Future of the Australian Electricity Market [Archive] - Page 2

Bushmiller

14th June 2021, 04:47 PM

Just to get away from the political comments (not really permitted under Forum rules), which arguably is very hard to do, this is a little more information on the incident just recently at Callide Power Station. Some information I have is confidential and I am not a liberty to divulge it, but the following information is mainly available through mainstream media, Callide bulletins or through AEMO bulletins.

Firstly a pic of the badly damaged Unit 4.

496046

My apologies to those of you in the industry as this next information is not for you. :) Steam enters the turbine from the right into the HP (high pressure)and IP (intermediate pressure) cylinders. They are housed in the square box on the right (well it was originally squarish), which is actually a containment device in case the turbine overspeeds (more on this in a moment). The blackened section is the LP (low pressure) cylinder and the relatively intact section on the left is the generator.

This unit was rated at 425MW. That is quite a lot of power: Enough power to run about six 747 aircraft. If you are going to have such a disaster this one was very well contained. That box on the right is designed as a safety device in case the turbine lets go. It is primarily to prevent the blades acting as missiles, 21st century boomerangs that don't come back. It did it's job. The whole station was evacuated after the other two units that were also running were shut down as a safety precaution. Nobody was hurt.

You see that shiny, rather phallic looking piece of steel sticking provocatively out of the floor and being used as an improvised device to support the barricade tape? Well, as you may have imagined, that was part of the shaft. The operators were unable to open the electrical circuit breaker that connected them to the grid and the machine ran for around half an hour without any steam or oil to the bearings: While the turbine did not overspeed, because it was attached (locked in actually) to the grid it was running at 3000rpm, which is it's normal speed. However,withoutsteam to cool the blades and oil to lubricate the bearings it overheated and eventually seized. At the time it was estimated that it may have been powered by almost the equivalent of a 747 aircraft. We call it "Generator Motoring," because it is being driven by the electricty system just like our electric motors. Coming to an instantaneous stop from perhaps 50MW was never going to work out well. Back to our "symbol" in the floor: An engineering colleague estimated that piece of shaft embedded in the concrete including the part that is not visible weighs around 4½ tonnes! Another piece of the apparatus weighing 80+Kgs did manage to escape the building. It was found half a kilometre away. Clearly a few pieces did enough damage to let more light into the building than was ever intended. The incident resulted in a fire from the escape of hydrogen, which was contained with the help of more than twenty firemen.

Needless to say this unit will not be repaired any time soon. Initial estimates were twelve months. It would not surprise me if it was a lot longer than that. I don't know if some of it is even repairable. Maybe it has to be replaced, which arguably would be quicker, if a brand new one was available (probably not).

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

14th June 2021, 04:55 PM

This looks like the part that decided to free itself.... mighty indeed!

496052 496056

Bushmiller

14th June 2021, 04:59 PM

WP

It might well be. Your pic shows the LP rotor and the shaft is the connector between this last part of the turbine (the third cylinder) and the generator. It won't be looking like that now.

Regards
Paul

Edit: There was only the pic on the left when I looked before. The pic on the right shows the IP cylinder and the HP cylinder. Steam enters the two cylinders and travels in opposite directions to balance thrust. With the LP cylinder it enters in the middle and travels out in both directions. As steam moves through the turbine it both cools and expands. Consequently the blades get larger and larger to cope with this transition. Between the HP and IP cylinders the steam is returned to the boiler and reheated (to 590° C at our station). One of the crazy things in power stations, because of the pressures we use, is that we have water at 300° C and because of the vacuum in our condensers we have steam at around 50°C. :cool:

woodPixel

14th June 2021, 05:06 PM

I simply searched for "callide power station"... there were plenty of diagrams, videos, a few engineers snaps of the install and even a good discussion on welding the beasties up....

Here is a video of the install (of one of them anyway)...

https://fb.watch/66GZiQWpks/

NOT the kind of thing likely to be spare in storage, ready shrink wrapped :)

Bendigo Bob

14th June 2021, 05:38 PM

AlexS

14th June 2021, 06:19 PM

I still lean to them trying to look after themselves rather than the community they represent and do anything that helps them stay in power. I think there was only one who did put the community before himself and that was Ted Mackie, a man who stood up for what benefited others to his own cost.
Ted Mack was the type of politician we need, an exemplar of honesty and service in all three levels of government. Resigned from federal parliament the day before he would have become eligible for a fat pension.
The only other one I can think of who comes close was John Hatton, who forced the Greiner state government to create ICAC, after they fought tooth, nail and dirty against it.

Bushmiller

14th June 2021, 07:22 PM

Wow, that's some serious damage.

I missed this in the news (hope no-one was injured), but I imagine with the ongoing mothballing of older power stations this is not a happy place to be for Qld/Aust over the coming year that it will take to repair.

Bob

Nobody was injured at all. The correct procedure was followed and the station evacuated.

Suffice to say the electricity system up and down the Eastern seaboard is being severely tested at times. This would have been exacerbated over the last couple of days with Yallourn in Victoria shutting down some of their units because of flooding in their mines. I think they are left with only a single unit at a reduced load (200MW?) to conserve coal.

Tough times.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

14th June 2021, 07:29 PM

woodPixel

14th June 2021, 07:45 PM

This is interesting.... Bloomberg -The Future of Power Is Transcontinental, Submarine Supergrids (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-09/future-of-world-energy-lies-in-uhvdc-transmission-lines)

(read it in a Private Window)

Bloomberg Businessweek reports on "renewed interest in cables that can power consumers in one country with electricity generated hundreds, even thousands, of miles away (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-09/future-of-world-energy-lies-in-uhvdc-transmission-lines?srnd=businessweek-v2) in another" and possibly even transcontinental, submarine electricity superhighways:Coal, gas and even nuclear plants can be built close to the markets they serve, but the utility-scale solar and wind farms many believe essential to meet climate targets often can't. They need to be put wherever the wind and sun are strongest, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles from urban centers. Long cables can also connect peak afternoon solar power in one time zone to peak evening demand in another, reducing the price volatility caused by mismatches in supply and demand as well as the need for fossil-fueled back up capacity when the sun or wind fade. As countries phase out carbon to meet climate goals, they'll have to spend at least $14 trillion to strengthen grids by 2050, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That's only a little shy of projected spending on new renewable generation capacity and it's increasingly clear that high- and ultra-high-voltage direct current lines will play a part in the transition.

The question is how international will they be...?
The article points out that in theory, Mongolia's Gobi desert "has potential to deliver 2.6 terawatts of wind and solar power — more than double the U.S.'s entire installed power generation capacity — to a group of Asian powerhouse economies that together produce well over a third of global carbon emissions..."The same goes for the U.S., where with the right infrastructure, New York could tap into sun- and wind-rich resources from the South and Midwest. An even more ambitious vision would access power from as far afield as Canada or Chile's Atacama Desert, which has the world's highest known levels of solar power potential per square meter. Jeremy Rifkin, a U.S. economist who has become the go-to figure for countries looking to remake their infrastructure for the digital and renewable future, sees potential for a single, 1.1 billion-person electricity market in the Americas that would be almost as big as China's. Rifkin has advised Germany and the EU, as well as China...

Persuading countries to rely on each other to keep the lights on is tough, but the universal, yet intermittent nature of solar and wind energy also makes it inevitable, according to Rifkin. "This isn't the geopolitics of fossil fuels," owned by some and bought by others, he says. "It is biosphere politics, based on geography. Wind and sun force sharing...."

If these supergrids don't get built, it will be because their time has both come and gone. Not only are they expensive, politically difficult, and unpopular — they have to cross a lot of backyards — their focus on mega-power installations seems outdated to some. Distributed microgeneration as close to home as your rooftop, battery storage, and transportable hydrogen all offer competing solutions to the delivery problems supergrids aim to solve.

Bushmiller

14th June 2021, 08:06 PM

Haha!

Solar =sun don't shine, what then...
Wind = wind don't blow, what then...
Coal = mine floods, machine explodes, what then...

There's some very big bucks in those stink factories.

I'd imagine going to the banks, cap in hand as a coal using generator looking for a loan to fix it! Tough sell.

WP

Whilst I don't totally disagree I have to point out that the sun doesn't shine every day: For about sixteen hours or more and at other times it doesn't shine at all. Wind certainly doesn't blow all the time. Yallourn may be down for a few days. Callide will have all their units running again by the end of the month(I am not privy to an exact time scale) with only Unit 4 being out of service for a protracted period.

I also imagine that before they go to the banks the owners will be visiting their insurance companies first.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

19th June 2021, 11:59 PM

This is something I've bene looking forward to for a long time.

Trucks that drive themselves on the long hauls. Humans do the fiddly bits at the front and end of the trip... but who WANTS to drive 1300km from Sydney to Melbourne every day?

