Future of the Australian Electricity Market [Archive] - Page 4

Bushmiller

16th February 2022, 06:55 PM

WP

That is an interesting dilemma and in fact one I have mentioned before regarding the solar farms. From the article you have linked it is only in SA and WA, for the moment, that the rooftop panels can/are being switched off remotely.

Once a solar plant is in place it really only has fixed costs to cover, which are fundamentally the same whether it generates it's maximum power or nothing at all: This is quite different for the fossil fuel generators. In principle they have four thresholds of generation.

The first, and best for them, is where they make a profit.

The second is where they generate at a price point above the cost of their fuel, but not at a level that contributes to an overall profit. This merely minimises how much money they lose.

The third point is where the market price is less than the cost of their fuel. Under this situation the station will reduce load to a practical minimum. Ideally they would come off line, but do not, because of start up costs and startup times.

Fourthly the station would stop generating as the price goes into negative territory for a protracted period. A Gas Turbine plant may do this ( in fact they will probably do it at step three above), but for coal fired plants it is not an option for the moment. It should be mentioned that it would also be a problem for the grid. Even the fast response units may take two hours to come back on line. Mostly the generators wear negative prices and pay AEMO so they can stay generating.

However it is important to note that as times goes on this will be less and les likely acceptable to AEMO and viable to the generators Fossil fired stations will eventually shut down. The last stations will be there courtesy of a combination of economic efficiency and flexibility.

The solar farm is only going to stop generating when supply is too great, until storage facilities become available. There will be a balancing act between generation and storage for many years to come.

Regards
Paul

russ57

16th February 2022, 11:19 PM

An article i read today (edit - actually the article quoted above...) suggested that curtailment would likely be a feature forever. Sufficient {solar} capacity to provide for winter loads really means overcapacity for summer, and that would be cheaper than enough storage to utilise the summer excess in winter.
On the issue of curtailment generally, if home owners were compensated in some way, eg by tariff reduction for that period, there would be far less impact.
The way i see it, with my current wholesale rate, (via amber) curtailment when prices are negative would actually be good. But if i was paying peak prices to run my aircon rather than using my (free) solar, I'd be unhappy...

woodPixel

17th February 2022, 12:16 AM

As an interest, I've been reading up on community generation and storage.

I feel there will be a rapid move (<24 months) towards small regional generation, storage and release.

I'm unreasonably excited about suburb level CAES and building-level batteries.

Two investments are going absolutely gangbusters. There will be a huge problem with satisfying demand for suburb and small city CAES.

Bushmiller

17th February 2022, 09:41 AM

One issue I have with switching off rooftop solar, and this is my impression, is that the solar to your house is also switched off. Under normal circumstances of rooftop solar it is only the surplus generation that is fed into the grid. If the solar is switched off to the grid you also have to buy any power that you may need for you household. I am guessing the issue is that the panels, once isolated from the grid, have nowhere to direct their surplus energy and the inverters at this stage cannot switch off panels. Consequently, everything gets shut down and the householder pays the usual kwh price!

Regards
Paul

Beardy

17th February 2022, 10:56 AM

Origin Energy to shut Australia'''s largest coal-fired power plant by 2025 (https://apple.news/AE-bwMJkIRQe68CEfqkhtvA)

Bushmiller

17th February 2022, 03:29 PM

woodPixel

17th February 2022, 05:29 PM

Coal. BBIIGG problem.

Maybe not our biggest.

Over the last few days I've been chatting with a few people on a Reddit environmental sub and I showed them this video.

It is well worth watching. Its not STRICTLY to do with this conversation, but it is parallel, as the group behind these videos considers electricity generation to be one of the first things we should change.

Please don't see it as Doom Gloom, its MORE than that. Everything is backed up with good reading on their website.... but the video is a good intro....

(May PERSONAL view is that woodworkers GET IT... we love the environment. We love wood and we love materials. We are all, in many ways, environmentalists)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6ePLhfwi8

woodPixel

18th February 2022, 09:45 PM

The numbers they are talking about now are HHUUGGEEEE

"‘Green hydrogen is now competitive with fossil fuels’ | ArcelorMittal among offtakers at massive 7.4GW project in Spain"

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/-green-hydrogen-is-now-competitive-with-fossil-fuels-arcelormittal-among-offtakers-at-massive-7-4gw-project-in-spain/2-1-1169455

woodPixel

18th February 2022, 11:32 PM

Fortescue tables plan for 5.4-GW wind-solar hub in Australia (https://renewablesnow.com/news/fortescue-tables-plan-for-54-gw-wind-solar-hub-in-australia-772573/)

I suspect we'll be seeing quite a few of these monsters rolled out in rapid succession. most excellent!

