The future of energy generation and storage

[moXJO]

Will the cost of all these transmission lines and maintaining them be significant?

Given we get bushfire where half the country is on fire will that affect lines and energy security?

These offshore windmill cables now seem to be at risk of submarine attack.
I'm just not convinced it's reliable or secure. At home solar and battery yes.

 

[sptrawler]

The debate is at least starting to take on a technical flavour, rather than BBQ chat and ideology banter, hopefully it brings all parties together to get down to the nitty gritty.

The whole debate has to move past the you said, I said tit for tat and get down to sensible technical dialogue rather than tribal politics, with a view to how their polling is going.

The energy outcome deserves better than that, Australia deserves better than that IMO.

Finally, reality bites the faux economics of Australia’s energy debate

The Coalition’s nuclear costing report’s theme is that all technologies should be on the table and subjected to analysis that reflects the real world.

www.afr.com

 

[farmerge]

The debate is at least starting to take on a technical flavour, rather than BBQ chat and ideology banter, hopefully it brings all parties together to get down to the nitty gritty.

The whole debate has to move past the you said, I said tit for tat and get down to sensible technical dialogue rather than tribal politics, with a view to how their polling is going.

The energy outcome deserves better than that, Australia deserves better than that IMO.

Finally, reality bites the faux economics of Australia’s energy debate

The Coalition’s nuclear costing report’s theme is that all technologies should be on the table and subjected to analysis that reflects the real world.

www.afr.com

Around the barbie at the son's recent 50th, power usage came up in the conversation.
Couldn't care less if there is a power outage, long or short.
Just crank up the generators and we can light up like a Christmas tree.
The pittance that we get back for the roof top solar panels is not worth even considering.

 

[SirRumpole]

The debate is at least starting to take on a technical flavour, rather than BBQ chat and ideology banter, hopefully it brings all parties together to get down to the nitty gritty.

The whole debate has to move past the you said, I said tit for tat and get down to sensible technical dialogue rather than tribal politics, with a view to how their polling is going.

The energy outcome deserves better than that, Australia deserves better than that IMO.

Finally, reality bites the faux economics of Australia’s energy debate

The Coalition’s nuclear costing report’s theme is that all technologies should be on the table and subjected to analysis that reflects the real world.

www.afr.com

It all comes down to who we want to believe.

A firm of economists or a team of scientists ?

The intriguing part is that the diverse views are so far apart.

If there really was a best technical and economic solution, then why are these "teams of experts" not in agreement?

Because both of them are guided by ideology and the wishes of their report's commissioners.

The real question is, where can we find a genuinely independent umpire who doesn't have a finger in the pie?

 

[qldfrog]

It all comes down to who we want to believe.

A firm of economists or a team of scientists ?

The intriguing part is that the diverse views are so far apart.

If there really was a best technical and economic solution, then why are these "teams of experts" not in agreement?

Because both of them are guided by ideology and the wishes of their report's commissioners.

The real question is, where can we find a genuinely independent umpire who doesn't have a finger in the pie?

If the technical expert is a believer of the CO2 causing CC religion, it will affect his proposed solution differently from a pure science and tech impartial expert.
Then do you use figures from EU, US, China and do you take or not into account that Australia has low or no expertise in many energy areas

 

[sptrawler]

It all comes down to who we want to believe.

A firm of economists or a team of scientists ?

The intriguing part is that the diverse views are so far apart.

If there really was a best technical and economic solution, then why are these "teams of experts" not in agreement?

Because both of them are guided by ideology.

The real question is, where can we find a genuinely independent umpire who doesn't have a finger in the pie?

It really shouldn't come down to what we believe, I have worked in this field my whole life, as I think @Smurf1976 has.

But I can't make a call on which is the way to go, it is a hugely complex issue on a technical, environmental, social and financial basis, for any individual to make a call on this is pure BS in my opinion.
Yet the outcome will reverberate for a long time whichever way it goes.

That's why I get a bit touchy when some profess to know the answer from what is in the media, they don't.

This will be a huge call, either way.
It makes the NBN brain fart look like ash tray money and it will have far greater ramifications than the NBN, the NBN fails we go back to free to air.
The electrical system fails, we go back to 3rd World.

IMO this really is the biggest call in our lifetime, because it has to work, that is the issue, not what it costs, it just has to work.

Failure isn't an option, I don't think anyone is taking it seriously enough, way too many vested interests having way too much say.

The good thing is people usually get what they deserve, so time will tell.

Just my opinion.

 

[qldfrog]

It really shouldn't come down to what we believe, I have worked in this field my whole life, as I think @Smurf1976 has, but I can't make a call on which is the way to go, it is a hugely complex issue on a technical, environmental, social and financial basis, for any individual to make a call on this is pure BS in my opinion, yet the outcome will reverberate for a lkng time whichever way it goes.
Tgat's why I get a bit touchy when some profess to know the answer from what is in the media, they don't.
This will be a huge call, either way.
It makes the NBN brain fart look like ash tray money and it will have far greater ramifications than the NBN.
IMO this really is the biggest call in our lifetime, because it has to work, that is the issue not what it costs, it just has to work.
Failure isn't an option.