Gah!

Autonomous trucks hit the highways, with Australian tech helping drive the revolution - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/autonomous-trucks-hit-the-road-carrying-watermelons/100218538)

This is so excellent. These things can bumble along at a slow safe predictable speed and do it at 3am.... bothering nobody.

woodPixel

28th June 2021, 07:47 PM

Bushmiller

26th July 2021, 12:45 PM

I saw the following come in as a news item and looked into the statement:

‘Dramatic turnaround’: Electricity prices skyrocket in perfect storm of problems
Electricity prices: 'Dramatic turnaround' as perfect storm jacks up prices (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/consumer/2021/07/23/electricity-prices-q2-australia/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20News%20-%2020210724)

There were some things I took from the article. Firstly, prices did go up. The average for the June quarter was $95/MWh in QLD ( similar in NSW, but slightly lower). This was well up on the previous quarter, but it should also be recognised that quarter was much lower than had been the case. This was not mentioned in the article. $95/MWh relates to the wholesale price and is the same as 9.5c/KWhr. In the short term it will make no difference to retail prices as they are usually on a fixed contract. If those prices persisted however, it would impact long term retail prices.

Why did this increase occur? The main impact was because of the crisis at Callide, which took out four generators. Two generators returned to service relatively quickly. The third generator only returned this weekend (unit 3) and Unit 4 won't be back for twelve months. In addition, gas prices have seen significant increase and that too has influenced the price. It is a rather sobering demonstration of what would happen if only a small proportion of fossil-fired plants were withdrawn from service without adequate supply to replace the lost generation.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

26th July 2021, 01:02 PM

China turns on world’s first giant hydropower turbines | South China Morning Post (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3139006/china-turns-worlds-first-giant-hydropower-turbines)

First two are on. They are 1 Gw generators EACH.

Nice.

WP

I should have commented on this before, but somehow it slipped my mind. That is truly a remarkable project. It is not the largest hydro installation, but the individual units are the largest. 1000MW for one turbine is bigger than the whole station at which I work!.

Without wishing to be negative, I should reiterate something I have stated many times and it is that every power source has a flaw today. Hydro is no exception. Once touted as being the perfect supplier of power, hydro has some issues. Firstly, it can run out of water. This happened in Tasmania in the recent past, although partially caused by a combination of greed, bad management and circumstances. Secondly, it is not possible to dam a river and not have some impact on the ecology downstream. Thirdly, there is the issue ofwhat happens in the space now occupied by the storage dam? In the case of Chinese dams historically, very large numbers of people have been displaced. There is a humanitarian issue in such countries.

As an engineering feat it is magnificent.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

26th July 2021, 03:45 PM

Every tech has some compromise.

One cannot have nukes without the odd Chernobyl/Fukushima... nor coal without catastrophic global warming.

This one today was interesting: How to win big for the climate: rein in the ‘super polluters’ : Research Highlights (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01983-z) essentially "Just 5% of the world’s power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation."

This article on an iron-oxide storage battery was intriguing. Iron air battery promises storage at fraction of cost | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/iron-air-battery-backed-by-bezos-and-gates-hails-storage-at-fraction-of-cost/)

The things, while big and heavy can store colossal charges, are super cheap and seem to last 100 years. Another interesting development in an area undergoing violent change.

A couple of fat batteries in the basement of every building, or each suburb has an underground array of them (just like Roman cisterns for water were).

Interesting!

Bushmiller

26th July 2021, 08:48 PM

Just in case any think I am barracking for the fossil fuel industry, have a read of this by Alan Kohler:

Climate change: What we can learn from our reaction to AstraZeneca (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2021/07/19/climate-change-panic-alan-kohler/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020210719)

My objective with this thread has been to present the harsh realities of electricity production, without agenda and at the same time desperately trying for a reasoned approach to both alternatives and the phasing out of fossil fuels.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

27th July 2021, 12:40 AM

I just love all the tech :)

I watch and read a few things from within China. There isnt a lot of news that isnt... directed.... but there is one YT chanel that is still fairly decent (until YouTube shuts it down, for reasons).

These two videos are particularly alarming if you join the dots....

66 Reservoirs Discharging; Cities Severe Flooding | Many Dams Burst - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhgdgvyzk7A)
Worst flood in Zhengzhou history | People Trapped in Subway |Dam In Crisis | Apocalypse in China - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6jW_PPjVqI)

You THINK getting a bandsaw is hard NOW, wait until the Yangtse system floods WuHan, Shang Hai, Nanjing and WuXi. We can kiss our collective patooties good bye!

There will be no new toys for anyone for years.

I personally think its too late. Ocean acidification by CO2 has already kicked over the limit, the lower level krill and phyto/zooplankton shells are already thin and weak. A small push and they are gone. If that happens, well, its adios for us all.

Pete57

12th August 2021, 06:58 PM

I thought this was interesting:

Watching Catalyst Series 22 The Grid: Powering the Future in iview
Catalyst : ABC iview (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/catalyst/series/22/video/SC2002H007S00)

havabeer69

14th August 2021, 07:12 AM

I thought this was interesting:

Watching Catalyst Series 22 The Grid: Powering the Future in iview
Catalyst : ABC iview (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/catalyst/series/22/video/SC2002H007S00)

i watched most of that the night it was on. As someone in the industry it didn't really say anything new that most people don't already know.

It also glanced over the costs of things
it talked about things like generating power in QLD for use in TAS but never addressed the constraints and costs of actually getting the power there.
All the battery figures where highly talked up and only briefly mentioned things like the tesla battery only lasting 2 hours.
the tassie island said they where 100% renewable, then later said its normally only about 50% renewable, never mentioned the total cost of the project, who's paying for it and the fact the diesel gen must still get run if its only 50%

bit of a fluff piece over all in my opinion.

Optimark

14th August 2021, 01:23 PM

i watched most of that the night it was on. As someone in the industry it didn't really say anything new that most people don't already know.

It also glanced over the costs of things
it talked about things like generating power in QLD for use in TAS but never addressed the constraints and costs of actually getting the power there.
All the battery figures where highly talked up and only briefly mentioned things like the tesla battery only lasting 2 hours.
the tassie island said they where 100% renewable, then later said its normally only about 50% renewable, never mentioned the total cost of the project, who's paying for it and the fact the diesel gen must still get run if its only 50%

bit of a fluff piece over all in my opinion.

Within reason you are right, but most of those kinds programs have to gloss over many things, otherwise the general public don't even think of looking at them. I watched this with my other half, both of us agreed there were quite a few things in the program that we didn't know about, and we consider ourselves reasonably with it, with regard to the electricity system in Australia. I just wish they would either cut the music out completely, or at the very least, reduce the volume of the background music so one can hear the words being spoken.

Some of the things mentioned about the island situation were interesting, especially the fuel usage. It was mentioned that the diesel consumption was 1.1 million litres annually. Now if there was a 50% reduction of time the generators were on, then the assumption is 500,000 litres less fuel, at a minimum, would be used.

I have no idea of what the actual cost of fuel is on the island, but it wouldn't be that cheap. Even assuming diesel was priced at $1.00 per litre without taxes, that is half a million dollars saved in one year. That half a million dollars per annum savings must surely be beneficial, and one assumes it would only get better with more solar and possibly wind generation being added bit by bit.

Wind farms are another technology that is powering ahead, pun intended. We did a tour of a wind generator in Germany, it was a decommissioned tower of about the fourth generation of wind turbine systems in Germany. To say it was massive would be an understatement, the one shown in the program is smaller and lighter, yet produces higher power as the technology has matured. Wind turbines seem to last around 25 years before they are pulled down and replaced, if you check out Engineering with Rosie on you tube, you will find one she has on this very subject and why it is done, which is something I never knew happened; Rosie is Australian and an engineer.

Mick.

woodPixel

24th August 2021, 05:19 PM

World'''s biggest wind turbine shows the disproportionate power of scale (https://newatlas.com/energy/worlds-biggest-wind-turbine-mingyang/)

The MySE 16.0-242 is a 16-megawatt, 242-meter-tall behemoth capable of powering 20,000 homes per unit over a 25-year service life (https://newatlas.com/energy/worlds-biggest-wind-turbine-mingyang/).

The stats on these renewable-energy colossi are getting pretty crazy.

When MingYang's new turbine first spins up in prototype form next year, its three 118-m (387-ft) blades will sweep a 46,000-sq-m (495,140-sq-ft) area bigger than six soccer fields.

Every year, each one expected to generate 80 GWh of electricity.

havabeer69

26th August 2021, 01:19 AM

World'''s biggest wind turbine shows the disproportionate power of scale (https://newatlas.com/energy/worlds-biggest-wind-turbine-mingyang/)

but a coal fired station will do 7000Gwh for a poofteenth of the footprint?

