The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Double red flag as soon as the word "community" is mentioned. I've seen enough debates to know where that one goes. About the last people to accept the wishes of the community are the Greens - they're firmly in the category of yes means yes, no means yes when it comes to that one. Either the community agrees with what they want or they'll force it anyway.

Haha very true.

If we have to have blackouts in the future I would like the first "communities" hit to be those that objected to new generation or transmission projects in their area, like Port Stephens or in the Burdekin hydro area, or maybe some of the TEAL seats.

Mendacious thinking I suppose, but some people live in a fairy land if they think we can have any form of power without the downsides.

 

[qldfrog]

Haha very true.

If we have to have blackouts in the future I would like the first "communities" hit to be those that objected to new generation or transmission projects in their area, like Port Stephens or in the Burdekin hydro area, or maybe some of the TEAL seats.

Mendacious thinking I suppose, but some people live in a fairy land if they think we can have any form of power without the downsides.

The inner city green electorates are always the last to be cut

 

[qldfrog]

Note about hydro:
If you like nature and are a green person, but not a watermelon, hydro creates reservoirs which are haven of wildlife , increasing local biodiversity.
sure a 5m wide stream might be going under but waterfowl, frogs and reptiles, bigger fish will come.
It is funny how it is one sided by opposition, whereas i am still to see any biodiversity in glyphosate sprayed solar farm deserts, nor much wildlife nesting in wind turbines

 

[SirRumpole]

Note about hydro:
If you like nature and are a green person, but not a watermelon, hydro creates reservoirs which are haven of wildlife , increasing local biodiversity.
sure a 5m wide stream might be going under but waterfowl, frogs and reptiles, bigger fish will come.
It is funny how it is one sided by opposition, whereas i am still to see any biodiversity in glyphosate sprayed solar farm deserts, nor much wildlife nesting in wind turbines

Yes, I think hydro has more environmental upsides than a lot of other 'green' technology.

Water that could be used for other purposes as well, although I accept that things might get tricky for multi-use dams when one group want water to irrigate crops and another wants it for electricity. There needs to be strict rules and observance thereof.

 

[Smurf1976]

The inner city green electorates are always the last to be cut

In SA the load shedding list is public whereas in most places it's strictly confidential.

In short if you're not in the actual CBD and you're not critical infrastructure of some sort (eg sewage treatment, hospitals,) then you're on the list. There's an order to it but it's not a hierarchical one, it's simply an endless loop list - next time it starts wherever it finished last time, so over enough incidents everyone gets the same level of disruption.

Noting that some arrangements do exist with critical infrastructure operators to voluntarily cut load where required and it's practical to do so. Eg can't turn the water pumps off forever, but depending on circumstances they may well be able to turn them off for an hour or two without consequence.

SA list is here: https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/852827/Manual-load-shedding-list.pdf

For those unfamiliar, the vast majority of names there are suburb and town names and the rest are specific businesses or other feeders.

Should load shedding be necessary, it'll resume where it last ended, so next on the list are Woodville Gardens and Wingfield (refer page 7).

Note this assumes planned manual load shedding. Obviously it doesn't apply if a specific network or other failure blacks out a particular area. It's only for intentional load shedding to reduce total system load.

Most places releasing the list would be a career ending event at best, prison at worst. In SA it's publicly available to anyone.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes, I think hydro has more environmental upsides than a lot of other 'green' technology.

Water that could be used for other purposes as well, although I accept that things might get tricky for multi-use dams when one group want water to irrigate crops and another wants it for electricity. There needs to be strict rules and observance thereof.

That also may support turning a lot of Tassie dams into pumped hydro installations, as the cropping etc may not be a big issue, @Smurf1976 may have some insight into the prospect of pumped hydro in Tassies existing dam network.

 

[SirRumpole]

That also may support turning a lot of Tassie dams into pumped hydro installations, as the cropping etc may not be a big issue, @Smurf1976 may have some insight into the prospect of pumped hydro in Tassies existing dam network.

I would think that if the dams had been built without hydro then there would have been an alternative use for them, eg water supply to towns, agriculture or flood mitigation, so the introduction of hydro may affect those other operations, but it would be interesting to know if there are possibilities for hydro at those dams.

 

[SirRumpole]

Dealing with Dunkelflaute (when the sun doesn't shine and the winds don't blow).

Excellent examination of energy storage options.

 

[SirRumpole]

An excellent discussion on the costs of nuclear power.

 

[sptrawler]

An excellent discussion on the costs of nuclear power.

Well let's go through all the options.

Choose your poison.