Dubbed the Uaroo Renewable Energy Hub, the project envisages the installation of as many as 340 wind turbines with a maximum combined capacity of 2,040 MW and solar photovoltaic (PV) panels of up to 3,333 MW in total, alongside a battery energy storage system with a design capacity of 9,100 MWh.

Bushmiller

18th February 2022, 11:44 PM

Thanks WP

It sounds as though some countries are moving forward. Good

I can't help noticing that when the traditional (oh OK, the dirty fossil fuel contaminators) generators quote their power outputs they refer to the number of MWs they can produce in one hour. The station I work at has a rated capacity of 850MW (twoo unit of 425MW), which is small. Also that is under optimum circumstances: High temperatures may limit the amount that can be produced. In addition a small amount of that power (about 5%) goes to power our auxiliary equipment. The amount that we can put "over the fence" or in other words down the transmission lines is just over 800MWs. This is a similar situation for all coal fired stations. Converted to gigawats (GW) we produce potentially 0.8GW/hr. Eraring, which has just hit the headlines, because it is going to close sooner than anticipated, is rated at 2880MWs or 2.88GWs: Every hour. Did I see they are replacing it with an 700Kw battery?

The battery systems, such as the Tesla, are exhausted after one or two hours if they can't be replenished. The solar systems may last for up to eight hours under optimum conditions, but depending on location, time of year and climatic conditions will perform well below that.

Let us assume that they can average six hours a day (I suspect it is well below this on a yearly average, but I don't have figures: I could be well adrift either way). This means that to replace the Millmerran Power Station (remember I called it a small station) they would need 3.2GWs of capacity to provide for the dark, dim and cloudy hours. Actually I know the power required is more than that for two reasons. Firstly, we have not taken into account cloudy days in those six hours of generation. We get clouds even in Queensland. Secondly, as transport is converted to either directly to electricity or indirectly to hydrogen (using renewable electricity) and the hydro stations pump back up to their storage dams during the day, the demand for electricity will be much more than it currently is. We have not taken into account phasing gas out.

My point here is that before we get too excited, we need to be aware of just how much more solar and wind we need compared to the capacities we currently have. The enormity of the task ahead cannot be overstated. I was interested to see that even the likes of Origin have snubbed the federal ministers and appear to have given up on them.

Regards
Paul

PS: I am sure some will see me as the harbinger of doom, but I am a believer in solar. We have two rooftop solar installations. However, overall the road ahead is difficult.

woodPixel

18th February 2022, 11:56 PM

Heres another 100 billion 40 GW project for the Hunter Valley.

Im on Reddit tonight and it is FLOODED with these types of notices....

NSW flooded with $100bn in renewable and storage projects for Hunter renewable zone | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-flooded-with-100bn-in-renewable-and-storage-projects-for-hunter-renewable-zone/)

The NSW Government revealed that it had received interest from 24 solar projects, 13 onshore and seven offshore wind projects. This was joined by eight pumped hydro energy storage projects and proposals for 35 big batteries.

Combined, the projects could deliver the equivalent amount of power provided by ten large coal fired power stations.

Now to store the stuff! :)

Store store store!

Bushmiller

19th February 2022, 08:39 AM

Now to store the stuff! :)

Store store store!

Agreed. That is now the crux of the matter.

Regards
Paul

havabeer69

20th February 2022, 03:13 PM

Thanks for that information Beardy.

NSW has twelve units that are similar to the four at Eraring, but they are not identical. There are two at Vales Point, which is the oldest version of the formula. Bayswater has four units and Mount Piper has another two. All the units started out as 660MW machines. The Eraring units were re-rated to 720MW; The Mount Piper units were increased to 700MW and three of the four Bayswater units received approval to generate at 685MW.

Kogan Creek in QLD remains the largest at unit at 750MW and the last coal fired generator built, being commissioned in 2007.

The power stations situated on Lake Macquarie suffer from expensive coal supplies compared to stations that were built later and sited either on or very near coal mines. These coastal stations would struggle to compete on price.

Regards
Paul

Its a catch 22 while lake maqs coal might be more expensive, we dont have to worry about water supplies drying up. Vales is actually an old tangential fired boiler, not like eraring which are cross fired.