Eraring power station did 15,000Gwh back in 2018. thats 187 of those wind turbines, no small feat putting up 187 of those huge things

woodPixel

5th September 2021, 07:20 PM

Not exactly to do with the Oz electric market - but is tangentially.

This is a new electric motor... the YASA:

Its torque and Kw outputs are beyond belief.... 200kw and 790 NM..... crazy..... these are 30cm round and 8cm thick !!!!!!!!

Imagine this on the cars... or windmills.... or dams... or anything.

500557
https://youtu.be/6m_iIbX0gmA

it would certainly be useful for mini-turbines on dams like I saw in South Amercia... (let me find the link).

edit- here! This produces 15Kw for a small community (https://www.turbulent.be/) in Chile.

ajw

5th September 2021, 11:43 PM

That looks absolutely amazing. It sounds like an enormous breakthrough.

ajw

BobL

6th September 2021, 12:14 PM

but a coal fired station will do 7000Gwh for a poofteenth of the footprint?

Whats this called then?
500579

ian

6th September 2021, 04:06 PM

an open-cut coal mine ??

or are they mining some other commodity?

Bushmiller

6th September 2021, 04:40 PM

an open-cut coal mine ??

or are they mining some other commodity? would say coal. Any open cut mine for any mineral tends to look like a moonscape and a blot upon the earth.

Our Plant Manager in the early days used to point out how much space a solar farm takes up (he doesn't peddle that line much nowadays): It is a lot. However he conveniently neglected to mention that our power station sits on 10,000 acres. This also incorporates our mine, which is owned by the station and only supplies the power station. In the mining phase the land looks much like the picture Bob posted, but not as large. We have to rehabilitate the land to it's original state once mining has been completed in that section. in accordance with our mining lease. Also much of the land continues to be farmed or grazed and in some instances by the original owners who have leased it back.

Regards
Paul

Beardy

6th September 2021, 07:21 PM

would say coal. Any open cut mine for any mineral tends to look like a moonscape and a blot upon the earth.

Our Plant Manager in the early days used to point out how much space a solar farm takes up (he doesn't peddle that line much nowadays): It is a lot. However he conveniently neglected to mention that our power station sits on 10,000 acres. This also incorporates our mine, which is owned by the station and only supplies the power station. In the mining phase the land looks much like the picture Bob posted, but not as large. We have to rehabilitate the land to it's original state once mining has been completed in that section. in accordance with our mining lease. Also much of the land continues to be farmed or grazed and in some instances by the original owners who have leased it back.

Regards
Paul

Paul has there been any discussion with the rehabilitation about the disturbance of the natural water table ? I raised this when doing a mine tour in the Hunter and was only given a blank look as a reply

woodPixel

6th September 2021, 10:07 PM

I would've thought a coal bearing ore would have no water table.

That stuff is crazy porous.

When we were down the coast (Depot Beach, NSW) my brother and I used to marvel at the way the oils would leach from the very cliffs and the seam of coal (about 10ft up the cliff face) would pour water out after a storm.

havabeer69

6th September 2021, 11:44 PM

Whats this called then?
500579

Yeah, i know.

But most of the stuff we require for electricity comes from those type of mines both coal, iron, copper and yeah lithium for batteries like this one in W.A

https://blog.iseekplant.com.au/hubfs/WA-lithium.png

Its hard to say the a coal mine is bad, but lithium open cuts are ok. Its just all part of the process.

I cant remember if it was in this thread or not, but i Remeber seeing somewhere that there is an idea of turning open cut mines into pumped hydro storage.

And just filling a heap of the under ground mines with power station fly ash slurry, almost like back filling with concrete

AlexS

7th September 2021, 09:10 AM

Paul has there been any discussion with the rehabilitation about the disturbance of the natural water table ? I raised this when doing a mine tour in the Hunter and was only given a blank look as a reply

I can't answer about the Hunter although I was involved in collecting surface water data for Liddell in the 1960s, but it was certainly a consideration when Loy Yang was being planned. One interesting outcome of the study was that extraction from groundwater would cause subsidence, and hence a change in the slope of Traralgon Ck., so that the flow that had previously had a 50 year average recurrence interval would have a 25 year ARI. (Sorry about using the old terminology - I believe % probability is now used, but sometimes the old terminology is more illustrative.)

Beardy

7th September 2021, 09:53 AM

I can't answer about the Hunter although I was involved in collecting surface water data for Liddell in the 1960s, but it was certainly a consideration when Loy Yang was being planned. One interesting outcome of the study was that extraction from groundwater would cause subsidence, and hence a change in the slope of Traralgon Ck., so that the flow that had previously had a 50 year average recurrence interval would have a 25 year ARI. (Sorry about using the old terminology - I believe % probability is now used, but sometimes the old terminology is more illustrative.)

Interesting, I hadn’t considered that aspect.
I like the old terminology better as it better represents the facts, using % is a great way to misrepresent a situation and often used to bolster a position or viewpoint.

Bushmiller

7th September 2021, 03:25 PM

Paul has there been any discussion with the rehabilitation about the disturbance of the natural water table ? I raised this when doing a mine tour in the Hunter and was only given a blank look as a reply

Beardy

As part of the lease agreement, a small creek has been re-directed. i saw it just before the water was diverted and it appears to have been done extremely well with three level to accomodate flood times and prevent any overflow into areas that would not normally have been inundated. The recreation included placing fallen trees to replicate they way this small creek was.

The mine itself is shallow with the coal bearing seams being thin mainly so underground water is not severely impacted.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

7th September 2021, 03:30 PM

[QUOTE=Bushmiller;2253450]Beardy

As part of the lease agreement, a small creek has been re-directed. i saw it just before the water was diverted and it appears to have been done extremely well with three level to accomodate flood times and prevent any overflow into areas that would not normally have been inundated. The recreation included placing fallen trees to replicate they way this small creek was.

The mine itself is shallow with the coal bearing seams being thin mainly so underground water is not severely impacted.

As to the Upper Hunter between Singleton and Muswellbrook I am afraid we have a basket case. This is the classic case of greed over environment. When i drive down that section of the New England Highway I glance out the car window and see an abomination of the first order.

If you go behind the highway, it gets worse!

:((

Regards
Paul

Beardy

10th September 2021, 08:10 AM

Storage battery production to create renewable energy solution and jobs in Sydney'''s west - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-10/storage-battery-will-create-renewable-energy-solution-and-jobs/100448940)

AlexS

10th September 2021, 09:10 AM

A slight but brief thread drift, if you may. Knowing the interest and involvement of some here in the coal industry, the following may be of interest.

Sunday 19th September 2021 will be the centenary of the explosion at the Mt Mulligan coal mine in Nth Qld. 75 men died in what is Queensland's greatest mine disaster. A commemoration will be held at Mt Mulligan but I think it's booked out. I believe there are activities planned in Mareeba. More information is available if you search on Facebook for Mulligan Centenary.

OK, back to normal service.

Mt Mulligan Mine 1921- Mining Accident Database (http://www.mineaccidents.com.au/mine-accident/42/mt-mulligan-mine-1921)

woodPixel

10th September 2021, 02:29 PM

havabeer69

10th September 2021, 03:36 PM

Battery storage solutions are getting VERY exciting.

Wonder how much they are?

Bushmiller

10th September 2021, 05:00 PM

I am a little sceptical of reports that do not nail down details, even if they are only theoretical. There was no mention of cost or what sizes are proposed. That is rather important!

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

10th September 2021, 05:10 PM

As the subject of storage batteries has raised it's head again, I went looking for the Ambri battery that Chris Parks mentioned in post #31 (or thereabouts). It seemed the most likely to gain traction, but I cannot find too much on further development. At the time, a work colleague was quite taken by the product and went looking to see how he could invest, but it did not appear to be publicly listed.

Perhaps somebody has more information on development.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

10th September 2021, 05:31 PM

100% agreed.

Even on their site, absolute ZERO on capacities, draws, watts, Kwh, etc.....

Its 100% marketing spin and press releases.

Using google and its image search, it has found a single solitary squeak of peak: Gelion’s Endure™ Battery | Gelion - Inspired Energy (https://gelion.com/gelion-endure-battery/) where the image has 1.5v 75Ah and 20A printed in small text on the side of a sample. The box looks to be about 200x200x100.

Optimark

18th October 2021, 11:59 AM

This is looking ominous for some parts of the power generation industry; this was posted yesterday.

Solar powers more than half of Australia’s grid for first time, coal at record low

Solar powers more than half of Australia's grid for first time, coal at record low | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-powers-more-than-half-of-australias-grid-for-first-time-coal-at-record-low/)

Mick.

woodPixel

18th October 2021, 01:35 PM

electrification is going mainstream... one of my old rants is now being promoted to the peasants!

