The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Typo in my last post - it's Cethana power station. That's a t not a r.

Maybe someone could make a video of the tours and put it online so people who can't get there can see it.

 

[Smurf1976]

A video isn't a bad idea....

It looks quite different to any of the stations with open days this year but here's someone's video walking past the machines from the open day at Tarraleah PS in 2014.

Yep, Hydro does let visitors get up close to it all and not just look from a viewing area etc. And yes it's pretty noisy.

Tarraleah is old (1938) but still in full operation. The machines in the video are horizontal axis with the turbine at the same level next to the generator whereas the more modern stations use vertical axis machines (turbine at the bottom with a shaft connecting to the generator above).



And here's someone's video of Paloona from a previous open day there. Ignore their comments at the start however since they got that wrong - Paloona does have some storage (though not a lot but there's a dam and a lake) and capacity is 28 MW (so it's a small power station).

They didn't record the "official" commentary but it still shows what's inside. The actual generator is what's inside the big hexagonal box that people are standing on near the start of the video. After that it shows the ancillary equipment on the second level (that is, below what's shown at first). Not shown but below that level is the turbine - it's all connected together mechanically via the shaft.

In terms of visual appearance both Cethana and Meadowbank are broadly similar. Poatina also sort of similar, machines are vertical axis, but on a much larger scale with 6 of them.



The pipes visible are for lubricant and cooling oil not the water going through the turbine. That's a far bigger pipe, right at the bottom of everything, with over 100,000 litres per second going through.

Comparing a hydro station with a coal or gas fired plant there's not much in common in terms of how it all looks although the same principles apply. Turbine spins and is connected via a shaft to the generator.

Coal or gas plants in general also sound quite different due to the differences in rotational speed. 3000 RPM versus the much slower speed in a hydro station (about 150 to 750 RPM depending on design with most at the lower end of that range).

Also a coal plant will typically have much larger machines. Eg 200, 500 or 700 MW.

In contrast hydro generally involves a larger number of power stations but smaller generators in each since it's generally not practical to exploit the full possible water drop in a single location due to topography and where nature decided to put rivers.

For gas the machine sizes vary from very small to large so there's no general rule of thumb there.

 

[Smurf1976]

I see via the media that the Qld government is now warming of power shortages and restrictions being imposed this coming summer.

In theory Qld has sufficient supply so either there are problems with one or more major power stations in Qld that is being kept quiet, they haven't got enough fuel to run them with because it has all been sold overseas or it's some weird political strategy to have a shortage when there isn't one.

Regardless of the reason that leaves Tas, NT and WA with a reliable power supply. That said, in WA the government is doing everything possible to push the cost up so having plenty may be a moot point if it ends up too expensive to use.

So sad that we're in this mess given it has been readily apparent to many for fully 20 years what was coming.

 

[sptrawler]

I see via the media that the Qld government is now warming of power shortages and restrictions being imposed this coming summer.

In theory Qld has sufficient supply so either there are problems with one or more major power stations in Qld that is being kept quiet, they haven't got enough fuel to run them with because it has all been sold overseas or it's some weird political strategy to have a shortage when there isn't one.

Regardless of the reason that leaves Tas, NT and WA with a reliable power supply. That said, in WA the government is doing everything possible to push the cost up so having plenty may be a moot point if it ends up too expensive to use.

So sad that we're in this mess given it has been readily apparent to many for fully 20 years what was coming.

Yes smurph, everyone has capitalised on the the global warming, coal is poison.
Now they are trying to work out a solution, to a self imposed problem.
What a bunch of dicks.

I was reading an article today, that said base load was a myth, it is a fantasy.
Well I hope he is involved, in a State wide black start, with renewables.
I've been there done that, and it is a very tense operation, even with synchronous rotating plant.
Renewables can be done and should be done, but in a structured manner, not a State generated brain fart, as garpul would say.

 

[Smurf1976]

Well I hope he is involved, in a State wide black start, with renewables.
I've been there done that, and it is a very tense operation

At least in WA you could go to the beach when it was all done.