Vales actually owns the coal mine next door as well so coal prices are a bit of a wierd one for us at the moment.

But origin (eraring) are a big gas owner, it seems like a smart move that if the government is going to pump 100 billion dollars into gas and renewables, and you had a business you could shut down that would pump the demand for gas up you would have to consider shutting your large coal power station.

Eraring as mentioned also struggle a bit with coal and their ash dam is also in need of expansion. But i think this is just a way to pump up the gas side of their business

Bushmiller

20th February 2022, 03:59 PM

haveabeer

Thanks for that additional information. I did wonder how Vales was placed regarding coal, but refrained from mentioning it specifically as I was not sure of the facts.

Millmerran has Air Cooled Condensers for the main turbines each comprising 36 large cooling fans. We do use water to cool our auxliary systems, but this is much reduced compared to solely dependant water cooling and the supply is recycled water pumped from Toowoomba. While ever Toowoomba exists we have an almost inexhaustible supply of water for our limited needs. years ago Toowoomba reject the concept of recycled water for domestic use so we are not even detracting from other potential uses.

Our bottom ash disposal is the dry ash Magaldi system (similar to that retrofitted to Eraring). Our Magaldi was also retrofitted many years ago.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

20th February 2022, 09:57 PM

Sold down all of my WHC (Whitehaven Coal) shares on Friday. Got a smashing price of $3.221.

What a crazy ride that was - they declared an 8 cent divvie.

EIGHT CENTS..... On a ~$3.14 share.... ppiisssss poor.

I suspect this is the way of things for the coal delivery industry now. The last two years of owning those WHC's I saw every excuse in the book. Management blaming meteorites, the Chinese, cyclones, shipping, COVID, cane toads and The Gods..... Its crazy fragile and WHC are the best of all of them (well, their coal type anyway).

The futures are looking grim too.... (below)

SO, where does this leave us? Renewables!

This popped up today: Australia’s Biggest Coal Plant to Close in 2025, Seven Years Early - The Energy Mix (https://www.theenergymix.com/2022/02/17/australias-biggest-coal-plant-to-close-in-2025-seven-years-early/)

These dudes have seen the writing on the wall.... time to HIT THE EXITS!!!

1 the promptly dropped to $3.01... booyah!

507970

Chris Parks

20th February 2022, 10:10 PM

And then we have this Mike Cannon-Brookes, Brookfield launch bid for AGL to ‘accelerate coal exit’ (https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/brookfield-cannon-brookes-launch-bid-for-agl-to-accelerate-coal-exit-20220220-p59y25.html)

woodPixel

21st February 2022, 05:17 PM

Mike is exactly correct.

We need to decarbonise the entire worlds economy instantly, if not sooner.

It is already too late. All we can do is ameliorate the effects for future generations.

It is only by taking over the dinosaurs (figuratively and literally) that we can, as a society, fix this. There is NO incentive for Boards like AGL to change. The only way to change them is complete elimination. Those board members LOOK great on paper, until you realise they (all of them) would happily to sell your children's futures for a personal quarterly bonus.

507980 507981

AlexS

22nd February 2022, 04:37 PM

508004

Bushmiller

22nd February 2022, 05:27 PM

This is an interesting and slightly disturbing development with Hornsdale Power Reserve (The SA Tesla battery)

Regulator takes Tesla big battery to court for failing to properly back up broken coal plant | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/regulator-takes-tesla-big-battery-to-court-for-failing-to-properly-back-up-broken-coal-plant/)

Firstly, the strength of this type of battery is the supposed ability to respond to frequency deviations: It is alleged that having taken payments for about eighteen months, when they were called upon to deliver in anger they fell down. Consequently the AER is taking them to the high court to get the money refunded, to have their costs paid and a penalty imposed.

This is the crux of the action:

"The AER is alleging breaches of the National Electricity Rules for its inability to deliver frequency control services and respond to instructions from the Australian Energy Market Operator over a four month period, and particularly one event when the country’s biggest single coal unit at Kogan Creek in Queensland tripped in October, 2019."

It is true to say that in the current market you have to deliver on your promises. If you don't deliver, there is a penalty associated.

