The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Dutton to revive Morrison's 'gas-fired recovery' in election pledge to cut energy bills

Details of the coming promise to voters, which follows months of consultation with the gas industry, are being calibrated to counter Labor's likely strategy of ongoing direct-to-households energy bill relief.

www.abc.net.au

I'm not a big fan of gas for generation either, it is too valuable and versatile fuel, to be burning it through a gas turbine to make electricity.
Just my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

Dutton to revive Morrison's 'gas-fired recovery' in election pledge to cut energy bills

Details of the coming promise to voters, which follows months of consultation with the gas industry, are being calibrated to counter Labor's likely strategy of ongoing direct-to-households energy bill relief.

www.abc.net.au

I'm not a big fan of gas for generation either, it is too valuable and versatile fuel, to be burning it through a gas turbine to make electricity.
Just my opinion.

Well, gas turbines burn more than gas, so may it's time to start thinking about a bio-fuel or hydrogen industry.

If they are just peaking plants then the fuel usage shouldn't be enormous.

 

[sptrawler]

Well, gas turbines burn more than gas, so may it's time to start thinking about a bio-fuel or hydrogen industry.

If they are just peaking plants then the fuel usage shouldn't be enormous.

Like I said early on, it is best to be pragmatic about it and use what best suits the situation and have an open mind, the focus should be on outcomes not elections.

At the moment it is all about elections and never agreeing with the other side and that goes both ways, you are never going to get the best outcome that way.

 

[SirRumpole]

At the moment it is all about elections and never agreeing with the other side and that goes both ways.

All ways if you include the Greens.

 

[sptrawler]

All ways if you include the Greens.

Yes it is crazy, there will be technically advantageous way of doing this, that would deliver the smoothest, most secure and future proof outcome IMO that's what's needed.

Technology is changing and improving on all fronts, so structuring everything toward one current technology is probably a very risky way to go.

None of the parties are really talking about hydro, the Tassie link has been scaled back to one cable, rather than the original two, that seems crazy as Tassie would be ideal to expand pumped hydro storage I would guess.

The whole debate now revolves about huge nuclear and gas, or huge renewables and gas, seems that the brains have left the room to me.
That gas may be required to mitigate emissions, in industries where electrification isn't possible, but no one is mentioning that issue.

The whole transition needs to be looked at holistically, not just on getting rid of the power stations, the issue of emissions is a lot broader than that.
But I can't say too much, otherwise I will be attacked, by the cheer squad, for being a dumb ar$e.
It certainly is interesting times, meanwhile the emissions keep rising, that seems to have taken a back seat to coal.
It's not about emissions anymore, it's about coal, which is only one part of the bigger picture.

 

[Smurf1976]

Well, gas turbines burn more than gas, so may it's time to start thinking about a bio-fuel or hydrogen industry.

Biofuels do work in a technical sense there but, without wanting to sound like I'm jumping on your suggestion, there's a major flaw which is scale.

To produce enough natural gas by synthetic means, using hydrogen from electrolysis combined with carbon from biomass as the feedstock, would require approximately 64.7 GW of electricity supplied constantly and 124 million tonnes of wood per annum.

To put that into perspective, that's just over double Australia's present generation of electricity from all sources in all states, including generation by the mining industry, remote areas, rooftop solar etc as well as large scale generation in the main grid.

As for the wood, well suffice to say Tasmania was at one point highly controversially the world's single largest exporter of woodchips, producing 6 million tonnes per annum. We're going to need more than 20 times that amount and whilst it doesn't all need to come from Tasmania, bottom line is it far exceeds any sensible yield from the forests.

Agricultural crops? Well the entire world production of wheat is only a bit over 800 million tonnes. And the above figures are just to supply gas in Australia, nowhere else, and only natural gas at that. So that isn't including ethane gas (petrochemical feedstock), propane (LPG) or butane (LPG) just natural gas itself.

I trust the problem here is readily apparent. I'm in no way opposed to the idea of making use of waste materials from agriculture, offcuts from sawmills and the like as an energy source, that makes logical sense, but there just isn't enough of it to replace more than a tiny minority of the fossil fuels we use at present.

Worth noting that the reason the British started mining coal in earnest was simply that they were running out of trees to cut so the problem isn't new.