Seems to be a WA thing with Kwinana, Bunbury and before that South Fremantle power stations all built literarally right next to the beach. Convenient for cooling water and I suppose also convenient if someone wanted a swim after work.

What's really needed is to get innovation back nationally. There used to be a lot of competition there, some more serious than others, but it pushed things forward.

Every state was trying to do it better and cheaper. Scale was the key with bigger generators, higher transmission voltages, higher pressure both steam and hydro. And so on. Scale it up and it gets cheaper per unit of production.

Nobody at the political level seems interested in that approach of keeping costs down these days.

 

[basilio]

Part of the conversation about the future of energy generation is the role of coal fired power stations. So what is happening in this area and how is it being reported? This analysis is worth reading in full. It details the rapidly decreasing role of coal fired power around the world
However as usual one of the key take home message is

Never, ever, ever believe anything Andrew Bolt says without independent verification.
_______________________________________________________
The world is going slow on coal, but misinformation is distorting the facts
A recent story on 621 plants being built globally was played up in various media – but the figure is way off the mark



China still uses a stack of coal but data shows it has stopped construction at 33 sites in the past three months. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Shares
221

Comments
200
Adam Morton


@adamlmorton

Monday 16 October 2017 00.38 BST Last modified on Monday 16 October 2017 02.28 BST

This is a story about how misinformation can take hold. It’s not always down to dishonesty. Sometimes it’s just a lack of time, a headline and the multiplying power of ideological certainty.

Last week, China announced it was stopping or postponing work on 151 coal plants that were either under, or earmarked for, construction.

Last month, India reported its national coal fleet on average ran at little more than 60% of its capacity – among other things, well below what is generally considered necessary for an individual generator to be financially viable.

Neither of these stories gained much of a foothold in the Australia media. But one story on global coal did: that 621 plants were being built across the planet.

The line was run in print, repeated on national radio and rippled out on social media among likeminded audiences. Some politicians and commentators claimed it showed it was strange, maybe even ridiculous, that MPs, financiers and energy companies said new coal power stations had no role to play in Australia.


But the figure is wrong. Way off, in fact. According to the most recent data, there are 267 coal stations under construction. More than 40% of those are not actually new ones, but expansions of existing generators.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ing-slow-coal-misinformation-distorting-facts

 

[Smurf1976]

Like most people there aren't many things I'd consider myself an expert on. Power is one, a couple of other technical things too and that's it really.

Same with everyone. We have our areas of knowledge but for 99.9% if things we know enough to go get by through to nothing at all.

So I can only judge the mainstream media by how it reports things where I know the truth. So far as energy is concerned it wasn't too bad until about 20 years ago when whoever decided to replace hard facts with warm and fuzzy stuff. Numbers are out, meaningless waffle is in. Same with most subjects I expect other than those where the facts are reasonably well known - sports results, who actually won an election and yesterday's weather.

But even weather is getting a bit sensational these days with how it's reported. A forecast top of 29 in Hobart and the media is talking about a heatwave. Seriously! Now Tassie isn't exactly the hottest place but 29 isn't too uncommon and happens at least once most years. The all time record high for Hobart is 41.8 after all so 29 isn't extreme by any means.

Likewise one decent downpour in Sydney and the media turns that into predictions of an impending apocalypse. Pure sensationalism since rain in Sydney is a routine event, indeed it's the wettest of the state capitals.

Back to energy, the reason I see it as so important isn't purely related to personal interest. To quote a very old Hydro Tas newspaper advertisement which ran internationally circa 1930, cheap and reliable power really is the master key to industry. It was back then and still is today.

Can anyone name a single economic activity that doesn't in some way involve powered transport, process heat or electricity? Heck even a brothel uses a bit of power and a whale watching tour relies on people being able to get there.

