Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by woodPixel

State Grid of China unveils plans for 100GW battery fleet – pv magazine USA

Plus a jump from 26 GW of pumped hydro to 100 GW.

It can be done.

Just needs political will, which the Liberals simply do not have.

These two last posts were simply on r/world news TODAY...... they were not sourced to support this thread.... It was purely need today.

Before having another cheap shot at the current government read the last paragraph of your article, it is hardly all a bed of roses. And remember the last election and what the other party had proposed and what the voters thought of that.

It will all happen but it’s not as straightforward and simple as some would like to imply.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

9 GW more: Victoria sets "game changing" offshore wind target of 9GW to replace coal | RenewEconomy

This news is daily.

A few posts ago, I included a bunch of links about how NSW was overrun by applications for renewables.


Investments have gone absolutely wild.

I have a story from China detailing their rollouts. They have gone positively MENTAL with it. The numbers are beyond belief. I'll find it.

i get these sound exciting but the two big points I pessimistically took away from it are these two bits

If the project is feasible and proceeds to construction, it would support Victoria to meet its emissions reduction targets by powering up to 1.2 million Victorian homes with clean energy. The project would provide jobs for energy workers with the potential to create 2000 direct Victorian jobs, and 200 ongoing local jobs once it’s up and running.

and the bit circled in red

2022_03_07_0gg_Kleki.png


so its still in the "can we even do this" phase. which means it may never actually happen or be no where near the quoted figure, as they tend to use alot of words like "if" and "could". Rather then "will" and from there it says it can take 6 - 10 years to build. which I guess is why we have to start building these things now.

I'll always quote about the company that got millions of dollars to see if they could store compressed air underground in an old mine, turns out you can't and still be a viable business but the company managed to make a tidy profit out of that investigation.

I don't see a lot of these grand master renewable plans coming to fruition unless the government does it and basically runs it at a loss (or just runs it and the tax payers pay for it) I can't see how these places intend on making a profit after the building costs. there are so many applications and approvals but really not that many being built.



----------

on a slightly different tangent, what happens if the government doesn't meet its renewable targets by 2030?

Ah. So if it can't run for for profit as a renewable it should be killed or not supported.

OK.

So lets apply that to the coal fossil industry that receives $10 billion in annual subsidies?¹

Lets take rip that out and give it to green instead. Fairs fair.


There is no future in coal. I simply cannot FATHOM why anyone would support a polluting industry. Its pure insanity.



¹ edit: Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21 - The Australia Institute

Originally Posted by Beardy

Before having another cheap shot at the current government read the last paragraph of your article, it is hardly all a bed of roses. And remember the last election and what the other party had proposed and what the voters thought of that.

The public are morons. They would gladly vote against their own interests, as has been repeatedly shown.

Cheap shot....

download.jpg

Originally Posted by Beardy

It will all happen but it’s not as straightforward and simple as some would like to imply.

Yes. It. Is.

To change tack slightly -

SA and now WA have implemented a remote disconnect capability into domestic solar systems. It allows the (for profit) operators to turn off your panels. Not just turn of solar export to the grid, but turn off the power you generate so you HAVE to consume grid power.

While initially characterised as an emergency grid stabilisation measure, I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge:

Today - "the grid is at low demand, we need to force these people to consume our coal fired power to stabilise our grid - turn their systems off."
Tomorrow - "the grid is at low demand, we need to force these people to consume our coal fired power to stabilise our profits - turn their systems off."

WA introduces remote solar switch off, following SA model – pv magazine Australia

Yep.

This will not stop until this cancer is torn from this dying body.

Climate change is not real? - NSW floods live updates: Evacuation warning as Manly Dam spills, Sydney roads closed for dangerous flash flooding- ABC News

Its now Sydney. Sydney is being smashed. Manly dam - I used to live in Mosman and Neutral Bay for 12 years and know this dam like the back of my hand. We took our and the neighbours kids there for weekend BBQ's all the time. NEVER, EVER, did ANYONE think this would occur... now, a decade on, disaster.

Are these storms, atomic bushfires and diseases connected? DUH.

They won't stop until they are MADE to stop (this is from today).... What Coal Miners Think About Climate Change - YouTube


You know, as PASSIONATE woodworkers, we should be very concerned for the environment. Ultimately our hobby relies on its sustainability.


edit - add this for a bit of balance: Russia-Ukraine war sparks surge in coal price to unprecedented levels - ABC News

Originally Posted by RossM

To change tack slightly -

SA and now WA have implemented a remote disconnect capability into domestic solar systems. It allows the (for profit) operators to turn off your panels. Not just turn of solar export to the grid, but turn off the power you generate so you HAVE to consume grid power.

While initially characterised as an emergency grid stabilisation measure, I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge:

Today - "the grid is at low demand, we need to force these people to consume our coal fired power to stabilise our grid - turn their systems off."
Tomorrow - "the grid is at low demand, we need to force these people to consume our coal fired power to stabilise our profits - turn their systems off."

WA introduces remote solar switch off, following SA model – pv magazine Australia

This is the exact opposite of what should be done.

We should suck up every spare watt and store it!

All, take the time to read this article released today: Texas Hydrogen Plant: The world’s largest green hydrogen plant will be built in Texas

Green Hydrogen International (GHI) has unveiled its plans to build a 60 GW green hydrogen production facility near the Piedras Pintas salt dome in Texas. The facility will be the largest of its kind in the world, the company claimed in a press release. While the world seeks cleaner alternatives to the energy that can power long-haul flights and stand in as a substitute for natural gas, green hydrogen appears to be one of the front runners. With countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Spain having initiated green hydrogen projects on a pilot basis, GHI would have to make a big splash to announce its arrival.