Whilst I've got the figures out, just adding that gas consumption isn't aligned with population. Share by state as follows (ACT is included in NSW figures):

WA = 45.1%
Queensland = 19.8%
Victoria = 14.5%
NSW = 9.2%
NT = 5.8%
SA = 5.1%
Tasmania = 0.5%

Key drivers of that are industrial use and electricity generation. % share of gas for specific uses as follows:

Mining and manufacturing:
Queensland = 64.6%
Victoria = 33.0%
NSW = 43.9%
WA = 53.6%
NT = 53.8%
SA = 33.0%
Tasmania = 59.7%

Electricity generation (note this is the % of gas used for electricity not the % of electricity from gas):
Queensland = 30.7%
Victoria = 9.8%
NSW = 17.1%
WA = 43.0%
NT = 44.9%
SA = 49.7%
Tasmania = 29.2%

Residential as a % of total gas use:
Queensland = 1.7%
Victoria = 42.6%
NSW = 24.3%
WA = 1.5%
NT = effectively zero
SA = 9.2%
Tasmania = 5.6%

Other uses (transport, non-industrial business, public services etc):
Queensland = 2.9%
Victoria = 14.6%
NSW = 14.7%
WA = 1.9%
NT = 1.2%
SA = 8.0%
Tasmania = 5.6%

All data from Australian Government statistics for 2022-23. End use figures for Tasmania should be used with caution given the overall small scale of gas consumption and the effect of rounding.

As a conclusion, realistically if we're to end the use of fossil natural gas then we need to use a lot less gas and that includes using far less than at present in power stations. Bearing in mind that replacement of residential use will take an extended period, and some industrial uses can't be replaced at all.

 

[SirRumpole]

Biofuels do work in a technical sense there but, without wanting to sound like I'm jumping on your suggestion, there's a major flaw which is scale.

To produce enough natural gas by synthetic means, using hydrogen from electrolysis combined with carbon from biomass as the feedstock, would require approximately 64.7 GW of electricity supplied constantly and 124 million tonnes of wood per annum.

To put that into perspective, that's just over double Australia's present generation of electricity from all sources in all states, including generation by the mining industry, remote areas, rooftop solar etc as well as large scale generation in the main grid.

As for the wood, well suffice to say Tasmania was at one point highly controversially the world's single largest exporter of woodchips, producing 6 million tonnes per annum. We're going to need more than 20 times that amount and whilst it doesn't all need to come from Tasmania, bottom line is it far exceeds any sensible yield from the forests.

Agricultural crops? Well the entire world production of wheat is only a bit over 800 million tonnes. And the above figures are just to supply gas in Australia, nowhere else, and only natural gas at that. So that isn't including ethane gas (petrochemical feedstock), propane (LPG) or butane (LPG) just natural gas itself.

I trust the problem here is readily apparent. I'm in no way opposed to the idea of making use of waste materials from agriculture, offcuts from sawmills and the like as an energy source, that makes logical sense, but there just isn't enough of it to replace more than a tiny minority of the fossil fuels we use at present.

Worth noting that the reason the British started mining coal in earnest was simply that they were running out of trees to cut so the problem isn't new.

Whilst I've got the figures out, just adding that gas consumption isn't aligned with population. Share by state as follows (ACT is included in NSW figures):

WA = 45.1%
Queensland = 19.8%
Victoria = 14.5%
NSW = 9.2%
NT = 5.8%
SA = 5.1%
Tasmania = 0.5%

Key drivers of that are industrial use and electricity generation. % share of gas for specific uses as follows:

Mining and manufacturing:
Queensland = 64.6%
Victoria = 33.0%
NSW = 43.9%
WA = 53.6%
NT = 53.8%
SA = 33.0%
Tasmania = 59.7%

Electricity generation (note this is the % of gas used for electricity not the % of electricity from gas):
Queensland = 30.7%
Victoria = 9.8%
NSW = 17.1%
WA = 43.0%
NT = 44.9%
SA = 49.7%
Tasmania = 29.2%

Residential as a % of total gas use:
Queensland = 1.7%
Victoria = 42.6%
NSW = 24.3%
WA = 1.5%
NT = effectively zero
SA = 9.2%
Tasmania = 5.6%

Other uses (transport, non-industrial business, public services etc):
Queensland = 2.9%
Victoria = 14.6%
NSW = 14.7%
WA = 1.9%
NT = 1.2%
SA = 8.0%
Tasmania = 5.6%

All data from Australian Government statistics for 2022-23. End use figures for Tasmania should be used with caution given the overall small scale of gas consumption and the effect of rounding.