Take away the power and the rest is useless. Even somewhere like WA with all those minerals - the whole lot is absolutely useless if there's no power, of whatever form, to extract, transport and ultimately process those resources into something useful. Use up all the NW Shelf gas, shut the coal mines at Collie and stop importing or refining diesel, petrol etc and that's it, WA's economy grinds to a halt and no amount of gold or iron will change that. Same concept anywhere else.

In getting ourselves into a situation where electricity and gas are expensive and becoming unreliable we've undermined 90%+ of all economic activity in the affected states.

God help us if the supply of petroleum products, which is incresingly vulnerable as domestic production falls, refineries close, demand rises and international tensions rise is actually disrupted.

I wonder how many realise that Australia has gone from 90% net self sufficiency in oil with 10 major refineries 30 years ago to barely 30% net self sufficiency and just 4 refineries today?

That's an incredible level of vulnerability and yet, with our heads firmly in the sand, we're the only developed country that chooses to not meet IEA recommend stock levels which we agreed to do. Even a lot of Third World countries, which are not formally obliged, have seen the need and are doing so anyway.

No matter what politicians do in the short term it seems that it's going to take a far bigger crisis to get the problems properly addressed. Running your air-conditioning will be the least of your worries if (when) there's a lack of petrol or diesel or you haven't got a job because businesses couldn't afford ever increasing electricity and/or gas costs.

 

[SirRumpole]

No matter what politicians do in the short term it seems that it's going to take a far bigger crisis to get the problems properly addressed. Running your air-conditioning will be the least of your worries if (when) there's a lack of petrol or diesel or you haven't got a job because businesses couldn't afford ever increasing electricity and/or gas costs.

Indeed so.

I see Adam Bandt today was calling for regulation of power prices. It would be a drastic move, but market economics in the power industry has failed dismally and regulation may be the only way out, at least temporarily until the infrastructure is renewed.

 

[sptrawler]

The Government is going to have to step in and regulate IMO, otherwise the fall in living standards, will be too rapid.
The Government tax take, won't be enough to support the welfare increases required, all sorts of "shonky" accounting is going to be required, to stop public unrest. Again only my humble opinion.

 

[Smurf1976]

It comes down to a more fundamental question in my view.

Do we want untilites such as gas, water and electricity to be profit making business like any other business ? Or do we want them to be a public service?

And if they are to be a public service then should that be one that recovers costs and no more? Or should it make a reasonable profit as a form of taxation? Or should it run at a loss, subsidised by taxpayers, in the interest of some greater good?

Traditionally the state owned utilities were essentially not for profit public services. As a whole they recovered costs but no more. Any profit in one year was used to avoid increasing, or in some instances outright reduce, prices charged in the following year. They held modest cash reserves in case unforeseen things went wrong but they didn't exist to make a profit as such.

One thing they did do was cross subsidise some consumers at the expense of others. Broadly speaking that meant those in the cities (lots of people) paid a few % above the actual cost and that money was used to provide the exact same prices to those in country areas (relatively few people) where the cost of supply is far higher due to distance and lack of scale. Tasmania still does that today, every household pays the exact same prices regardless of location, but it has become less common in other states.

Complicating any change is that the privately owned power stations, networks and retailers have all bought or established their businesses on the basis of government policies which encouraged, or in some cases outright guaranteed, that they were buying a profit making business. It wouldn't be fair to blame AGL, Origin, Energy Australia or anyone else for making a profit when that's what, as per government policy and indeed the law in the case of listed companies, they're supposed to be doing.

Even where there is still government ownership the electricity entities are today run as a for profit business. I'm not saying that's wrong or right but it's how it is and, to be fair, their privately owned rivals would be screaming pretty loudly if that wasn't the case.

Someone living in SA could choose to buy electricity from Red or Lumo (both owned by Snowy Hydro), they could choose to buy from Momentum (owned by Hydro Tas) or they could choose any of the many privately owned suppliers. Snowy is owned by the NSW (58%), Vic (29%) and federal (13%) governments and Hydro Tas is 100% owned by the Tasmanian state government. But when it comes to selling power in SA they're doing it to make a profit as everyone else indeed their owners do ultimately require them to run as businesses.