Converting classic cars to electric vehicles is booming in popularity - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-10-18/converting-classic-cars-to-electric-vehicles/100533104)

woodPixel

18th October 2021, 01:39 PM

This is looking ominous for some parts of the power generation industry; this was posted yesterday.

Solar powers more than half of Australia’s grid for first time, coal at record low

Even more ominous when put into the context of ....

"The new benchmark might have been higher were it not for the number of solar farms that were obliged by their contracts to turn themselves off as prices went below zero."

Bushmiller

18th October 2021, 09:45 PM

Mick's link is interesting not for just being a landmark in renewable generation.

It highlights the difficulties during the transition from one type of energy production to another: For all the players! We know that during the day the coal fired stations are having to reduce their outputs to absolute minimums as the prices go negative (up to -$1000!), but at times the solar generators, and wind generators too, are having to restrict their outputs as well. And don't they whinge! Welcome to the real world. Down the track, surplus generation will go into storage facilities, but we are not close to that point yet.

SA has been 100% renewable several times, but the 50%+ mark nationally was only achieved because of eastern seaboard conditions ( sunny and windy) and low demand. Spring and autumn are traditionally low demand periods. There is still a long way to go before we become too complacent.

It is worth remembering that no power is "free." It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power ( electricity in the main) that we debate so hotly. Electricity generated from the sun is not free. The solar farms had an initial cost building arrays, installing them and subsequently maintaining them. The solar farms want a return on investment too. When the wholesale price goes negative it affects everybody active on the spot market.

Regards
Paul

Optimark

19th October 2021, 01:55 PM

It is worth remembering that no power is "free." It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power ( electricity in the main) that we debate so hotly. Electricity generated from the sun is not free. The solar farms had an initial cost building arrays, installing them and subsequently maintaining them. The solar farms want a return on investment too. When the wholesale price goes negative it affects everybody active on the spot market.

Regards
Paul

Paul, broadly I agree with you, with one major difference. The fuel used to generate electricity from PV solar, is totally free.

With our own PV array on the various rooftops of our house, we obviously had an initial outlay for installation; the same initial cost factor also applies for our batteries being purchased and installed. This is the same as what you quote above, "It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power."

However for the fuel used to generate electrical power in our system, we have yet to receive an invoice, solar farms are in the same boat.

Amortisation of purchase and installation costs, plus regular maintenance is looking pretty good so far; but the cost of the fuel resource is still free.

8 years ago we installed our first solar PV array, we were quite surprised that our initial projected payback period of 5½-6 years actually happened at approximately 3 years and 8 months. Changes to tariffs and the manner in which we used our own generated power in ways we hadn't quite envisaged, hastened the payback period.

Similarly, our purchase of our house batteries had a projected payback period of around 9 years. We have been surprised at how the batteries have enabled us to further change our way of using our own power, to such an extent that our projected payback period on them could be between 6 years and 6½ years. If power costs rise, that payback period will move forward with some of the what if scenarios in a spreadsheet telling us it may in fact be closer to 5¾ years or slightly better. Our house batteries will be 2 years old in a couple of weeks.

If one looks at the South Australian big battery, the way it has changed the electricity market is, in some instances, quite different to what was anticipated. At least publicly anticipated, that is.

The Victorian big battery, if it goes along the same route as the South Australian big battery, I'm sure will further change the electricity landscape in ways not originally anticipated. Energy storage is the one missing factor with large scale and small scale renewable power projects; you can only generate energy when the free fuel resource is there.

Mick.

woodPixel

19th October 2021, 03:03 PM

food for thought: Solar panels on half the world's roofs could meet its entire electricity demand – new research (https://theconversation.com/solar-panels-on-half-the-worlds-roofs-could-meet-its-entire-electricity-demand-new-research-169302)

Lappa

20th October 2021, 08:43 PM

Glider

21st October 2021, 12:23 PM

Optimark

21st October 2021, 01:07 PM

While the fuel for solar panels may be free, the panels have a finite life. Old panels are becoming a source of pollution which will increase as more panels reach the end of their life. Also there is the manufacturing process.
While I can see the vast benefits of solar I can also see the downside.

Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy | Discover Magazine (https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-waste-the-dark-side-of-clean-energy)

Panels, like all equipment, eventually stops working or get to a point that it needs replacing or refurbishment. I have seen quite a few stories about solar panels requiring early replacement and that things are not quite what they seem to be. I'm not completely sure whether many of these stories/articles are planted or come from legitimate solar industry specific sources.

From personal experience my first ever solar panel was made in 1991, it is now 30 years old and still working pretty much as it was when I first purchased it. It is small 10W, but 10W back then was a reasonable size for the job it was given.

I personally know of a PV array installation that was done in 1982 in Gippsland, inland from Bairnsdale to be specific. This installation powered the entire house up until the property was sold in October 2019, which is 37 years straight. Their house batteries, huge ex-Telstra units, had one rebuild and were still running along smoothly. I understand the house is still running on that system, but I cannot be 100% sure. But if it is, that is 39 years straight, pretty impressive.

Meanwhile the Germans have been conducting some pretty impressive research into how long and how well solar panels are running in an array. This link makes for interesting reading as these panels are approaching 45 years. At the 35 year mark individual panels were removed and subject to rigorous examination, the losses of performance for these panels, is to put it mildly, minimal.

The oldest photovoltaic array in the world still in operation (https://solargrid.pk/2020/10/15/the-oldest-photovoltaic-array-in-the-world-still-in-operation/)

In the not too distant future, possibly within 10 years maybe, we could start seeing solar panels with much greater output. Basically solar panels convert one small part of the spectrum they are sensitive to into electrical energy. By having another layer of material that is sensitive to another part of the spectrum, the energy output can be magnified to possibly double their current output.

Something like this technology could spur greater take-up of PV panel generation at the industrial level and at the same time may initiate a trend to replace existing panels to gain more generation from the same footprint.

This is the kind of technology behind the unbelievable output of solar panels used in outer space, at the moment it is quite expensive to manufacture, but so were the original PV solar panels offered to the public 40+ years ago.

Mick.

havabeer69

22nd October 2021, 10:14 AM

While I think this question is slightly off topic, it's relevant. Maybe one of the cognoscenti can satisfy my curiosity.

Sydney Trains have just announced that their network is going 100% renewable by virtue of a deal signed with Red Energy (Snowy Hydro). Is anyone measuring the amount of electricity sold by Red Energy against the gigawatts generated by them? Or is it yet another political con job?

mick

you don't get to pick and choose where the electricity from the wall comes from. Sydney trains just says that they use 50Mw's of power per year (dunno what the number is this is just an example), so they're going to invest in "green" projects that would generate that same 50Mw. It all basically works through offset certificates. So Sydney trains invests a bunch of money into building a 50Mw wind farm which would net them a certain amount of carbon offset certificates.

BobL

22nd October 2021, 10:33 AM

you don't get to pick and choose where the electricity from the wall comes from. Sydney trains just says that they use 50Mw's of power per year (dunno what the number is this is just an example), so they're going to invest in "green" projects that would generate that same 50Mw. It all basically works through offset certificates. So Sydney trains invests a bunch of money into building a 50Mw wind farm which would net them a certain amount of carbon offset certificates.

Just a minor tech matter.
It's "MW" (both are capitals), and that's "energy" ie not "power".
Power = Energy x time , so I think you probably mean 50 MW-hours (MWh)?

Lappa

22nd October 2021, 11:16 AM

From personal experience my first ever solar panel was made in 1991, it is now 30 years old and still working pretty much as it was when I first purchased it. It is small 10W, but 10W back then was a reasonable size for the job it was given.

I personally know of a PV array installation that was done in 1982 in Gippsland, inland from Bairnsdale to be specific. This installation powered the entire house up until the property was sold in October 2019, which is 37 years straight. Their house batteries, huge ex-Telstra units, had one rebuild and were still running along smoothly. I understand the house is still running on that system, but I cannot be 100% sure. But if it is, that is 39 years straight, pretty impressive.

Mick.

there are always examples to quote.
i personally know of three arrays set up in the 2010’s (when the Govt first the first bought in the solar rebates) that have deteriorated to the point they need to be replaced. Admittedly, during this early scheme there were a lot of cowboys who brought in crap panels. Apparently there are thousands put in under this scheme that need to be replaced. There are many articles stating these facts and the problems with disposal which, at the moment, seem to be pushed to the background.
I also personally know of two recently installed arrays that were badly damaged during a big hail storm in Berowra and need to be replaced. I’d imagine this could be the case in many parts of Australia.
Like I said in my original post, I have nothing against solar and in the future it will be an important part of our electricity supply BUT like all forms of energy production there are negatives. The problem is when you look at the majority of the media and expert comments recently, it’s all roses with no mention of the thorns. It reminds me somewhat of the possible Astra Zeneca side effects plastered all over the media with absolutely no mention of the heart problems that where the possible side effects of Pfizer and Moderna.
Personally, I would like to see the nuclear option explored in more detail.

woodPixel

22nd October 2021, 02:28 PM

Just a minor tech matter.
It's "MW" (both are capitals), and that's "energy" ie not "power".
Power = Energy x time , so I think you probably mean 50 MW-hours (MWh)?