The article above states that coal fired generators have performed less than satisfactorily, but I suspect they just did not say they could do something when they could not. There is a difference. It is also interesting to wonder if since that time there have been changes made in how the battery performs.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

28th February 2022, 04:49 PM

So over the last few days I have read this entire thread, but confess to not having read the external links, or watching many of the videos. Nor do I have any kind of engineering background.
There will most likely be a few things that I have missed.

(snipped)
The third point is where the market price is less than the cost of their fuel. Under this situation the station will reduce load to a practical minimum. Ideally they would come off line, but do not, because of start up costs and startup times.

Fourthly the station would stop generating as the price goes into negative territory for a protracted period. A Gas Turbine plant may do this ( in fact they will probably do it at step three above), but for coal fired plants it is not an option for the moment. It should be mentioned that it would also be a problem for the grid. Even the fast response units may take two hours to come back on line. Mostly the generators wear negative prices and pay AEMO so they can stay generating.

However it is important to note that as times goes on this will be less and les likely acceptable to AEMO and viable to the generators Fossil fired stations will eventually shut down. The last stations will be there courtesy of a combination of economic efficiency and flexibility.

The solar farm is only going to stop generating when supply is too great, until storage facilities become available. There will be a balancing act between generation and storage for many years to come.

Regards
PaulNotwithstanding Paul's most recent and "slightly disturbing" post re the Hornsdale Power Reserve......
Given that there seems to be 3/4 situations where CF power stations are losing money, would it not make sense to attach a battery storage to them (or other storage... see below)? Computer algorithms would be smart enough to discharge the power at peak times if needed, so creating recharge "space"(and run the CF turbines a little slower, saving fuel, but not at a loss), so that they always needed recharging during the money losing times.

When I watched the Vid in woodPixel's post I thought that it was an extraordinary idea. No water (river) required, doesn't have to be in a remote location (where the river is), it can just be on any old hill. In fact, a hill wouldn't necessarily be required – just a bunch of Luna Park style Big Dippers made from steel – green, of course :;. We've got plenty of iron ore for the steel, and any amount of rocks and other heavy waste (concrete and other demo waste) to fill the buckets with. Push comes to shove we could fill 'em with Clive Palmer and Craig Kelly replicants. :D

And yet there wasn't a single comment about this idea. :shrug: It looks brilliant to me. Think of all the wasted blight sites around the various cities that could be used. I'll wager it could be built for a fraction of the Pumped Hydro cost, given the necessary locations of same.
(with apologies to music lovers - best watch this vid on mute to avoid the heroic music which is just crap-on-a-loop)

And how about this startlingly obvious idea....
Have a hill, plus excess cheap electricity? Well, put giant blocks of rock into carts and haul them up a hill.
When the juice is needed, roll them back down....
Just like stored hydro, but on rails :)

ARES North America '-' The Power of Gravity (https://aresnorthamerica.com/)

https://youtu.be/KMRg4_ZbqYQ

BobL

28th February 2022, 06:42 PM

Brief informative article here about ARES
Advanced Rail Energy Storage System | Old and New Technology (https://allsustainablesolutions.com/advanced-rail-energy-storage-system/)

Summary of article;
Its not all sliced bread which is why this system hasn't really taken off.
All the current ARES projects are not touted as "storage", but like the BIG SA battery as "system regulators".

Article suggest the high up front cost is what's currently putting most investors off , US$55 mill for a 50MWh system
Compared to US$56 mill for the 100MWh battery in SA.

Of course the battery will eventually need to be replaced but that's too far ahead in time to concern most investors (they will have easily recovered the money by then) - these sorts of really long term investments will need to be done by governments.

ARES also apparently takes up considerable space, 70 hectares for a 12.5 MWhr system, compare that to a similar size battery.

Remember this is MWhrs, so you only get 12.5 MW for one hour - This issue has been pointed out several times by Bushmiller
Lets say you wanted some serious storage eg 1250 MW for 10 hours - that would be 1000x more space, so 70,000 Hectares!!, and at ~US$1 mill per MWh, and US$12,500 million!

In practice it is supposed to use relatively less space, and construction $, as it scales up in size.
Either way its still a lot of space and money so who is who's going to cough up?

FenceFurniture

28th February 2022, 06:47 PM

Thanks Bob.

ARES also apparently takes up considerable spaceSo does Clive. (errr, that's billboard space...)

BobL

28th February 2022, 07:01 PM

Thanks Bob.
So does Clive. (errr, that's billboard space...)

Space shouldn't be a problem in this country, but you can bet that someone will consider anything like that an eyesore.