As a conclusion, realistically if we're to end the use of fossil natural gas then we need to use a lot less gas and that includes using far less than at present in power stations. Bearing in mind that replacement of residential use will take an extended period, and some industrial uses can't be replaced at all.

I've heard positive things about algae but there is a scale problem there as well.

 

[Smurf1976]

It’s bizarrely fashionable to declare that the energy transition needs to feature a diversified mix of power sources.

If diversified energy sources are great, then why not add wind, solar, hydrogen and hydro power to your car?

Because the costs are too high.

The need for diversity has been well understood for over a century. Only real exception is in locations with enough hydro to use that exclusively, anywhere else benefits economically from a mix of generation.

Sir John Monash, after whom a university is named among other things (and he was indeed in charge of electricity in Victoria for many years) wrote a pretty decent layman's terms paper on the subject. He's been dead for 93 years but the fundamentals haven't changed in that building high capital cost plant for low capacity factor use is uneconomic, and building high short run marginal cost plant for high capacity factor use is also uneconomic.

That's pretty fundamental economics there, the trade off between capital versus operational cost and the need to build plant based on its intended usage.

What that argues against isn't solar, nuclear, coal, gas, hydro or anything else. What it argues against is the really quite bizarre notion that plant with different characteristics ought be in a market competing against each other. The very notion that low SRMC plant won't be operated consistently of itself destroys the economics of not just that generation but of the entire system.

In other words, if you're going to build high capital cost, low marginal cost plant (nuclear, wind, coal, solar etc) then it's completely irrational to not maximise use of it once built. Whether it should have been built or not is a separate question - once it's built, it's fundamentally irrational to turn it off and burn gas or diesel instead. That being so, there is no basis for a competitive market since the only rational outcome is entirely predictable and consistent operation of low SRMC plant, and the use of other plant for peaking. There's nothing to compete.

We’re all too busy thinking about subsidies, projects and jobs to acknowledge the French elephant in the room. A nuclear based grid that performs well.

France has a diverse mix of generation.

Nuclear at 64.5%

Intermittent sources (tidal, wind and solar) at 14.3%

Hydro at 11.5%

Gas and oil at 7.0%

Coal, biomass and waste combustion is the remaining 2.7%

France like practically everywhere has a diverse mix because that's the cheapest way to do it. Exception if you've got abundant hydro or are somewhere like Qatar with lots of gas and limited alternatives.

The key is correctly using it. Low SRMC plant as base load, high SRMC plant as peak load, with a scale in between for intermediate load. Fundamentals that were true 100 years ago when Monash wrote about them and are still true today.

 

[SirRumpole]

The massive growth of global solar energy.

A planet-wide solar boom is beating expectations at every turn

Satellite imagery reveals the staggering rise of solar farms around the world in recent years. Can Australia get on board?

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

Further to what @Smurf1976 was talking about.

https://www.erawa.com.au/cproot/6316/2/20080111%20Short%20Run%20Marginal%20Cost%20-%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf

Way over my head unfortunately.

"
Short Run Marginal Cost (SRMC) in electricity supply refers to the cost of producing an additional unit of electricity, considering only the variable costs incurred in the short term. These variable costs typically include fuel expenses, operational and maintenance costs, and other expenses that fluctuate with the level of electricity generation. Fixed costs, such as capital investments in infrastructure, are excluded from SRMC calculations because they do not change with short-term production levels.

In the context of electricity markets, SRMC plays a crucial role in determining the merit order—the sequence in which different power plants are dispatched to meet electricity demand. Power plants with lower SRMC are prioritized, as this approach minimizes the overall cost of electricity generation. This method ensures that electricity is supplied efficiently, with the most cost-effective plants meeting demand first.

It's important to note that SRMC can vary significantly between different types of power plants. For instance, renewable energy sources like wind and solar typically have very low SRMC because their "fuel" (wind and sunlight) is free, whereas fossil fuel-based plants may have higher SRMC due to fuel costs. Understanding SRMC is essential for effective pricing, economic dispatch, and investment decisions within the electricity supply industry.

For a more detailed analysis of SRMC in electricity supply, including its implications for investment decisions and the integration of renewable energy, you can refer to Edward Bodmer's presentation on short-term marginal cost analysis."