10 reasons why hydropower dams are a false climate solution - International Rivers

Originally published in Alternet by Josh Klemm and Eugene Simonov Not only does hydroelectric power fail to prevent catastrophic climate change, but it also renders countries more vulnerable to climate change while emitting significant amounts of methane, one of the worst greenhouse gases. A...

www.internationalrivers.org

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/569586-hydropower-dams-are-not-the-solution-to-the-climate-crisis/

Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds

Research challenges idea that sending liquefied natural gas around the world is cleaner alternative to burning coal

www.theguardian.com

Gas industry in damage control as landmark study finds LNG 'worse than coal' for the climate

For years, the mantra from the industry has been that gas is a bridge between coal and renewable energy. A landmark study has sensationally challenged that idea.

www.abc.net.au

 

[qldfrog]

Well let's go through all the options.

10 reasons why hydropower dams are a false climate solution - International Rivers

Originally published in Alternet by Josh Klemm and Eugene Simonov Not only does hydroelectric power fail to prevent catastrophic climate change, but it also renders countries more vulnerable to climate change while emitting significant amounts of methane, one of the worst greenhouse gases. A...

www.internationalrivers.org

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/569586-hydropower-dams-are-not-the-solution-to-the-climate-crisis/

Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds

Research challenges idea that sending liquefied natural gas around the world is cleaner alternative to burning coal

www.theguardian.com

Gas industry in damage control as landmark study finds LNG 'worse than coal' for the climate

For years, the mantra from the industry has been that gas is a bridge between coal and renewable energy. A landmark study has sensationally challenged that idea.

www.abc.net.au

once you start fromrubbish science with co2 causing climate change, there is no limit as to how much corruption you can do, you can twist any data as you want;
What is the co2 cost of keeping nuclear waste in a pool refrigerated for the next 10 thousand years? no typo here;
Unless we believe that the hot swimming pool is a plus in winter?
Please bring figure ,
Is a solar panel built in China using mostly coal energy from minerals extracted with fossil fuel,
then carried into Australia using trucks, dirty fuel ships and installed by a tradie in a Ford ranger on a roof top, at most fully efficient for 15y max, ever able to recoup its CO2 cost?
Genuine questions and if you get an answer, it might not follow the narrative but hey.
And I do not even want to consider wind farms setup offshore.

 

[sptrawler]

once you start fromrubbish science with co2 causing climate change, there is no limit as to how much corruption you can do, you can twist any data as you want;
What is the co2 cost of keeping nuclear waste in a pool refrigerated for the next 10 thousand years? no typo here;
Unless we believe that the hot swimming pool is a plus in winter?
Please bring figure ,
Is a solar panel built in China using mostly coal energy from minerals extracted with fossil fuel,
then carried into Australia using trucks, dirty fuel ships and installed by a tradie in a Ford ranger on a roof top, at most fully efficient for 15y max, ever able to recoup its CO2 cost?
Genuine questions and if you get an answer, it might not follow the narrative but hey.
And I do not even want to consider wind farms setup offshore.

That's true, I don't know why people keep going on about cost, when they are spending $300billion on submarines, cost really should be the last thing brought into the equation.
What works is the most important part, that needs to be sorted first,

 

[qldfrog]

That's true, I don't know why people keep going on about cost, when they are spending $300billion on submarines, cost really should be the last thing brought into the equation.
What works is the most important part, that needs to be sorted first,

Simply if reducing co2 per kwh is the aim, we should at the very least not discard working setup to replace them with higher co2 per kwh , wether untested or not working solutions.
Isn't it the obvious yet...

 

[qldfrog]

That's true, I don't know why people keep going on about cost, when they are spending $300billion on submarines, cost really should be the last thing brought into the equation.
What works is the most important part, that needs to be sorted first,

A cheap non working solutions is an expensive one indeed, and when it isn't cheap in the first place

 

[qldfrog]

That's true, I don't know why people keep going on about cost, when they are spending $300billion on submarines, cost really should be the last thing brought into the equation.
What works is the most important part, that needs to be sorted first,

We gave 1.5 billion to Ukraine in the last few years so money is no problem for our masters

 

[SirRumpole]

What works is the most important part, that needs to be sorted first,

What works best at the cheapest cost.

 

[sptrawler]

What works best at the cheapest cost.

That isn't always the best way, as you know, life tells you that over and over again. If your statement was true there would never be any expensive tools sold, everyone would be driving Chinese cars and trucks.