FenceFurniture

28th February 2022, 07:04 PM

Yeah. Billboards are a bit of an eyesore too.

Bushmiller

28th February 2022, 07:47 PM

Thanks FF.

It is actually very important that we keep assessing these new ideas. It is a little like brainstorming where the vast majority of ideas are discarded: Something in the end gains traction. I was discussing such things with a work colleague, who was decrying hydrogen as a fuel source. His contention was that the technology for incorporation into transport was at least ten years away and consequently not viable. I am not too sure exactly where it is in a practical sense but need is a great incentive for development.

Two years ago any vaccine required six plus years to be granted approval! Hopefully accelerated programmes will result from increased awareness, although a government that is unreceptive to science is always going to be behind the eight ball.

Hydrogen is potentially one of the storage options providing it is generated by a renewable energy source (fossil fuel generated hydrogen is a nonsense of the first order) with batteries and pumped hydro being the other options. However, just as there is no source of electricity today without a fundamental flaw, there is no storage system, yet, without a flaw.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

2nd March 2022, 08:24 PM

I was discussing such things with a work colleague, who was decrying hydrogen as a fuel source. His contention was that the technology for incorporation into transport was at least ten years away and consequently not viable.

Hmm. :think: I think your colleague's thinking is at odds with Toyota's. In 3 years, by 2025, they are planning on having 15 EVs to market,and they seem to think that hydrogen is the way to go (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/16/toyota-ceo-races-hydrogen-car-amid-push-for-carbon-neutrality.html). I don't know how many of those EVs are planned to be hydrogen.

Hydrogen is potentially one of the storage options providing it is generated by a renewable energy source (fossil fuel generated hydrogen is a nonsense of the first order) with batteries and pumped hydro being the other options. However, just as there is no source of electricity today without a fundamental flaw, there is no storage system, yet, without a flaw.Yebbut no system will ever be flawless – for example, no matter how recyclable something is there is always some kind of loss, be it materiel, energy consumption, wages etc. I think we need to be a bit forgiving of the coming tech for a while to a) get it going and b) convince the recalcitrants that this stuff actually works, and that the economy won't implode – quite the opposite!

By that I mean if it takes using CF power to create hydrogen in the short term (a few years) to kick start H powered vehicles, then so be it. It can't be too much worse than petroleum for a while. To my mind that gets people into H2 EVs in the short term, and those same vehicles can still be used in the longer term when H2 can be more easily green power generated. Therefore we won't have wasted resources on producing a short term vehicle that has to be replaced when all the i and t have been crossed and dotted to satisfy the most ardent greenie. Resource waste is appalling in our current lifestyle – all to make bigger profits from a shorter planet life, for some idjiot that is going to die before the planet does (I'm still looking at you Clive :(().

In short, we need to look at the overall picture, and how to get there in the quickest and least costly (in all senses) way. Even if that means peaking up emissions a wee bit before a much bigger and quicker fall than is currently predicted, I would be ok with that because the longer term goal is more quickly achieved (and we really do have to get our skates on). It would also address EV buyer hesitation and EV political BS ("he wants to steal your weekend").

Surely hydrogen EVs are the best longer term solution (on current developments). They would vastly reduce the amount of battery storage required (and batteries are nasty for a plethora of reasons – mining, processing, child exploitation in poor countries, disposal). H2 also gives the capacity for a much longer range than a purely battery EV – I don't fancy a trip across the Simpson desert with just batteries, and I need be able to tow me boat y'know.:roll: I know that's the exception, but you get my drift. When we no longer have vehicles that can have a few hundred litres of fuel in the trailer for the trip....there'll be no trips to those places.

Chris Parks

4th March 2022, 03:12 PM

The problem with Hydrogen is it can't be used in mass production and even using a pair of binoculars it is not clear when it will be production ready.

This appeared today Coal-fired power in Australia could be over within 10 years concedes lobbyist Ian Macfarlane - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-04/coal-fired-power-could-end-within-10-year-says-ian-macfarlane/100850994)

That is not a very long way off, maybe eight years away at the most but I have to ask what can be done in that time to replace the existing power generation that will be lost in that time span. It will take a damned big battery to power any capital city without interruption. The East coast has just had about a fortnight of reduced solar and I have the logs from my system to prove it and the question would have to be asked as to how things would have been without the existing coal fired generation.