Edbodm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an approximate Short Run Marginal Cost (SRMC) comparison for various types of power generation technologies. These values are estimates and can vary depending on factors like fuel costs, efficiency, location, and operational conditions.

Power Generation Type	SRMC (USD per MWh)	Notes
Solar PV	$0 - $10	Minimal SRMC as sunlight is free. Costs may include minor maintenance.
Wind (Onshore)	$0 - $10	Very low SRMC since wind is free, with minimal maintenance costs.
Hydropower	$5 - $20	Depends on water availability. Low SRMC, but operational costs may vary.
Nuclear Power	$10 - $30	Fuel costs are low, but operational/maintenance costs contribute.
Coal-Fired Power	$30 - $80	Depends on coal prices, efficiency, and pollution control costs.
Natural Gas (Combined Cycle)	$40 - $70	Fuel costs dominate. Higher efficiency reduces SRMC.
Natural Gas (Open Cycle)	$70 - $120	Less efficient gas plants lead to higher SRMC. Used for peak demand.
Diesel Generators	$150 - $300	Very high SRMC due to expensive diesel fuel and low efficiency.
Pumped Hydro Storage	$30 - $60 (net cost)	SRMC depends on electricity costs for pumping water.
Battery Storage	$30 - $80 (net cost)	SRMC based on charging costs, efficiency, and degradation.

Key Notes:​

1. Solar and Wind: These renewable sources have almost zero fuel costs. SRMC primarily reflects maintenance costs.
2. Hydropower: SRMC depends on water management costs and operational efficiencies.
3. Coal and Natural Gas: These have higher SRMC due to fuel expenses. Combined cycle gas turbines are more efficient than open cycle gas turbines.
4. Battery Storage and Pumped Hydro: Both involve storing energy, so their SRMC reflects the cost of the electricity used to charge or pump and efficiency losses.
5. Diesel Generators: These are very expensive and generally used as backup or emergency power.

 

[qldfrog]

The massive growth of global solar energy.

A planet-wide solar boom is beating expectations at every turn

Satellite imagery reveals the staggering rise of solar farms around the world in recent years. Can Australia get on board?

www.abc.net.au

Ahhh their ABC, me too, me too
What about :
"Satellite maps demonstrate the staggering growth of urban footprint worldwide!
Can Australia get onboard "
We should not care about others choices especially mistakes, and we have a very high concentration of house roof solar which is better use of space than Round up sprayed former paddocks transformed into solar farm wasteland IMHO

 

[qldfrog]

The need for diversity has been well understood for over a century. Only real exception is in locations with enough hydro to use that exclusively, anywhere else benefits economically from a mix of generation.

Sir John Monash, after whom a university is named among other things (and he was indeed in charge of electricity in Victoria for many years) wrote a pretty decent layman's terms paper on the subject. He's been dead for 93 years but the fundamentals haven't changed in that building high capital cost plant for low capacity factor use is uneconomic, and building high short run marginal cost plant for high capacity factor use is also uneconomic.

That's pretty fundamental economics there, the trade off between capital versus operational cost and the need to build plant based on its intended usage.

What that argues against isn't solar, nuclear, coal, gas, hydro or anything else. What it argues against is the really quite bizarre notion that plant with different characteristics ought be in a market competing against each other. The very notion that low SRMC plant won't be operated consistently of itself destroys the economics of not just that generation but of the entire system.

In other words, if you're going to build high capital cost, low marginal cost plant (nuclear, wind, coal, solar etc) then it's completely irrational to not maximise use of it once built. Whether it should have been built or not is a separate question - once it's built, it's fundamentally irrational to turn it off and burn gas or diesel instead. That being so, there is no basis for a competitive market since the only rational outcome is entirely predictable and consistent operation of low SRMC plant, and the use of other plant for peaking. There's nothing to compete.


France has a diverse mix of generation.

Nuclear at 64.5%

Intermittent sources (tidal, wind and solar) at 14.3%

Hydro at 11.5%

Gas and oil at 7.0%

Coal, biomass and waste combustion is the remaining 2.7%

France like practically everywhere has a diverse mix because that's the cheapest way to do it. Exception if you've got abundant hydro or are somewhere like Qatar with lots of gas and limited alternatives.

The key is correctly using it. Low SRMC plant as base load, high SRMC plant as peak load, with a scale in between for intermediate load. Fundamentals that were true 100 years ago when Monash wrote about them and are still true today.