If this is just so critical, lets fxxking build a big coal plant in the Qld Bowen basin and we can provide base load for the whole of the east coast/SA/Victoria easily and gor thf next 100y, plenty if vial and water, plenty of know how
Lets the greenies play with solar and wind on a competitive level: and we will have power and cheap..

 

[sptrawler]

If this is just so critical, lets fxxking build a big coal plant in the Qld Bowen basin and we can provide base load for the whole of the east coast/SA/Victoria easily and gor thf next 100y, plenty if vial and water, plenty of know how
Lets the greenies play with solar and wind on a competitive level: and we will have power and cheap..

That's the same as a left wing loonie saying just put a battery and a solar panel on every roof and all is good, it doesn't address the problem we have at the moment.
Both ideas aren't going to float, as you know.

 

[qldfrog]

That's the same as a left wing loonie saying just put a battery and a solar panel on every roof and all is good, it doesn't address the problem we have at the moment.
Both ideas aren't going to float, as you know.

It would..and it does not take 10y to build a coal power plant.but we want to create our own handicap and then be surprised we can not succeed.

 

[sptrawler]

It would..and it does not take 10y to build a coal power plant.but we want to create our own handicap and then be surprised we can not succeed.

Your causing a lot of drift and loss of focus.

 

[qldfrog]

Your causing a lot of drift and loss of focus.

Yes indeed, focusing back on creating power, with proven existing technologies, working 24/7 and with resources we actually got plenty of for the coming hundred years..but it is too easy

 

[sptrawler]

Yes indeed, focusing back on creating power, with proven existing technologies, working 24/7 and with resources we actually got plenty of for the coming hundred years..but it is too easy

Yes but that isn't on offer, so we can talk endlessly about it, to no avail ?
Rather than debate what is on offer.
A bit like saying covid was crap, it didn't change the process, so why argue about what isn't on the table?
At the moment the issue is a renewable and gas Vs a renewable and nuclear.
Neither side is lokking at coal as being a long term proposition, so ranting about the obvious benifits is pointless.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes but that isn't on offer, so we can talk endlessly about it, to no avail ?
Rather than debate what is on offer.
A bit like saying covid wad crap, it didn't change tge process, so why argue about what isn't on the table?

Because common sense will have to come back, real options put back on the table or we will face ruin.
Not an understatement.
Energy is the economy
Remember a few years ago, the only options acceptable were solar PV, wind and lithium batteries , even hydro was too naughty..and some even still push that.
Let's have a few blackouts and quickly.

 

[sptrawler]

Because common sense will have to come back, real options put back on the table or we will face ruin.
Not an understatement.
Energy is the economy
Remember a few years ago, the only options acceptable were solar PV, wind and lithium batteries , even hydro was too naughty..and some even still push that.
Let's have a few blackouts and quickly.

Ok, so let's get back on track, the renewable and gas option, or the renewable and nuclear option?
The other problem for you frog, is the fact you rant on about how we need to burn coal and renewables are $hit and you live off grid on solar and batteries and I may be wrong, but didn't you mention you were thinking of buying an MG EV?

It doesn't resonate well. Lol lol lol

 

[moXJO]

Ok, so let's get back on track, the renewable and gas option, or the renewable and nuclear option?
The other problem for you frog, is the fact you rant on about how we need to burn coal and renewables are $hit and you live off grid on solar and batteries and I may be wrong, but didn't you mention you were thinking of buying an MG EV?

It doesn't resonate well. Lol lol lol

Is gas quicker to build?

 

[IFocus]

Ok, so let's get back on track, the renewable and gas option, or the renewable and nuclear option?

I'll try and help you out here... nuclear, gas and renewables... how long did you work in the area?

The nuclear so called plan requires dam near as much gas as just renewables


Meow...

Carry on.

 

[moXJO]

Is gas quicker to build?

Scratch that it's obviously cheaper.

 

[IFocus]

Is gas quicker to build?

I'll answer as SP has NFI


Gas steam turbine or just gas turbine or maybe a cogen gas turbine capturing the heat for steam, maybe throw some diesel instead or a touch of hydrogen.


Answer yes depending size or output.

 

[moXJO]

I'll answer as SP has NFI


Gas steam turbine or just gas turbine or maybe a cogen gas turbine capturing the heat for steam, maybe throw some diesel instead or a touch of hydrogen.


Answer yes depending size or output.

Is patching all these renewables together going to cause issues?
I've got little to no idea on electricity generation. But I'd assume it would work renewables to transformer to substation and then fed to the lines.

So it would make sense to rural until you need to feed in gas generated stuff. If you wanted to not run power lines everywhere?

But on the other hand nuclear would get us to zero carbon at a cost and lengthy delay assuming I'd actually care about achieving that target.

 

[Smurf1976]

Will the cost of all these transmission lines and maintaining them be significant?

Given we get bushfire where half the country is on fire will that affect lines and energy security?

