical limit around 50 years before the boiler tubes thin out and the whole place is falling apart and needs to be rebuilt.

Maintenance is the key if you want it to last though. At any given time there's almost always something being pulled apart for inspection or put back together down here in Tas so any problems are spotted early and can be addressed. In the other states some companies are pretty good at that but others aren't......

 

[Value Collector]

5 sites is not enough but the real point is that there's truly massive potential compared to what we actually need. So we can pick the best ones and ignore the rest.

Best? Low cost, near existing transmission lines, not going to upset anyone due to environmentla or other reasons, reasonable distance from a town so there's somewhere to base the maintenance workers without huge commuting distances. Bonus points if the water reservoir has some other practical use in addition to power.

As for covering it with solar panels, well I suppose that could be done but it's not a necessity. How much it would cost I've no idea but it sounds like a rather complex way of generating solar power compared to just putting the panels on conventional mounts sitting on the ground. Less evaporation yes, but evaporation isn't a massive issue anyway for most potential sites (especially those using sea water or in places with lots of fresh water available).

Key point though is that there's thousands of potential sites and we only need to use a few % of them to make this work. If there's some problem with one particular site such as geology or an endangered species living there then just cross that one off the list and develop a different one instead. There's plenty to choose from.

The technology is all absolutely proven. Water storage, pipes, pumps, turbines and generators, conventional high voltage electrical equipment. Absolutely noting needs to be invented, it's just a case of designing, building and operating.

Lifespan? As with any hydro scheme it's indefinite with proper maintenance but for accounting purpose 90 or 100 years is normally used as the lifespan. It's not like coal where there's a practical limit around 50 years before the boiler tubes thin out and the whole place is falling apart and needs to be rebuilt.

Maintenance is the key if you want it to last though. At any given time there's almost always something being pulled apart for inspection or put back together down here in Tas so any problems are spotted early and can be addressed. In the other states some companies are pretty good at that but others aren't......

So what is the hold up? Are they not profitable?

I mean if they could earn some where between 8% - 12% Roc, I thought companies like Apa would be all over it, with 75% debt funding you would have a pretty decent Roe.

I am thinking environmental concerns might be the hold up, there would be loads of red tape, gas fired peaking plants are probably easier and quicker to organise, and could earn around the amount.

 

[Smurf1976]

In short it's uncertainty. That there's no clear consensus politically as to where we're going so few are willing to take the risk of investing in a very long term asset.

 

[sptrawler]

So what is the hold up? Are they not profitable?

I mean if they could earn some where between 8% - 12% Roc, I thought companies like Apa would be all over it, with 75% debt funding you would have a pretty decent Roe.

I am thinking environmental concerns might be the hold up, there would be loads of red tape, gas fired peaking plants are probably easier and quicker to organise, and could earn around the amount.

I think the hold up will be the guarantee of supply, the government will be looking for some guarantee of supply, if they don't get that they will be just throwing away money.

Any idiot can put their hand out for Government money, to put in some crack pot generator.
If the Government requires some guarantee, that the generator will perform to a standard for a defined period, then there will be a bit of gagging going on.
That is unless you do it like Labor, then just pay out the money and who gives a rats as to the outcome.

 

[Smurf1976]

Any idiot can put their hand out for Government money, to put in some crack pot generator.
If the Government requires some guarantee, that the generator will perform to a standard for a defined period, then there will be a bit of gagging going on.

Which puts Snowy Hydro with their "Snowy 2.0" project and Hydro Tasmania with their multiple projects as the front runners along with projects built by others but drawing on their engineering expertise.

That's not to say that nobody else could do it but there's a definite advantage in already being a large hydro operator proposing to do more versus someone looking to cash in on the latest trend.

Hydro is a very workable technology but it does require a lot of engineering work designing it all since everything is site specific. It's not like just buying some gas turbines and plonking them on the ground wherever. That aspect alone would likely be scaring off some who have the $ but not the engineering background.

Where it could get complicated is with funding.

"Snowy 2.0" (Snowy Hydro) is around $2 billion for the power stations, tunnels etc. Plus another $1 - 2 billion for transmission infrastructure to make it work so $4 billion all up. That gives 2000 MW.

"Battery Of The Nation" (Hydro Tas) comes to about $5 billion for 2500 MW.

Now, where are we going to find that sort of money?

 

[Value Collector]

Where it could get complicated is with funding.

"Snowy 2.0" (Snowy Hydro) is around $2 billion for the power stations, tunnels etc. Plus another $1 - 2 billion for transmission infrastructure to make it work so $4 billion all up. That gives 2000 MW.

"Battery Of The Nation" (Hydro Tas) comes to about $5 billion for 2500 MW.

Now, where are we going to find that sort of money?

Those numbers aren't overly big, there are a lot of very big balance sheets out there.

To put it in perspective, Fortescue invested $12 Billion to build their 4 mines, train lines and port, and other infrastructure.

Apa group has around $15 Billion of assets on their balance sheet.

Berkshire Hathaway (one of the worlds biggest investors in electricity infrastructure) has $60Billion of cash (yes that's just their cash).

There is plenty of cash looking for a home at 6% for bonds and 12% for equity, these deals would be financed easily if they were viable and would generate the required returns.

 

[SirRumpole]

"Snowy 2.0" (Snowy Hydro) is around $2 billion for the power stations, tunnels etc. Plus another $1 - 2 billion for transmission infrastructure to make it work so $4 billion all up. That gives 2000 MW.

"Battery Of The Nation" (Hydro Tas) comes to about $5 billion for 2500 MW
Now, where are we going to find that sort of money?

No more corporate tax cuts ?

Negative gearing costs $8 billion pa.

Tax concession on superannuation cost $30 billion pa.