I do not dispute the advantages of diversity, but for France, hydro far less seasonal than here 10% day in day out for the last 50 to 100 years, and an extra 65% on nuclear does not sound like a big diversity..
You can have a pretty solid reliable grid nearly 100% coal or nuclear, any hydro if available the same.
Wind, solar , geothermal or biomass are just added for political reasons and to get a majority at the parliament by respective governments here, France, Germany for countries i know.
But i agree on one point, once an asset is build especially solar and wind where the cost is mostly in the initial setup, better make use of it as much as possible.
It will not be long imho before we see "cost of the legacy" attached to solar and wind farms.
And even before the disposal in 15y or the next cyclone

 

[sptrawler]

A excellent video on wind turbines, well worth a watch for those interested in actually knowing how things work.
Disregard the heading it isn't bagging wind turbines, just explaining them.

 

[qldfrog]

A excellent video on wind turbines, well worth a watch for those interested in actually knowing how things work.
Disregard the heading it isn't bagging wind turbines, just explaining them.

In term of engineering, i am in awe and stop by every wind farm i drive by.
The size is hard to comprehend, the engineering issues incredible...
It does not mean i am enamoured.
EV, wind turbines all are amazing engineering, but none are one size fits all holy grail....

 

[sptrawler]

As I've said numerous times this issue will be self resolving because the energy system is integral to our lifestyle and people wont accept a crap lifestyle.
The transition will keep happening, just not as smoothly as some might think IMO.

Big Oil’s green dream has turned into a multibillion-dollar nightmare

BP and Shell led Big Oil’s push into renewable energy. Now they are leading the retreat.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:

BP and Shell led Big Oil’s push into renewable energy. Now they are leading the retreat.
Last week BP announced that it had sold its offshore wind assets into a joint venture with Japan’s JERA, itself a joint venture between Tokyo Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power, to create one of the world’s largest offshore wind businesses.
That followed an earlier BP announcement, in September, that it planned to sell its US onshore wind farms.
Under former chief executive, Bernard Loomey, BP had been building its wind farm portfolio as part of an ambition strategy to cut its hydrocarbon production by 40 per cent by 2030, reduce its emission and those of its customers by 35 to 40 per cent by the end of this decade and become a “net zero” emissions company by 2050.

Last year it started backing away from those commitments, saying it would cut production by only 25 per cent by 2030 and its emissions by 20 to 30 per cent.
This year, under a new chief executive, Murray Auchincloss, it now appears even those reduced targets are being wound back.

It’s not just BP.

Shell has scaled back its investment in renewables, including offshore wind and hydrogen; it has reduced its emissions’ intensity targets and it has abandoned its objective of becoming the world’s largest electricity company. Norway’s energy giant, Equinor, has also announced plans to shrink its renewable energy division.

The commercial logic in what they are doing is clear. BP generates returns of 15 to 20 per cent on its fossil fuel investments but only 6 to 8 per cent from its renewable assets, with wind’s returns inferior to solar’s.

Ploughing billions each year into wind, solar and hydrogen dilutes the overall returns on capital and reduces the returns to shareholders, making them most unhappy. Having invested about $US18 billion over the past five years in lower-returning renewables between them, BP and Shell investors have become increasingly unhappy.
Moreover, the UK and European energy majors are always compared with their US counterparts.
By moving its offshore wind assets into a joint venture vehicle and off its own balance sheet BP will keep an exposure to wind but significantly reduce the amounts of capital devoted to it and the levels of debt supporting it.

Between them, BP and JERA plan to spend up to $US5.8 billion on their combined portfolios (which includes the proposed Blue Mackerel offshore wind farm in Bass Strait) by the end of 2030. With shared investment and non-recourse funding, BP’s capital commitment will be modest relative to what it would otherwise have been.

Both BP and Shell still seem committed to solar, which is less capital intensive than wind, but that won’t help them escape the criticism from climate activist groups and ESG (environmental, social and governance) investors, who are particularly vocal and litigious in Europe and the UK.

The problem, of course, is that the companies can’t satisfy both constituencies and in a contest between emissions and returns is one that ultimately shareholders will always win.
Those who invest purely in renewables appear unconcerned about the gradual withdrawal of the oil majors who gatecrashed their sector and, seeking to gain scale rapidly, drove up the costs of developing greenfields projects.
There are a lot of environmentally-sensitive and patient investment funds available from sources other than the oil majors that are willing to trade off returns for their convictions and/or consistent long-term returns, so losing some investment from the oil companies shouldn’t retard renewables developments

It has been particularly difficult for the UK and Europeans, with their lower returns but better environmental credentials, to attract investors in the US. There’s been a backlash against ESG investing in the US where, because there is no significant stigma associated with the oil and gas industry, valuation metrics tend to be higher.