Fairly sure he isn't talking about the output of a car engine or the local flour mills stream-powered grinding wheel :)

Maybe we should quote in some other unit? :) Reddit has a standard of Olympic Swimming Pools (volume), a Banana (size) and African Elephants (if there is doubt of the unit).

Maybe power (MWh) should be quoted in AA rechargeable batteries :)

woodPixel

22nd October 2021, 02:40 PM

Like I said in my original post, I have nothing against solar and in the future it will be an important part of our electricity supply BUT like all forms of energy production there are negatives.

Personally, I would like to see the nuclear option explored in more detail.

We should, as a society, have put in place a vast recycling program. Just as a thing put in has a cost, so should its decommissioning.

These panels, like asbestos, should be treated properly. Dumping them is a terrible idea.

In 100 years, or more, our ancestors will curse us for our waste.

On nukes, I've read many excellent articles on pebble-bed reactors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor) Their design is inherently safe, plus they can be cranked on/off/up with very little delay. The tennis ball sized pebbles flow from the bottom, are collected, recycled/remanufactured and popped back in the top.

They are safe too. One can handle the balls. :)

havabeer69

23rd October 2021, 12:38 PM

Just a minor tech matter.
It's "MW" (both are capitals), and that's "energy" ie not "power".
Power = Energy x time , so I think you probably mean 50 MW-hours (MWh)?

yeah my terminology is probably a bit muddled up. Everything we put over the fence into the switch yard is defined as Megawatts. A quick google also says you've got your definition around the wrong was as well

kW vs kWh: how knowing the difference can help slash your energy bill (https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/kw-vs-kwh-how-knowing-the-difference-can-help-slash-your-energy-bill/)

Fundamentally, the distinction between kW and kWh is fairly simple – kilowatt (kW) is a measure of power while kilowatt-hour (kWh) is the measure of energy.

What's the Difference Between kWh and kW? - Artis Energy (https://www.artisenergy.com/utilities/difference-between-kw-kwh/)

kWh is a measurement of energy, whereas a kW is a measurement of power

BobL

23rd October 2021, 01:43 PM

yeah my terminology is probably a bit muddled up. Everything we put over the fence into the switch yard is defined as Megawatts. A quick google also says you've got your definition around the wrong was as well

Yeh thanks for the correction - starting to get things the wrong way round - must be another sign of old age.

Energy is in Joules,

Energy per unit time is Power
So one Joule per second is one Watt,

One Watthr brings it back to energy, or 3600 Joules.
One kWh is 3600000 Joules of energy
But not many people think of energy in Joules.

Chief Tiff

23rd October 2021, 02:13 PM

But not many people think of energy in Joules.

Joules singular, no. But in the coal seam gas industry we calculate production in terajoules; trillions of the little burgers. Currently my workplace is expected to churn out about 660tj today out of a 1350tj total for the company.

That's going to boil a lot of kettles.... in China.

havabeer69

23rd October 2021, 05:37 PM

Joules singular, no. But in the coal seam gas industry we calculate production in terajoules; trillions of the little burgers. Currently my workplace is expected to churn out about 660tj today out of a 1350tj total for the company.

That's going to boil a lot of kettles.... in China.

our site still goes off coals "calorific" value

Bushmiller

29th October 2021, 09:20 PM

I suppose it is inevitable that until renewable energy becomes 100% sufficient, debate will centre around the ability to generate when the sun does not shine and the wind doesn't blow and if you remove all the thermal sources of producing electricity which are coal, gas and oil, you are only left with nuclear. So, not surprising really that Sky News are resurrecting the debate.

'Very few good options' for renewable energy without nuclear power (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/very-few-good-options-for-renewable-energy-without-nuclear-power/ar-AAQ4Zk8?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531)

Now they did not address all the old bug bears of the nukes, with the primary issues being safety (arguably much improved over early designs), the potential for targeted attacks, the issue of spent waste disposal (the perennial bug bear), the difficulty of siting such an installation (who is going to put up their hand for one in the back yard) and the cost of decommissioning at end of life. However, they opened up pointing out that there could be some potential for SMRs (Small Modular Reactors). I don't think there are any operational units around yet so this is once again pie in the sky (no intentional pun there).

Cost and generating potential are still going to be governing factors. A small installation may be very costly on a MW/hr basis and with renewables becoming increasingly able to supply ALL the demand during the day it will require the more expensive forms of electricity generation to shut down for hours at a time. Australia is currently experiencing more of this trend even with existing fossil fuelled plants. This trend will be a warning to future generators that they may not be required to generate for sufficiently long periods of the day and the incentive for a new player to enter the market may be too small even if the problem issues I mentioned above are satisfactorily addressed.

Reference was made to the UK and the fact they have they have virtually no coal fired stations left, but they did not mention that they have gas fired stations instead. I believe gas fired (still fossil fuel of course) stations represent around 36% of their generation. They already had some nuclear power plants. Around 17% is generated by nuclear with some plants having received extensions to their operating life.

It appears to me that even with all the problem issues resolved, atomic power will be too expensive for insufficient profit in a market of reduced demand and diminishing returns. Who will put up their well healed hand?

Regards
Paul

Chris Parks

30th October 2021, 12:15 AM

woodPixel

30th October 2021, 01:09 AM

Sooner or later the people who manage our electricity supply will work out that it is inefficient to run the grid to small towns when they can have local stand alone sources of power using batteries and solar/wind generation.

I'm not so sure this will be a problem.

Just so happened I saw this not so long ago.... King Island and Brunny Island down in the Bass installed solar to replace their diesel generators. The cost of the solar+battery install was the same as they paid in fuel for ONE YEAR.

There was a thing on landline that profiled them after 3 years. They've both added a windmill and looking to install a second turbine.

They generate so much power they are looking to export it!

So, from an enormous cost, to a revenue stream..... They seemed very chuffed indeed!

Here is a bit of a read: Whole towns to be taken off the grid and powered by stand-alone renewables (https://reneweconomy.com.au/whole-towns-to-be-taken-off-the-grid-and-powered-by-stand-alone-renewables/)

Also, these blokes don't buggerise around, they are getting very serious Indeed:

Rio Tinto plans massive 7GW wind and solar for smelters and iron ore mines (https://reneweconomy.com.au/rio-tinto-plans-massive-7gw-wind-and-solar-for-smelters-and-iron-ore-mines/)

Chris Parks

1st November 2021, 12:12 PM

Maybe I spoke too soon and the management is starting to work it out finally. There are other micro grids in WA but the old ones are powered by diesel gen sets from memory.

'Micro' Snowy Hydro: Renewable energy fix to tackle town's power problems (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/micro-snowy-hydro-renewable-energy-fix-to-tackle-town-s-power-problems/ar-AAQahG1?ocid=winp1taskbar)

Bushmiller

1st November 2021, 12:59 PM

Chris

I am not really familiar with the WA grid, but I suspect the area is so vast that there are many communities that have no option but to be self sufficient by whatever means is available to them. The town of Walpole is apparently about 500 people.

A family member used to live in the similar sized town of Tyalgum in Northern NSW. Way back they were destined to go off the grid. This is from Wikipedia, but I first heard it from the family member.

"As of 2016 Tyalgum plans to disconnect from the electricity grid, and produce renewable power locally, primarily using solar power and battery storage.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyalgum%2C_New_South_Wales#cite_note-3)"

Based on that information she did not go ahead with a solar installation. However, the disconnection never happened.

I think the scale of WA lends itself to isolated systems far better than the East Coast grid. Having said that, we should remember that there are still "islands," but they are generally further inland such as Mt Isa etc. probably they are don't qualify as East Coast.

The grid is not all embracing and this diagram shows the extent of the problem:

503235

I don't recall the exact percentage of people that live on the coast (not sure how far inland is still classified as the coast), but it is huge: maybe >95%.

Regards
Paul

ian

1st November 2021, 05:21 PM

Reference was made to the UK and the fact they have they have virtually no coal fired stations left, but they did not mention that they have gas fired stations instead. I believe gas fired (still fossil fuel of course) stations represent around 36% of their generation. They already had some nuclear power plants. Around 17% is generated by nuclear with some plants having received extensions to their operating life.