The company is hopeful that its proposed plant, capable of producing 2.5 billion kilograms of green hydrogen every year, will do exactly that. According to its website, GHI has seven projects that are under development with a combined output of one terawatt. The largest and the first one to get off the ground is Hydrogen City in Texas. Using onshore wind and solar energy, the project aims to produce 60 gigawatts of green hydrogen every year. The Piedras Pintas salt dome in Duval County will serve as the hydrogen storage facility for the project which in its initial stages will see a 2-gigawatt production facility being drawn up.

Originally Posted by RossM

To change tack slightly -

SA and now WA have implemented a remote disconnect capability into domestic solar systems. It allows the (for profit) operators to turn off your panels. Not just turn of solar export to the grid, but turn off the power you generate so you HAVE to consume grid power.

This is only for newly installed or upgraded systems - it doesn't apply to existing systems - yet!
And it doesn't apply to battery charging, so hopefully it will incentivise people to get batteries.
The "turn offs" ARE not a blanket operation - selected areas will be turned off/on a rotating basis only to balance the grid.

WA's coal fired plants generate 1.6GW, gas is 4.3GW, Wind is 1 GW. Rooftop solar is 1.3GW (only during the middle of the day of course) and growing about 0.2GW per year.

The coal fired plants are well and truly on their way out - once they are gone the Gas plants are much more flexible to start and stop, so hopefully roof top solar wont need to be switched on/off as often.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So I wonder how much difference there would be between the construction of a hydrogen based power plant and natural gas, and how viable it might be to a convert natural gas pp to hydrogen a little later when we've worked out how to scale up green H2 production. I don't know the difference in dirtiness between coal and natural gas burning, but if a conversion of a natural gas plant to H2 can be done, then gas fired might be a short term solution during the interim.

Sounds like we'll have to do something for base load power. What are the options?

FF

Let's take the term of "baseload power" first. It is indeed much misused, but primarily it is an economic term in a competitive market. My take is that it is the cheapest form of electrical generation that can reliably supply power at any moment. Traditionally it has been coal fired or nuclear. Gas, oil or diesel could come into that category, but they normally cannot compete on cost: All of them are carbon producers except nuclear.

The relativities of carbon pollution are comparable by their carbon intensity: For example the worst polluter was the now defunct Hazelwood station at 1.6. Most modern coal stations are in the vicinity of .9 to 1.2 with .9 being the supercritical units, which are all in QLD. The once through gas turbines are .8 and the best units which comprise an HRSG (heat recovery steam generator) situated within the gas turbines exhaust gases to take advantage of the waste heat are down to .6.

In short the best gas plants are still more than half as polluting as typical coal fired plants. Those comparative figures actually refer to tons of CO2 per MW/hr!

There is some potential to substitute H2 for thermal gas but so far not much mention has been made of this. Where it has been mentioned it starts at a partial substitute of around 10% rising to 30% in time. There has been little mention of how economic this may be.

It is nonsensical to use H2 that has not been produced from renewable sources. The pollution resulting from H2 produced by gas etc. is worse than if the electricity was just used direct.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

In short the best gas plants are less than half as polluting as typical coal fires plants. Those comparative figures actually refer to tons of CO2 per MW/hr!

What's missed in this important figure is any gas losses to the atmosphere before it even gets to generate electricity ie mining and transport.
This is especially the case given we have to not just reduce the amount of CO2 but also not let more methane escape.
Just reminding everyone the real problem is not the CO2 directly but the heat it retains

Over time methane degrades to CO2 but in the mean time it traps a lot more heat.

From Why do we compare methane to carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe? Are we underrating the importance of methane emissions? | MIT Climate Portal
Over 20 years, an equivalent weight of lost methane traps about 80 times more heat as the CO2 from coal.
Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would still trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.

After about 1000 years they get close to the same
Unfortunately we don't have 1000 years to wait to do this.

Just some perspective from the states.... Solar has been on a tremendous rampage in the last ten years, but not for the reasons you think... The "Not my political bent" arguments seem to be what people hear, but the truth is a lot more simple...

If you want to put another gigawatt on the grid - what does it take?

A coal plant will run you ~ $1/2 billion and take 5+ years to get permitted before you can break ground. Nuke in the US is a non-starter because of permitting. Gas turbine plant will probably run you a bit less than coal because of the waste generated by coal ash and scrubbers, so let's say $300 million and 4 years permitting...

Wind - most of the United States doesn't have enough wind to make this feasible, but it's popular where it is. The trouble is that you create giant monuments that require a ton of engineering and a lot of specialized maintenance.

But Solar? In most places, it's just a permit at the local permit authority, plus the standard pro-forma clean water and air permits on a mile of grass that generates neither oil nor smoke... You can get going in well under a year. As a result, energy companies are scrambling to get solar on line, for the simple reason that they can do it right now.

it doesn't solve the "at night" problem... But there's almost double the demand in the daytime, so it helps even things out for the conventional plants.

Thanks TJ

That Stateside perspective is interesting. One thing that is constantly forgotten is the lead times to getting a plant up and running. Bureaucracy is clearly as much of a problem in your country as ours.

Regards
Paul

Did anyone watch the program/ debate last night on Nuclear power?
To my way of thinking it is only safe until it is not safe in the same context as Fracking or the Exon Valdese disaster type situation. The stakes are just too high to consider it an option

Originally Posted by RossM

It allows the (for profit) operators to turn off your panels..

no it doesn't

it gives the grid operators the ability to do it, they already have the ability now to tell power stations to shed load and roof top solar is now part of that network and will need to shed load as required. This is all done for grid stability and has nothing to do with the profits of one power station or another. if the grid gets too far out of whack (hertz wise) the whole state has the possibility to turn off.

I don't even know where in that article you got the idea the "for profit" generators have this option?