If BP and Shell want better access to those more attractive metrics, improved share price performances and access to cheaper capital, they have no realistic option but to shed, and invest less in, low-returning assets. That’s what they are now doing.

 

[sptrawler]

In term of engineering, i am in awe and stop by every wind farm i drive by.
The size is hard to comprehend, the engineering issues incredible...
It does not mean i am enamoured.
EV, wind turbines all are amazing engineering, but none are one size fits all holy grail....

Yes a few posts back, I linked China's world's biggest wind turbine 20MW, which is an amazing size for a wind turbine.

Then I posted that it threw itself to bits during testing, physical limitations become an issue, but technology will improve over time.

That's the part that the politicians fail to acknowledge technology is constantly improving, meanwhile they bag each others plans, rather than working out a sensible plan together.

World's most powerful wind turbine sees its typhoon-proof blades break in China

The world’s largest single-capacity wind turbine experienced a failure of its typhoon-proof blades during extreme testing off China's coast.

san.com

‘Two blades break off’ world’s most powerful wind turbine in China

The world’s most powerful wind turbine, a 20MW giant manufactured by Mingyang, has reportedly suffered multiple blade breaks just months after the prototype machine was installed in China. The blades on the MySE18.X-20MW prototype offshore model

www.wind-watch.org

 

[Smurf1976]

I do not dispute the advantages of diversity, but for France, hydro far less seasonal than here 10% day in day out for the last 50 to 100 years, and an extra 65% on nuclear does not sound like a big diversity..
You can have a pretty solid reliable grid nearly 100% coal or nuclear, any hydro if available the same.

It comes down to numbers.

Using Victoria as an example well the capacity requirement to reliably meet peak demand is about 12.5GW but base load is only 4GW.

Now from a strictly economic perspective, installing 5GW of plant to meet that base load will result in 40% of the installed capacity producing about 71% of the total electricity generated. The right choice here is to install plant that's most economical in constant full operation - it makes perfect sense to spend big $ upfront in order to achieve low ongoing operational costs.

Meanwhile the upper 4GW of capacity will produce stuff all, most of the time it'll be completely idle and very rarely will it all run at once. It's just that without it society will face the occasional major crisis so it needs to exist. This plant will never make a profit as a standalone operation but it's needed in order to support the whole. With low usage the rational economic approach is to install capacity with the lowest capital cost and just accept the high operational cost that comes with it, with low usage that just won't matter. This 4GW of capacity, 32% of the total, will be generating less than 3% of the electricity but it needs to exist. On average it'll be running about 4% of the time.

In the middle sits plant that will operate routinely but generally not at full output. It'll be used to follow load on a daily basis and it needs to be both technically capable of doing that and economical when used in that role. Economically it needs to strike a balance - with operation well below full capacity there's a limit to how much it makes sense to spend more on capital so as to reduce operating costs, but operation is routine enough that operating cost is definitely a consideration. This 3.5GW of capacity, 28% of the total, will generate about 26% of the total system output. On average it'll be running about 40% of the time but that'll vary from 0 to 100.

Even if it was all going to be done with a single resource, gas, well rationally one builds high capital cost but high efficiency combined cycle plant for the base load, and they build lower capital cost but higher operating cost open cycle plant for the peak load. With a possible saving on gas infrastructure costs by not installing the full gas supply capacity to run it all, and just using diesel where needed to fill the gaps.

What I've described there isn't something I came up with, it's just how basically every electrical power system worldwide was actually developed. There's no politics, there's no ideology, it's just cold hard number crunching to determine what plant to install for what role. Power stations aren't all alike, they're part of the same team not competitors to each other.

Where it's all going wrong is with failing to do that. With failing to actually have a proper plan and with insisting on the rather bizarre idea that the high running cost plant ought compete constantly against the low running cost plant and doing so based on made up numbers. That can only ever increase cost, it can't possibly reduce it - that's maths not ideology but sadly it's a concept most in politics simply do not grasp that burning gas in preference to using an already built coal, nuclear, wind or solar facility can never save money, only waste it.