It appears to me that even with all the problem issues resolved, atomic power will be too expensive for insufficient profit in a market of reduced demand and diminishing returns. Who will put up their well healed hand?I wouldn't be too sure about that
as it stands, the UK currently imports 4GW from France, all of which is nuclear generated, or so I understand. Well the UK did import 4GW from France till a fire on September 15 in one of the main DC to AC converter halls caused an unscheduled shut down of 1GW till sometime in mid-2023. At the time of the fire, a further 1GW was out for scheduled maintenance.

The UK also imports electricity from the Netherlands (1GW) and Belgium (also 1GW). I'm not sure if the import links from The Netherlands and Belgium are from nuclear or renewable sources or a mixture of both.
I understand that the link with Norway (1.4GW) which came on line in late October will allow the import of hydro power or the export of excess wind energy from the UK. Will hydro in Norway become the UK's "national battery"?

Quoting this source Britain hits power imports record (https://www.powerengineeringint.com/industry-insights/britain-hits-power-imports-record/) "Two new interconnectors to Germany and Denmark, which are currently under construction, will add another 2.8GW of capacity by 2023-24." As I understand it, Danish and German electricial generation is largely renewable.
also quoting from the same source: "EnAppSys data shows that Britain remained Europe’s second biggest net importer in the first half of 2021, recording net imports of 12.3TWh." I think these imports represent around 25% of the UK's total electricity demand.

In regards to the nuclear option -- I have little confidence that "the market" will step in and provide a reliable supply of nuclear generated electricity. Given that, as far as I know, we have yet to be told what blow torch the Nationals held to the Liberal's belly when they agreed to the Liberal's net zero "plan" I would not be at all surprised if one of the "sweeteners" is the Australian tax payer stumping up the cash (and assuming the risk) for a large nuclear power station or four.

BTW, I may have mentioned this earlier in this thread, but somewhere I have seen an estimate that for Australia to be totally renewable when it comes to electricity, there needs to be enough pumped hydro (or tidal power) to power the grid for around 72 hours. I don't recall if the estimate assumed no solar, no wind for those three days, or if the assumption included daylight solar generation. But at an annual electricity consumption of 265TWh, three days is equivalent to 2.2TWh -- which is one hell of a lot of lithium in an exceedingly large battery.

woodPixel

3rd November 2021, 01:38 AM

This news today would go some way to answering Ian's most excellent comment:

NSW flooded by 11GW of pumped hydro proposals for big flip to renewables | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-flooded-by-11gw-of-pumped-hydro-proposals-for-big-flip-to-renewables/)

I had no idea electricity was sold to England in such a manner. Man, I'd reckon those DC/AC facilities would be a marvel to tour.

(If I may add a political comment... It seems that the Liberals are utterly unaware of the enormous shift in people's thinking about renewables. The average Joe is super keen on every aspect of this tech. The Libs seem to be fundamentally stuck in the 1950s)

BobL

3rd November 2021, 09:42 AM

BTW, I may have mentioned this earlier in this thread, but somewhere I have seen an estimate that for Australia to be totally renewable when it comes to electricity, there needs to be enough pumped hydro (or tidal power) to power the grid for around 72 hours. I don't recall if the estimate assumed no solar, no wind for those three days, or if the assumption included daylight solar generation. . . . .

Thats what the Walpole pumped hydro microgrid in south West WA is being set up for. Their average power outage is only a few hours but occasionally its more than 24 hours.

Bushmiller

3rd November 2021, 12:14 PM

This CCS project has been on the books at Millmerran for two or three years. It is a joint venture. As it is at my workplace I am unable to comment specifically other than to draw your attention to the media release for information:

Carbon capture storage trial in Queensland to demonstrate Morrison's promise to reduce emissions via 'technology' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/carbon-capture-storage-trial-in-queensland-to-demonstrate-morrison-s-promise-to-reduce-emissions-via-technology/ar-AAQcF5m?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531)

The only additional information I can add is that one of Millmerran Power Station's joint owners already has two of these Carbon Capture and Storage plants in China.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

8th November 2021, 11:54 AM

I received an email the other day passed on by a friend. The email contained thoughts on coal fired power stations from somebody purporting to have spent twenty five years in the power industry. This was a statement that I picked up on.

"First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers."

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection."

I have to correct some aspects of this statement.

A thermal fired generating plant comprises three main components: The boiler, the turbine and the generator. The boiler and the generator are very efficient with figures certainly in the high nineties (it doesn't really matter exactly what it is, but it is good), but the turbine or more precisely the condenser is not so efficient and brings the overall efficiency of the power plant down to somewhere between 30% for the older designs and approaching 40% for the most modern installations. This means that 60% or more of the energy produced by the boiler does indeed go up the chimney as it is not converted to electricity. Compare this to the 25% efficiency of you house's slow combustion heater (not that it produces electricity) and a diabolical % of an open fire. In the power plant this loss of efficiency comes from the requirement to condense the steam back to water to be reused. The heat loss occurs in the transition from steam to water (technically referred to as the "latent heat of evaporation", although in this instance it is the reverse process back to water).

Modern power stations attempt to minimise these losses by a number of techniques. The air heater, which is a slow rotating device to warm incoming air to the boiler, is sited in the flue gas path as is the economiser, which pre heats the water entering the boiler. At our plant in Millmerran, water entering the boiler at this point is already about 300°C (still water because it is under high pressure) immediately after the economiser.

Modern plants also incorporate feed heaters where steam is bled off from the turbine at different points and used to pre heat water on it's way to the economiser and subsequently the boiler. All this heating takes place before the water enters the boiler. This takes advantage of the heat without the need to cool it in the condenser. However, there is a limit to how much of this you can do as our primary objective is to drive the turbine. I believe at Millmerran, which has a supercritical boiler, the efficiency is around 38%.

The Reheater, mentioned in the statement above, takes the steam from the exhaust of the HP (high pressure) cylinder of the turbine and returns it to the boiler to gain further heat (at a lower pressure of course) before continuing it's journey through the IP (intermediate pressure) and LP (low pressure) cylinders. Consequently with an efficiency of 38%, 62% of the generated energy is indeed "wasted" in going up the chimney.

Ahem! A lot goes up the stack in terms of gases. Tons of the bloody stuff. Primarily CO2. Hopefully there is very little moisture as that would be indicative of a tube leak. One statement made in the email is fundamentally true as the baghouse collection systems, when fitted to modern power plants, do collect the majority of the visible particles. I would question the whether precipitators can achieve such a good result. Liddell used to have "precips" and my memory is that they caught about 75% of the dust, but that was only on a good day. We did not call it "old smokey" for nothing. They subsequently installed a baghouse and completely fixed the visible dust issue.

My point in relating this story is to make us wary of what we read. I don't know if the email I received is deliberately mis-leading or there is just a lack of understanding. The general thrust of the email was to say that we cannot go directly to renewables and is probably reasonable, but incorrect information should not be put out there to justify the argument.

Regards
Paul

Beardy

8th November 2021, 01:01 PM

Bushmiller

8th November 2021, 05:12 PM

Interesting reading, your last statement about incorrect/ misleading information equally happens on the renewable side as well.

I would rather everyone just called it as it is, acknowledge we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle yet but are working on it.

Bushmiller I don’t know if you can answer this question or not but you often hear how renewables are being held back because of the heavily subsidised coal industry ( looking after their mates is often touted as well) so there is a reluctance to invest in renewables.

How accurate is that line of conversation?

Beardy

You have nailed at least one aspect of the confusion in that both sides appear happy to misquote at worst or not correct at best false or misleading statements and "facts!" They just let it ride if it suits the agenda. I would rather know the exact situation with warts and all.

As far as the coal subsidies are concerned I have often heard that too, but I am uncertain as to exactly what it entails. I believe that some aspects of industry receive concessions on their diesel fuel so that is a subsidy as opposed to a blatant handout, but it is probably quite a significant amount. I am led to believe (by management) that at Millmerran we do not receive much in this line, but truthfully I don't really know. There seems to be the perception that government helps the mates in big business, but is that anecdotal? Again I don't know, but I have to say I am highly suspicious.

I should add that the renewables have at times also received subsidies. There are still in place those that were the original incentives for rooftop solar and I have also been told that on the wholesale market solar installations were receiving a guaranteed price of $80/mwh, but again I have been unable verify this or how extensive it may be.

If somebody else has more specific information they are welcome to chip in here.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

8th November 2021, 05:20 PM

Beardy

On subsidies holding back further investment I don't really think that is the case. The issue now is that all these companies supplying renewable energy are commercial enterprises and they need to see that they will enjoy a return on their investment. At certain times of the day we have moved towards a situation of over supply and this drives the price down. If a solar company, for example, cannot make sufficient money it goes broke. Until there is a means of storing the electricity by whatever means is devised, I believe that investment in renewables will slow for a while.

Very few companies out there put their hand up to take a loss so they can save the planet. They want to make money. Governments of the past in their wisdom said a competitive market was the way to go. We are now paying the price for that.