So it does come down to the fundamental question of what society wants electricity companies to be?

A for profit business?

A cost neutral public service?

Something else?

Perhaps the biggest problem though is that there's actually a focus, and it has become the dominant focus, with whose name is on the bill. Sending out invoices and taking payment ought to be the easy bit versus maintaining supply in a cost effective manner whilst addressing the CO2 issue which is an actual challenge requiring some genuine effort to resolve.

So far as the big picture on the supply side is concerned, if it were up to me then in the year 2028 (so a year to work out the details then 10 years to get it done) I'd be aiming for:

40% of all electricity generated nationally to be from non-fossil fuel sources which emit CO2 to the atmosphere.

If one company or one grid can't or doesn't want to meet that target then no problem so long as they arrange with someone else to exceed it. The aim is 40% nationally for all commercially generated electricity.

A maximum 3% of electricity generated from resources produced outside Australia unless the source country has no physical infrastructure with which to sell their energy resources to anyone else such that Australia is their only market with supply reasonably assured. So if it comes via a pipeline or cable from PNG then that's fine but oil shipped from the Middle East isn't. Reason = security of supply. Target to apply nationally with trading between regions etc OK.

Not more than one third of supply to any major grid to be reliant on any one piece of infrastructure (eg mine, rail line, gas plant, pipeline or gas field) or imported fuel sourced from a non-captive supply source. Exemption where the primary or only purpose of the power system is to supply mining or in remote areas where multiple supply sources are simply impractical. Reason = security of supply in the event of equipment failure, natural disaster, terrorism, international tensions etc.

A 50 year proven reserve requirement at the national level for coal and gas to meet present Australian consumption. Only reserves surplus to that are available for export.

A target 55% net self sufficiency in liquid fuels used for transport and lubricant purposes and the ability to produce that volume of refined products within Australia from domestic resources. No requirement in relation to oil used as boiler fuel etc. This is by far the most difficult and in practice requires some combination of fuel substitution to reduce demand for liquids (eg electricity or natural gas used to run cars, trucks, buses, trains and domestic shipping), making every possible effort to maximise Australian oil discovery and the production of liquid transport fuels from unconventional resources such as natural gas (to produce petrol, diesel etc not just LNG), biomass, oil shale or coal. Reason = national security given that we're absolutely stuffed in this country without access to liquid transport fuels and the international supply chain is vulnerable to say the least).

Immediately meet IEA agreements for 90 days worth of net oil imports held in stock at all times. And do so without resorting to arguments that no country other than Australia has proposed that natural gas or even coal still in the ground should be counted as oil (yep, the Australian government tried to argue exactly that a few years ago). Oil means exactly that - either crude oil, condensate or refined products which have already been produced and are promptly deliverable for consumption). Note that the 90 days storage need not be a government owned stockpile. It could be held by oil companies with a legislated requirement to do so and normal commercial stocks are included in this figure (but not including fuel held at service stations or in vehicle fuel tanks etc). It's not hard - we're the only developed country not already doing what we agreed to do with this one.

The figures I mention aren't intended as an ultimate solution. They're just what I'd get done by 2028 if it were up to me. After that I'd increase both the % of renewable electricity and self sufficiency in transport fuels in an orderly manner over time.

It's not up to me though so hopefully our politicians "get it" before it's too late.

 

[SirRumpole]

So it does come down to the fundamental question of what society wants electricity companies to be?

A for profit business?

A cost neutral public service?

Something else?

It's an essential service as far as I'm concerned and should be the responsibility of government to see that it operates in the national interest, which means provision of power at a price that does not put business at a disadvantage to overseas business, and is pegged at percentage of say the OAP to domestic consumers, but there should be some financial penalty on high household usage to discourage waste.