As for the reliability of hydro, the big issue in Australia is failing to properly develop it. As one example, the Kiewa scheme (Victoria). At present the scheme stores just 30% of annual inflow to the headwaters whereas with full development that would increase to 250% so 2.5 years' worth.

It's also possible to develop pumping from the West Kiewa, using surplus off-peak electricity (from whatever source - coal, nuclear, wind, solar) when available. Benefit of that is it quadruples the inflow of water able to be stored in the headwater storages.

Those two measures combined would effectively drought proof it. Store 2.5 years' worth of water, and quadruple the quantity of water able to be captured, and there's no drought on record under which it would fail or even come close to failure.

Bearing in mind that the roads are already built, as is the weir on the West Kiewa and so are 4 power stations. So it's a modification to an existing scheme, it's not something built from scratch. Environmentally well it means flooding about 10km2 of land - for perspective that's equivalent to just 0.1% of metropolitan Melbourne's 9992km2 footprint.

Similar opportunities exist elsewhere including NSW and Qld. Situations where the present scheme has never been fully developed and the main thing missing is water storage, leading to unreliable operation.

That's not to suggest we ought run the entire country with hydro, that's not going to happen, but Australia certainly does have undeveloped potential.

More generically well one big problem is that Australia doesn't seem to want to use any of the available options. Plenty seem to like the idea of intermittent renewables, wind and solar, but ask them whether they prefer hydro, gas or diesel as the means of firming and they avoid answering the question. Therein lies a problem, big time.

 

[SirRumpole]

More generically well one big problem is that Australia doesn't seem to want to use any of the available options. Plenty seem to like the idea of intermittent renewables, wind and solar, but ask them whether they prefer hydro, gas or diesel as the means of firming and they avoid answering the question. Therein lies a problem, big time.

It's called The Greens.

 

[qldfrog]

It comes down to numbers.

Using Victoria as an example well the capacity requirement to reliably meet peak demand is about 12.5GW but base load is only 4GW.

Now from a strictly economic perspective, installing 5GW of plant to meet that base load will result in 40% of the installed capacity producing about 71% of the total electricity generated. The right choice here is to install plant that's most economical in constant full operation - it makes perfect sense to spend big $ upfront in order to achieve low ongoing operational costs.

Meanwhile the upper 4GW of capacity will produce stuff all, most of the time it'll be completely idle and very rarely will it all run at once. It's just that without it society will face the occasional major crisis so it needs to exist. This plant will never make a profit as a standalone operation but it's needed in order to support the whole. With low usage the rational economic approach is to install capacity with the lowest capital cost and just accept the high operational cost that comes with it, with low usage that just won't matter. This 4GW of capacity, 32% of the total, will be generating less than 3% of the electricity but it needs to exist. On average it'll be running about 4% of the time.

In the middle sits plant that will operate routinely but generally not at full output. It'll be used to follow load on a daily basis and it needs to be both technically capable of doing that and economical when used in that role. Economically it needs to strike a balance - with operation well below full capacity there's a limit to how much it makes sense to spend more on capital so as to reduce operating costs, but operation is routine enough that operating cost is definitely a consideration. This 3.5GW of capacity, 28% of the total, will generate about 26% of the total system output. On average it'll be running about 40% of the time but that'll vary from 0 to 100.

Even if it was all going to be done with a single resource, gas, well rationally one builds high capital cost but high efficiency combined cycle plant for the base load, and they build lower capital cost but higher operating cost open cycle plant for the peak load. With a possible saving on gas infrastructure costs by not installing the full gas supply capacity to run it all, and just using diesel where needed to fill the gaps.

What I've described there isn't something I came up with, it's just how basically every electrical power system worldwide was actually developed. There's no politics, there's no ideology, it's just cold hard number crunching to determine what plant to install for what role. Power stations aren't all alike, they're part of the same team not competitors to each other.

Where it's all going wrong is with failing to do that. With failing to actually have a proper plan and with insisting on the rather bizarre idea that the high running cost plant ought compete constantly against the low running cost plant and doing so based on made up numbers. That can only ever increase cost, it can't possibly reduce it - that's maths not ideology but sadly it's a concept most in politics simply do not grasp that burning gas in preference to using an already built coal, nuclear, wind or solar facility can never save money, only waste it.