Regards
Paul

Beardy

9th November 2021, 07:13 AM

Found this article

Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21 - The Australia Institute (https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/)

Bushmiller

9th November 2021, 09:39 AM

Thanks Beardy. You have done well.

Following your link to the media report I found the full report from the the Australia Institute:

Fossil fuel subsidies (australiainstitute.org.au) (https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P1021-Fossil-fuel-subsidies-2020-21-Web.pdf)

I took the following section out:

503654

From this you can see that some of the benefits are in the form of "encouragement", facilities and concessions, but it is an awful lot of money. One aspect that troubles me is the granting of monetary assistance for questionable projects. I see the government doing this to patronise certain segments of industry and to make it seem they are supporting and on board with elements of their supporters.

I recently heard the PM touting hydrogen to the Hunter Valley in NSW as if it were the fuel from heaven. he either lies or does not appreciate what it is. It is only green if it is made from renewable electricity. If it is made from coal fired power or gas fired power it is worse than if you had just put coal or gas straight into the vehicles because some efficiency is lost in the process.

I heard Barnaby Joyce in discussion state that electricity price have gone up six fold. Where is this man coming from? Stated simply, it has not. Since 2002 the wholesale price of electricity went from around $25/Mwh to a peak of $75 some time during last year and now is back down to about $50. These are very rounded figures, which will change from day to day, and it is over a period of almost twenty years. During this same time the cost to us as individuals has gone from around 20c/Kwh to nearly 30c/Kwh. Where does six times come from? Why don't people call these statements out as gross misrepresentation (that's political speak for a lie)?

Have a look at the AER statistics on prices.

Wholesale statistics | Australian Energy Regulator (aer.gov.au) (https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics)

Ask Mr Joyce what price he got for his vealers in 2002. I would suggest about $1.30/Kg. Today he probably gets $4.00! He is complaining about the price of electricity!

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

18th November 2021, 07:27 PM

I chanced on this one:

Queensland moves to call in proposed Clive Palmer coal plant (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11/09/queensland-clive-palmer-coal-plant/)

Unbelievable. It has no economic base and surely has to be considered a voter grab, which of course will never come about, although perhaps the mine will.

Regards
Paul

Mr Brush

19th November 2021, 12:53 PM

While driving home this morning I had a good idea for a bumper sticker: -

THE FUTURE HAS BEEN CANCELLED DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST

Just about sums up the state of the world at the moment :rolleyes:

ian

19th November 2021, 01:52 PM

As far as the coal subsidies are concerned I have often heard that too, but I am uncertain as to exactly what it entails. I believe that some aspects of industry receive concessions on their diesel fuel so that is a subsidy as opposed to a blatant handout, but it is probably quite a significant amount. I am led to believe (by management) that at Millmerran we do not receive much in this line, but truthfully I don't really know. There seems to be the perception that government helps the mates in big business, but is that anecdotal? Again I don't know, but I have to say I am highly suspicious.
Paul
I believe that what you are referring to is a proportion of the Federal Government's fuel excise.
I believe the excise is currently in the order of 60 cents per litre. But I am out of date with the current rate.
The intent of the fuel excise is to fund construction and maintenance of Australia's road system. Part of the excise goes into general revenue from where the dollars can be used to help fund medical services -- it could be argued that Australia's fuel excise covers the externalities of road use.

However, if diesel is used for large mine vehicles -- which never operate on public roads and thus don't need to be registered -- it makes sense for part (the portion intended for road construction and maintenance) or all of the fuel excise to be refunded to those mining companies -- iron ore, coal, minerals.
I wouldn't call it a "subsidy" as diesel used on farm or the fuel used to power reffer boxes is also rebated.

ian

23rd November 2021, 05:37 PM

I received an email the other day passed on by a friend. The email contained thoughts on coal fired power stations from somebody purporting to have spent twenty five years in the power industry. This was a statement that I picked up on.

"First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers."

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection."

I have to correct some aspects of this statement.

A thermal fired generating plant comprises three main components: The boiler, the turbine and the generator. The boiler and the generator are very efficient with figures certainly in the high nineties (it doesn't really matter exactly what it is, but it is good), but the turbine or more precisely the condenser is not so efficient and brings the overall efficiency of the power plant down to somewhere between 30% for the older designs and approaching 40% for the most modern installations. This means that 60% or more of the energy produced by the boiler does indeed go up the chimney as it is not converted to electricity. Compare this to the 25% efficiency of you house's slow combustion heater (not that it produces electricity) and a diabolical % of an open fire. In the power plant this loss of efficiency comes from the requirement to condense the steam back to water to be reused. The heat loss occurs in the transition from steam to water (technically referred to as the "latent heat of evaporation", although in this instance it is the reverse process back to water).

Modern power stations attempt to minimise these losses by a number of techniques. The air heater, which is a slow rotating device to warm incoming air to the boiler, is sited in the flue gas path as is the economiser, which pre heats the water entering the boiler. At our plant in Millmerran, water entering the boiler at this point is already about 300°C (still water because it is under high pressure) immediately after the economiser.

Modern plants also incorporate feed heaters where steam is bled off from the turbine at different points and used to pre heat water on it's way to the economiser and subsequently the boiler. All this heating takes place before the water enters the boiler. This takes advantage of the heat without the need to cool it in the condenser. However, there is a limit to how much of this you can do as our primary objective is to drive the turbine. I believe at Millmerran, which has a supercritical boiler, the efficiency is around 38%.

The Reheater, mentioned in the statement above, takes the steam from the exhaust of the HP (high pressure) cylinder of the turbine and returns it to the boiler to gain further heat (at a lower pressure of course) before continuing it's journey through the IP (intermediate pressure) and LP (low pressure) cylinders. Consequently with an efficiency of 38%, 62% of the generated energy is indeed "wasted" in going up the chimney.
Hi Paul

dragging the following info from the recesses of my memory of studying thermodynamics 45 or so years ago.

The efficiency of all thermal processes can be described by a four (?) sided curve called the Carnot cycle. Essentially the larger the difference in absolute temperature between the "hot" and the "cold" side of a exothermic process determines the process' efficiency.

From my long ago memory, the maximum theoretical thermal efficiency of a steam generator is around 42% -- the other 58% of the coal or natural gas's energy is wasted, latent heat lost when the steam used in the generator is condensed back into water to be fed back into the boiler.
Those billowing clouds of stuff the media loves to display as examples of pollution from burning coal are actually the steam issuing from the power plant's cooling towers.

The latent heat of evaporation represents the energy gained by the cooling water (and visible as atmospheric steam) as the super hot steam is condensed back into boiler feed water.

I believe -- but it is a very long time ago -- that issues like hydrogen embrittlement of the pressurised steam pipework puts a limit to how close to the theoretical maximum efficiency any given electricity generator can achieve.

The Carnot cycle efficiency of a gas turbine -- think jet engine powered generator -- is significantly more than 40 percent. I think as high as 60% ?
But again, a large amount of the gas turbine fuel's inherent energy is lost as waste heat.

62woollybugger

23rd November 2021, 07:41 PM

But again, a large amount of the gas turbine fuel's inherent energy is lost as waste heat.

That's why they have combined cycle plants, that use that waste heat for a boiler & steam turbine and co-generation plants that then pipe that used steam off for industrial processing etc. This is what we should have been building as a transition from coal to renewables until someone develops a way to store large amounts of energy from the renewables (apart from pumped hydro)

Bushmiller

23rd November 2021, 08:12 PM

Hi Paul

From my long ago memory, the maximum theoretical thermal efficiency of a steam generator is around 42% -- the other 58% of the coal or natural gas's energy is wasted, latent heat lost when the steam used in the generator is condensed back into water to be fed back into the boiler.
Those billowing clouds of stuff the media loves to display as examples of pollution from burning coal are actually the steam issuing from the power plant's cooling towers.

The latent heat of evaporation represents the energy gained by the cooling water (and visible as atmospheric steam) as the super hot steam is condensed back into boiler feed water.

I believe -- but it is a very long time ago -- that issues like hydrogen embrittlement of the pressurised steam pipework puts a limit to how close to the theoretical maximum efficiency any given electricity generator can achieve.

Ian

We tend to use the Rankine cycle in power stations and I have to say I have only "heard" of the Carnot cycle. However, it comes to the same thing..I think :?. That is that the most efficient stations are around that 40% mark and the other 60% is indeed wasted as it goes up the chimney, but is inescapable. The person who was quoting in the email I referenced clearly was not aware of the difference between his ass and his elbow I'm afraid.