The best IMO will be Hydro, but as Snowy 2.0 shows it has taken a long time to build and the cost has gone up considerably, despite much of the preliminary work already carried out years before.
From memory 5 Snowy 2.0 size projects are required, there has been much talk about that, has there?

The Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project in Australia has been over budget and delayed due to poor planning, rising costs, and other factors:

• Cost
  The project's cost has increased from $2 billion to $12 billion, which is six times the original estimate. This is due to delays, rising equipment and staff costs, and poor planning.

Timeline
The project has been delayed by seven years. The project is now expected to be completed by the end of 2028.


Try telling people,"well we saved a lot of money", when they are sitting in the 40c house, I don't think they would be saying "WOW that's great, Thanks".

Like I said roll out the plans with experts to check them out, when they know which plans will work, cost them the answers will become obvious as it is all around the World.

'Norway's two governing parties want to scrap an electricity interconnector to Denmark, with the junior coalition partner also calling for a renegotiation of power links to the UK and Germany, as sky-high prices trigger panic in the rich Nordic country.'

Most countries are reviewing their plans and adapting, we can't get past the BS and tribal politics, to actually have a grown up discussion about it federally, so people have to do their own research which then becomes more missinformation.

Europe must learn from Germany's power grid expansion mistakes – network operator

www.cleanenergywire.org

Europe has to better coordinate its electricity grid buildout, and other countries should learn from Germany's mistakes, said Michael Jesberger, member of the executive board at grid operator TransnetBW, in an interview with Tagesspiegel Background. Neighbouring countries should avoid the mistake of first focusing on renewables expansion and then facing lagging grid development, which has led to costly re-dispatch measures. In recent years, Germany at times has had to throttle renewables installations in the north and fire up conventional power plants in the southern consumption centres due to grid bottlenecks in-between. Key hurdles to grid expansion in Germany include long permitting and planning procedures, but also recurring issues with the supply chain of materials, such as steel or chips, and a lack of skilled workers, Jesberger said.


Another article:
What is Germany's main power source?

fossil fuels

Energy in Germany is obtained primarily from fossil fuels, accounting for 77.6% of total energy consumption in 2023, followed by renewables at 19.6%, and 0.7% nuclear power. On 15 April 2023, the three remaining German nuclear reactors were taken offline, completing the country's nuclear phase-out plan.


Everywhere is having issues, hopefully we solve ours.

 

[sptrawler]

Well who wouda guessed @SirRumpole , they needed an investigation to work this out.

Power findings show ‘failure of privatisation’: SA energy minister

Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the behaviour of large power generators reported by the Australian Energy Regulator is “extremely concerning”.

www.afr.com

The Australian Energy Regulator’s findings that large power generators may be artificially pushing up prices for consumers at peak periods represents a failure of the privatisation of the sector, South Australian Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says.

Mr Koutsantonis pointed to the AER’s report, released on Friday, which examined five instances where one electricity supplier increased the bid price of its capacity with the aim of increasing revenue and inflating its returns.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well who wouda guessed @SirRumpole , they needed an investigation to work this out.

Power findings show ‘failure of privatisation’: SA energy minister

Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the behaviour of large power generators reported by the Australian Energy Regulator is “extremely concerning”.

www.afr.com

The Australian Energy Regulator’s findings that large power generators may be artificially pushing up prices for consumers at peak periods represents a failure of the privatisation of the sector, South Australian Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says.

Mr Koutsantonis pointed to the AER’s report, released on Friday, which examined five instances where one electricity supplier increased the bid price of its capacity with the aim of increasing revenue and inflating its returns.

Whouda thunk it eh?

 

[Smurf1976]

Choose your poison.

Not having a go personally but it's pretty much a given that anything from an anti-hydro organisation is going to argue that hydro isn't good. And it's not likely the Guardian are going to say anything positive about gas (or hydro or nuclear).

I'll argue that what's needed is the consistent application of science on a project-specific basis.

Because there are some places where hydro would be shockingly bad, others where it's pretty benign, and same can be said for the location of a nuclear plant or wind farm. The impacts aren't generic, it depends on the detail. Pretty much nobody other than those with hard line ideological views are today lamenting that Lake Eildon was created but the same can't be said for the damming of Lagoon of Islands - that was a serious mistake yes.

Much the same with nuclear. Sensibly located, properly designed, built and operated is one thing. Poorly designed, recklessly operated or located next to the ocean in a place prone to tsunamis is quite something else.

Unlike burning gas or diesel that does have a generic impact that's much the same anywhere and is essentially the baseline against which to compare alternatives. Anyone proposing hydro is, in the Australian context at least, proposing it as an alternative to gas or diesel so they're a relevant benchmark.