As for the reliability of hydro, the big issue in Australia is failing to properly develop it. As one example, the Kiewa scheme (Victoria). At present the scheme stores just 30% of annual inflow to the headwaters whereas with full development that would increase to 250% so 2.5 years' worth.

It's also possible to develop pumping from the West Kiewa, using surplus off-peak electricity (from whatever source - coal, nuclear, wind, solar) when available. Benefit of that is it quadruples the inflow of water able to be stored in the headwater storages.

Those two measures combined would effectively drought proof it. Store 2.5 years' worth of water, and quadruple the quantity of water able to be captured, and there's no drought on record under which it would fail or even come close to failure.

Bearing in mind that the roads are already built, as is the weir on the West Kiewa and so are 4 power stations. So it's a modification to an existing scheme, it's not something built from scratch. Environmentally well it means flooding about 10km2 of land - for perspective that's equivalent to just 0.1% of metropolitan Melbourne's 9992km2 footprint.

Similar opportunities exist elsewhere including NSW and Qld. Situations where the present scheme has never been fully developed and the main thing missing is water storage, leading to unreliable operation.

That's not to suggest we ought run the entire country with hydro, that's not going to happen, but Australia certainly does have undeveloped potential.

More generically well one big problem is that Australia doesn't seem to want to use any of the available options. Plenty seem to like the idea of intermittent renewables, wind and solar, but ask them whether they prefer hydro, gas or diesel as the means of firming and they avoid answering the question. Therein lies a problem, big time.

Trying to step back.
There is one part i believe missing from our discussion :
"The build the road and the town will come equivalent "
What i mean is that, in Australia, we have reached the point where our peak demand is AC and TV/oven at family dinner, not factory shift changes at 8AM or 2PM
You have better figures than me mr @Smurf1976 but in most if not all of the rest of the civilised/developed world, there is a huge industrial usage, ongoing, regular often 24/7, smoothing demand.
Our current power price forbids us from any sizable industrial development and our grid is balanced toward suburban family usage.
What is the link with the debate?
If power is too dear, we can not have a significant industrial base, and as a result, we can not have a firming of the demand.
And if we can not have a smooth demand,and we can not have cheap power.
Endless loop.
Basically if we compare the average daily peak to low here vs the rest of the world, i expert we are among the worst due to this structural issue.
It is a problem but can be an advantage aka battery..not the shitty lithium banks but serious pumped hydro for example to cover the 4pm to 8pm shortage etc
Anyway, some more cogs in the machine, and a proof if need be that comparison with O/S modeling might be somewhat irrelevant

 

[sptrawler]

It comes down to numbers.

Using Victoria as an example well the capacity requirement to reliably meet peak demand is about 12.5GW but base load is only 4GW.

Now from a strictly economic perspective, installing 5GW of plant to meet that base load will result in 40% of the installed capacity producing about 71% of the total electricity generated. The right choice here is to install plant that's most economical in constant full operation - it makes perfect sense to spend big $ upfront in order to achieve low ongoing operational costs.

Meanwhile the upper 4GW of capacity will produce stuff all, most of the time it'll be completely idle and very rarely will it all run at once. It's just that without it society will face the occasional major crisis so it needs to exist. This plant will never make a profit as a standalone operation but it's needed in order to support the whole. With low usage the rational economic approach is to install capacity with the lowest capital cost and just accept the high operational cost that comes with it, with low usage that just won't matter. This 4GW of capacity, 32% of the total, will be generating less than 3% of the electricity but it needs to exist. On average it'll be running about 4% of the time.

In the middle sits plant that will operate routinely but generally not at full output. It'll be used to follow load on a daily basis and it needs to be both technically capable of doing that and economical when used in that role. Economically it needs to strike a balance - with operation well below full capacity there's a limit to how much it makes sense to spend more on capital so as to reduce operating costs, but operation is routine enough that operating cost is definitely a consideration. This 3.5GW of capacity, 28% of the total, will generate about 26% of the total system output. On average it'll be running about 40% of the time but that'll vary from 0 to 100.

So what if the 5GW base load was supplied by nuclear, the variable component supplied by renewables + batteries and the upper 4GW supplied by hydro? That would be 100% emission free, secure generation.

Meanwhile if in the future when new technology permits renewables to replace the nuclear component, you close the nuclear down, doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination.

All the technologies are currently available, to become emission free, if that is the end game.

That leaves the gas to run aviation and processes in the near future, until technology is developed, to completely replace fossil fuel.