One of my favourite hates is the media depicting the power stations as polluting because of their cooling towers. Technically it is not even steam but water vapour pouring out of those hyperbolic towers. Even for a chimney stack I pointed out for many years that it is not any visible particles that you may see (only occasionally nowadays because of the use of baghouse filters) which should worry you. It is the invisible gases: Namely CO2 (and NOX and SOX)

Just back on efficiency, supercritical stations have been around for quite a while, but the increased pressures (around 24,000KPa compared to conventional stations at 15,800KPa) for a long while placed too great a stress on the pipework and associated components and they fell from favour. Developments in metallurgy improved the reliability and new feasibility allowed the supercritical plants to rise up again. The last six coal fired units built in Australia were all supercritical and all in Queensland.

There is another level of boiler with Ultracritical power plants where the steam pressures are around 30,000KPa.

However I have shied away from getting too technical in this thread as it is something that probably only really appeals to those in the industry and other technical types. I don't want to frighten everybody off from a subject that should be ever present in their minds and cause a distraction from the realities of the electricity situation and climate change.

We only really need to know the bones of why something is good or bad unless people try to mislead us with incorrect information.

Regards
Paul

BobL

24th November 2021, 09:02 AM

One of my favourite hates is the media depicting the power stations as polluting because of their cooling towers. Technically it is not even steam but water vapour pouring out of those hyperbolic towers. Even for a chimney stack I pointed out for many years that it is not any visible particles that you may see (only occasionally nowadays because of the use of baghouse filters) which should worry you. It is the invisible gases: Namely CO2 (and NOX and SOX)

I agree about the cooling towers.

Uniortunately the bag filters don't trap all the invisible particles, and other thing that gets released is some radioactive material. Coal is a magnet for naturally radioactive elements so over the formation of coal deposits it tends to concentration radioactive elements some of which which cannot be filtered out. The amount varies but in a study done a few years back it was found that some coal fired plants emitted more radiation than nuclear power plants. The other issue is the use of fly ash containing radioactive materials in concrete, thus recommending that fly ash concrete not be used for dwellings but is OK for things like bridges etc.

It's a bit like cigarettes causing cancer. It has been estimated that radioactive dust trapped on tobacco leaves causes about 30% of cigarette smoking cancers. It turns out that tobacco has tiny hairs that trap ordinary dust particles that does it. Tobacco companies knew about this as far back as the 1950's and (secretly) spent many millions on hair removal and washing techniques to no avail. In the 1960s they embarked on an extensive selective breeding and rudimentary genetic engineering to remove the hairs still nothing worked. I wonder if they could do it today with the new genetic engineering tools like CRISPER.

Bushmiller

24th November 2021, 09:46 AM

I agree about the cooling towers.

Uniortunately the bag filters don't trap all the invisible particles, and other thing that gets released is some radioactive material. Coal is a magnet for naturally radioactive elements so over the formation of coal deposits it tends to concentration radioactive elements some of which which cannot be filtered out. The amount varies but in a study done a few years back it was found that some coal fired plants emitted more radiation than nuclear power plants. The other issue is the use of fly ash containing radioactive materials in concrete, thus recommending that fly ash concrete not be used for dwellings but is OK for things like bridges etc.

It's a bit like cigarettes causing cancer. It has been estimated that radioactive dust trapped on tobacco leaves causes about 30% of cigarette smoking cancers. It turns out that tobacco has tiny hairs that trap ordinary dust particles that does it. Tobacco companies knew about this as far back as the 1950's and (secretly) spent many millions on hair removal and washing techniques to no avail. In the 1960s they embarked on an extensive selective breeding and rudimentary genetic engineering to remove the hairs still nothing worked. I wonder if they could do it today with the new genetic engineering tools like CRISPER.

Bob

I may not have explained myself clearly. The baghouse filters only trap most of the visible particles. They do not trap any of the invisible particles, which are primarily the gases. I did not know about the radioactive component of flyash. Power stations sell the fly ash to the concrete companies. I think about thirty trucks a day would cart ash from us at Millmerran.

I have surmised that the price of concrete will increase as the supply of fly ash diminishes as it is used as a bulking agent.

I can't comment on the tobacco industry: I gave up smoking when I was eleven.

Regards
Paul

BobL

24th November 2021, 10:12 AM

Bob

I may not have explained myself clearly. The baghouse filters only trap most of the visible particles. They do not trap any of the invisible particles, which are primarily the gases.
Sure I understand this. Bag filters will also trap some invisible particles <10 microns during the self clogging process of filtration. CO2 does not represent an immediate health issue but fine (PM2.5) particulate matter does represent a more serious risk to health.

I did not know about the radioactive component of flyash. Power stations sell the fly ash to the concrete companies. I think about thirty trucks a day would cart ash from us at Millmerran. The radioactivity levels in the fly ash will depend on the levels in the coal which can vary as much as a fact or of 100. Some of my students checked out the background radioactivity levels with distance downwind from the Kwinana power station and the sorts of numbers they got was around 5 to 10 higher than natural background radioactivity compared to the upwind side. They also checked out the natural radioactivity in the Perth hills (~5x higher than Perth coastal plain) and in salt lakes in the wheat belt where it was up to 25x higher.

woodPixel

24th November 2021, 12:54 PM

.... In the 1960s they embarked on an extensive selective breeding and rudimentary genetic engineering to remove the hairs still nothing worked. I wonder if they could do it today with the new genetic engineering tools like CRISPER.

I would shudder to consider what these foul creatures would be doing, or have done.

When one reads of their history, they are as profane as slavers, pedos and torturers. They have no moral base.

woodPixel

24th November 2021, 12:58 PM

Bushmiller

24th November 2021, 01:29 PM

I've mentioned it before, but it's absolutely worth subscribing to Renew Economys (https://reneweconomy.com.au/) newsletter.

The hard-charging change to renewables, from the DAILY updates are.... UNBELIEVABLE.

SA can now supply 100% of it needs with renewables, Gigabatteries being installed everywhere, permits issued for gigantic wind and solar farms.... and MONSTER offshore windfarms that are almost Science Fiction!

VERY exciting times.

WP

I picked up on this one in particular:

Victoria Big Battery now registered as biggest non hydro player in FCAS market | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/victoria-big-battery-now-registered-as-biggest-non-hydro-player-in-fcas-market/)

I would point out that it's forte is mostly in the area of frequency control rather than generation and it plays a large part in compensating for solar, which is at the moment unable to regulate frequency.

Before we get too excited about SA, and I accept it is a landmark, we have to remember renewables are capable of providing 100% under certain conditions only: Namely, the conditions of wind and sun have to be just right and the demand has to be very low, In addition we are only talking of sustaining this for a few hours: Not for 24hrs, which of course has to be the ultimate goal. If SA did not have the 500MW interconnector available from Victoria, they would be cactus. We are moving, generally speaking, in the right direction, but there is a very long way to go.

I mention this not to be negative, but to caution about complacency and the current government line that private enterprise will fix the crisis. It won't unless it can make money and make money for a long time to come.

Regards
Paul

havabeer69

24th November 2021, 09:47 PM

another old girl down

Lithgow’s iconic Wallerawang coal-fired power station partly demolished | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site (https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/lithgows-iconic-wallerawang-coalfired-power-station-partly-demolished/news-story/a2db8e81c590221bce076f9eca105e08)

for those not interested in clicking the news article, wallerwang station actually demolished

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMQux2keNVQ

I know quite a few people are waiting now for Lidells closure to see what it does to the electricity market in NSW

woodPixel

25th November 2021, 12:40 AM

It seems very stupid to be smashing up useful infrastructure, even if it's a monster.

It may be trendy, but it would be far more sensible to be putting its replacement in place first...

Bushmiller, I agree with you on above. One battle does not make the war.... Nor does one's days capacity... But there will soon be 2, then 4, then 30... Then...

I'm hopeful that renewables will help us toward the job of healing the planet.

Beardy

25th November 2021, 07:24 AM

WP
I mention this not to be negative, but to caution about complacency and the current government line that private enterprise will fix the crisis. It won't unless it can make money and make money for a long time to come.

Regards
Paul

Interesting comment, I would of thought that it was a hide cash cow for whoever comes up with the solution and private enterprise would be all over it chasing the pit of gold?

Bushmiller

25th November 2021, 11:37 AM

Interesting comment, I would of thought that it was a hide cash cow for whoever comes up with the solution and private enterprise would be all over it chasing the pit of gold?

Beardy

I appreciate that may not be what we wish to hear, but our electricity market is driven fundamentally, but not exclusively, by private enterprise. If the market, following the law of supply and demand, is driven down price-wise during the day, it does not only impact fossil fuelled generators, it impacts the solar and wind farms too. If somebody can resolve the storage issue, they would be able to buy Tasmania from their petty cash and it would indeed be a license to print money.

This is an interesting article published today:

Alan Kohler: Ignore the spin. Australia already has two carbon taxes (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2021/11/25/carbon-taxes-australia-kohler/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020211125)

Self interest of government and fossil related business are prejudicing the future.

Regards
Paul