These offshore windmill cables now seem to be at risk of submarine attack.
I'm just not convinced it's reliable or secure. At home solar and battery yes.

It all comes down to numbers on both the technical side and the economics. Noting that 100% reliability isn't possible - we can get very close but that's all, it's never 100% there's always some chance of failure no matter what technology is used.

Fundamentally it's very similar to the operations of casinos, agriculture, aviation or the stock market. High reliability is possible but bottom line is the probability of disaster is never truly zero.

Casinos can go broke. The model of probability can indeed produce a string of heavy losses and bankrupt the casino. It's not impossible.

Agriculture can fail. Just needs enough floods, droughts, locust plagues and so on and humans starve. The chance that it happens is not zero indeed it's somewhat alarming to realise no proper modelling has been done, that human food supply is actually being left to chance.

Put your money into a portfolio of blue chip stocks and the chance that they all go to zero is extremely small but it's not zero, it is indeed possible that every large cap stock goes bust - very unlikely, but not totally impossible. Putting your money in the bank comes with the same risk, failure is not impossible.

Get on a plane and no matter how well it was designed and built, no matter how well trained the pilots are and how good the maintenance, there's a chance you'll never be alive on solid ground again. Disaster isn't impossible.

And so on. 100% reliability can't be guaranteed but we can do greater than 99.95% pretty easily.

From there it's a matter of data collection and calculation to determine the reliability of any given arrangement, or alternatively to determine what's required to achieve a high level of reliability in supplying any given load.

Done properly it's not about one technology being superior to another. They all can and will fail that's a given, all that varies is the nature and probability of that failure but none are bulletproof.

Pick any example of a failed electrical system, anywhere in the world, and almost always it comes down to one of these:

1. The original design or construction of equipment was inadequate either due to lack of knowledge at the time or due to recklessness.

Eg transmission lines in Australia built without an understanding of convective downbursts (a meteorological phenomenon not an electrical one) are an example of inadequate knowledge at the time.

2. Operation was reckless and/or maintenance was lacking.

Eg Callide C in Queensland - that's an almost incomprehensible level of incompetence.

3. Outright corruption, fraud, theft, sabotage etc.

Eg South Africa.

4. Geopolitics - someone intentionally caused it to fail, eg cut the fuel supply off.

Eg Russia versus the EU or prior to that the 1973-74 and 1979 oil crises.

5. The system with all its components was inadequate for the load placed upon it

In developed countries that last one tends to be the biggest risk and is often wrongly perceived as a failure of a specific technology. For example a coal plant fails during summer and the media headlines scream "coal fails in the heat", failing to grasp that firstly heat didn't cause the failure and secondly that the real problem isn't the failure of an individual generating unit but rather, it's having a system that can't cope with an entirely foreseeable event without leaving consumers in the dark.

That it worked so long as the weather was mild and demand was lower and that there were days when all coal plant worked perfectly is somewhat meaningless. Anyone competent knows that hot and cold weather occurs and that generation failures will occur hence reserve plant is required. There are proper ways to calculate that but as a simplification in layman's terms, take the maximum demand that's reached under whatever circumstance drives it (eg heatwaves) and add 20% and that'll be very close to correct. And yes, that ~20% most certainly is required - it's because generation outages are certain to occur and are in no way surprising.

Same with renewable technologies. Failures occur because the overall system wasn't up to scratch, it was inadequate for the load placed upon it and that being so it was inevitably going to run out of stored energy at some point. That it worked when demand was modest and the weather was favourable doesn't change this, if it's inadequately designed or operated then at some point it will fail that's a given.

Personally I'd be more than comfortable with any system that:

Is properly designed to an acknowledged reliability criteria based on system load at least equal to actual load.

Is operated to strict technical criteria based on the engineering design.

Is not subject to unmitigated geopolitical risk (eg fuel imports).

Has a clearly identified expansion path, specific projects, to be built if and when required. Noting this may evolve over time if technology changes.

Subject to periodic technical audit of key assets and procedures to mitigate the risk of recklessness (eg the Callide C scenario) and subject to routine testing of backup systems and procedures.

Nuclear or renewable?

Well I haven't answered that for a very good reason. The only rational reason to prefer one or the other is if you don't think we're capable of following rules for design and operation and are thus looking for something that's foolproof. From there well it has to be said that nuclear reactors, tanks full of LNG, big dams or large wind turbines all have something in common - they're a really bad idea in the hands of anyone incompetent or reckless, they're not an even slightly good workaround to that problem.

What really needs to happen is for politics to step back and shift the focus to maths and science.

Because we used to be really good at this stuff in Australia. All up Australia historically achieved quite a few world firsts with electricity and things relating to it so it's really quite ridiculous that we're struggling now. Go back 30 years and we easily be the US on price, today they beat us by a considerable margin. Etc. It's not that we can't do it, just that we've become distracted by two basic problems:

1. Engineering and economics has given way to politics and ideology as the basis for decision making.

2. The industry focus has shifted from cost minimisation to revenue maximisation.

That's it really. Fix those two points and the rest just goes away.