It's probably too late to re-nationalise the whole industry, but governments should be financing and owning capital intensive strategic power assets like spinning reserves; ie pumped hydro, batteries, the remaining coal stations and gas turbine stations and private suppliers can own renewables like solar and wind.

Consumers who install solar systems should be able to depreciate them on their tax returns to encourage take-up of these systems.

 

[luutzu]

Take a look at this, this is a Tesla power pack and solar installation in Hawaii, this offsets a lot of imported diesel. If they tried to use that same parcel of land to make ethanol or biodiesel, they wouldn't get any where near the amount of energy they get from those panels, plus they have to continually be farming and have risks of crop failure etc.

Not sure why Elon think, well I know why he think it's a good idea... but why would anyone else think it's a good idea to install a solar farm in Hawaii.

It's an island, surrounded by water, big water, salty water (Trump on PR )... So why not wind?

Or geothermal... being directly on top of an active volcano or two.

Unless you're a US billionaire, land is pretty scarce and expensive.

But yes, sure beat biofuel on the same parcel.

Most of the world is starving but some idiot think it's a good idea to turn corn and food into fuel for combustion engines.

 

[luutzu]

It's an essential service as far as I'm concerned and should be the responsibility of government to see that it operates in the national interest, which means provision of power at a price that does not put business at a disadvantage to overseas business, and is pegged at percentage of say the OAP to domestic consumers, but there should be some financial penalty on high household usage to discourage waste.

It's probably too late to re-nationalise the whole industry, but governments should be financing and owning capital intensive strategic power assets like spinning reserves; ie pumped hydro, batteries, the remaining coal stations and gas turbine stations and private suppliers can own renewables like solar and wind.

Consumers who install solar systems should be able to depreciate them on their tax returns to encourage take-up of these systems.

Chomsky: The interests of corporations and its owners is the "National Interest". All other interest are "Special Interest".

"What's good for GM is Good for America" [read by Reagan, written by GM].

And while it certainly is a great idea you got there with nationalising solar, wind and other renewable power stations of the future... Reality is we taxpayers of the (Western) world pay for the early stages of those development; subsidise the risky and unprofitable early construction and adoption stages.

Then once it starts to be all built, proven safe, reliable and profitable... our dear leaders privatise it off to friends and masters.

Owning stocks is definitely the right way to making money that's for dam sure.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's probably too late to re-nationalise the whole industry

I'm not advocating it, I've said before it's more about the what and how it's structured than who owns it, but it has been done before.

WA, SA and Vic all started out with private ownership of electricity. Tas had private ownership in Hobart and on the west coast with local government ownership in Launceston.

WA went for state ownership to get the East Perth power station built to make power available to the whole city using a local resource (coal from Collie). They tried to privatise almost as soon as it was built - only reason it didn't happen was because nobody wanted to buy it. Not one serious offer was made apparently.

Vic and SA did it in order to substitute locally mined coal rather than rely on unreliable supplies from NSW which were frequently (and intentionally) cut off.

The organisation now trading as Hydro Tasmania (which is a trading name only by the way - it's still the Hydro-Electric Corporation in a formal sense) started out under private ownership as the Hydro-Electric Power & Metallurgical Company. The state took over for two reasons - first because HEPMCo ran out of money and couldn't complete building the Waddamana power scheme and secondly due to a broader vision of massive expansion as a means of boosting the state's economy.

It's more complicated in Qld and NSW with a lot of local government involvement in the early years and then in NSW the state railways were also the power generation business. Both ended up with a state owned utility eventually though.

So whilst I'm not directly advocating it, it has certainly been done before.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Traditionally the state owned utilities were essentially not for profit public services. As a whole they recovered costs but no more. Any profit in one year was used to avoid increasing, or in some instances outright reduce, prices charged in the following year. They held modest cash reserves in case unforeseen things went wrong but they didn't exist to make a profit as such.

What happens when State owned businesses get privatised ...
1) Employee numbers get slashed heavily
2) Those that survive the cut have to fight (with Unions) to maintain at least the same level of wages and conditions. Company threatens alternate awards unless agreement is met.
3) Whole business sectors are deemed unsustainable and are contracted out or sold off completely.
3) Company policies and new work practices take control of your personal life by changing roster hours to meet business requirements and what you can and can't say about the business on social media. (yes employees disciplined over social media comments, social media policed?)
4) Management levels get large pay rises, Board members get massive pay increases. (one example by a union delegate was that it would take a worker 60 years to earn what the CEO earned in one year, a gob smacking fact.)
5) Company profits get passed to share holders because the business exists purely to satiate the share holders desire for more dividends and more profits yoy.
6) The business is always going through an apparent tough period and changes need to be made with cost reductions and employee involuntary redundancies while still profiting yoy.

I reckon the workers of Australia are getting taken for mugs.

 

[sptrawler]

It sounds as though the government has finally had the penny drop. They apparently will make energy companies meet reliability and emissions quotas, or face being de registered.
Finally something that puts the onus on the supplier, to provide reliability.
The way it was going, the energy companies would make money by shutting everything down, no fuel cost no wages, no reliability.
But that wouldn't be their fault, they would have satisfied the clean energy target, no problem.

 

[SirRumpole]

Excellent interview with Mark Collette , energy head for Energy Australia, explaining some of the problems with power supply in NSW.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-17/business-backs-national-energy-guarantee/9059844

 

[Macquack]

What happens when State owned businesses get privatised ...
1) Employee numbers get slashed heavily
2) Those that survive the cut have to fight (with Unions) to maintain at least the same level of wages and conditions. Company threatens alternate awards unless agreement is met.
3) Whole business sectors are deemed unsustainable and are contracted out or sold off completely.
3) Company policies and new work practices take control of your personal life by changing roster hours to meet business requirements and what you can and can't say about the business on social media. (yes employees disciplined over social media comments, social media policed?)
4) Management levels get large pay rises, Board members get massive pay increases. (one example by a union delegate was that it would take a worker 60 years to earn what the CEO earned in one year, a gob smacking fact.)
5) Company profits get passed to share holders because the business exists purely to satiate the share holders desire for more dividends and more profits yoy.
6) The business is always going through an apparent tough period and changes need to be made with cost reductions and employee involuntary redundancies while still profiting yoy.

I reckon the workers of Australia are getting taken for mugs.

I remember going to a protest rally against the proposed privatisation of electricity in NSW. I can't remember the year, but Morris Iemma was the Premier.

High school economics taught me that only a fool sells a goldmine and also that a monoply in a essential utility will lead to price gouging, profiteering and pain and suffering for the end consumer.

Turnbull's solution is to force the power companies to show the consumer the best plan that best suits their needs. What a load of bull****. Electricity is not the same as some exotic mobile phone plan.

 

[SirRumpole]

I remember going to a protest rally against the proposed privatisation of electricity in NSW. I can't remember the year, but Morris Iemma was the Premier.

High school economics taught me that only a fool sells a goldmine and also that a monoply in a essential utility will lead to price gouging, profiteering and pain and suffering for the end consumer.

Turnbull's solution is to force the power companies to show the consumer the best plan that best suits their needs. What a load of bull****. Electricity is not the same as some exotic mobile phone plan.

I was pretty disappointed with a Labour government's decision to sell public assets but I wonder how much the decision was influenced by Peter Costello's "assets recycling" policy which meant that States got no money for new infrastructure unless they sold existing assets first.

One of the great ideological obsessions that has landed us in the mess we have now.

 

[Macquack]

I was pretty disappointed with a Labour government's decision to sell public assets but I wonder how much the decision was influenced by Peter Costello's "assets recycling" policy which meant that States got no money for new infrastructure unless they sold existing assets first.

One of the great ideological obsessions that has landed us in the mess we have now.

The dopey NSW Labor Party (infiltrated by capitalist pigs) also sold off the NSW Lotteries Office. How f*cking stupid can you get.