Beardy

4th March 2022, 04:56 PM

How can they make such a bold statement without following it up with an alternative?
I don’t doubt the transition will happen but what path are we heading down?

woodPixel

4th March 2022, 10:57 PM

Well, on Hydrogen, I cant think of a more energy demanding process than making steel.

To that end, hydrogen powered steel making plants are a thing. They are real and exist already. It isn't a theory.

Here is one in Germany that has replaced coal - Steel breakthrough - thyssenkrupp makes steel using hydrogen - Australian Manufacturing Forum (https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/steel-breakthrough-thyssenkrupp-makes-steel-using-hydrogen)

and here is one in Sweden that is 100% Hydrogen - First in the world to heat steel using hydrogen - Ovako (https://www.ovako.com/en/newsevents/stories/first-in-the-world-to-heat-steel-using-hydrogen/) and https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/-world-first-as-hydrogen-used-to-power-commercial-steel-production/2-1-799308

as for production - wind, solar, geo. Store it as CAES, H2, O2, battery, kinetic. It is no mystery. More. More. More.

Just as we built coal fired power plants to get where we are, its time to put in SUN powered.

IT IS ALREADY TO LATE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.

(I hear "CC is BS" - yeah, well, THIS is the third "1 in 500 year event" in 3 years.... --> Hannah Cabinet masterpiece among flood-damaged artworks in Lismore Regional Gallery - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-03/hannah-cabinet-margaret-olley-paintings-damaged-lismore-flood/100878946) )

Its not even a choice. It must be done. Must.

508506 508507 508508

woodPixel

4th March 2022, 11:14 PM

508509

I know I use comics a lot for serious subjects.

I personally think its way too late. I've been having a few chats with climatologists and their opinion is we have already passed the point of no return for us as a species. We cannot possibly reverse what we've done, only ameliorate the devastating outcomes.

Our core problem is the insanity of people hanging onto the past. Pretending that problems are too big to solve. Yeah, well, we were hit by Atomic-bomb level bushfires, COVID and now a 14.5 metre flood. Perth has had an endless set of 36-40° days and no rain for 2 1/2 months.

"New normal" is uninhabitable.

Take some time to watch this: 10 Inevitables: Post Doom, No Gloom (Appetizer) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6ePLhfwi8)

woodPixel

4th March 2022, 11:28 PM

Chris Parks

5th March 2022, 10:21 AM

The context of my Hydrogen comments were for automotive use and nothing more. The reality of renewable base load supply in less than a decade seems somewhat like wishful thinking at this point in time. I like the optimism shown by some but plans are not the same as building being commenced and time is marching on. It is one thing to plan but to build and connect to the grid is another issue altogether and it is the connection issue which sinks many of the plans.

FenceFurniture

5th March 2022, 10:42 AM

If renewables are coming on so much faster than expected meaning coal is being phased out much faster than expected, then that means we're going to need some kind of base load power production to be implemented.

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?

BobL

5th March 2022, 02:42 PM

If renewables are coming on so much faster than expected meaning coal is being phased out much faster than expected, then that means we're going to need some kind of base load power production to be implemented.

I was a strong supporter of the need for "baseload power" but now I'm not convinced its anything else other than a red herring pumped by big corporate power generation.

What needs to be done is not put all our eggs in one renewable basket. A mix of renewables, storage and some interim gas will probably get us thru the mire until storage gets cheap and substantial enough.

Maybe take a read of this
Debunking Three Myths About “Baseload” | NRDC (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload)

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.

Maybe have a read of this.
‘Blue hydrogen’ more carbon-intensive than gas and coal | E&ampT Magazine (https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/08/blue-hydrogen-more-carbon-intensive-than-gas-and-coal/?)

woodPixel

5th March 2022, 03:25 PM

Let us PRETEND that these things are caused by CO2 and us burning fossil fuels for power:

-- Floods From Gympie to Grafton, see the floods devastation from the air - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-05/flood-photos-show-disaster-from-the-air/100882666)
-- Vicious storms
-- Bushfires from HELL
-- Ocean acidification
-- Unrelenting heat
-- Increasing violent weather such as hurricanes
-- Reduced or intermittent rainfall
-- Apocalyptic snowfalls
-- Oceans rising
-- All ice on earth melting
-- Vast destruction of wildlife, with mass extinctions
-- Disease outbreaks

Just pretend.

There are those who will say "its just the weather". OK. Lets assume we've just experienced several 1-in-500 year events year after year is a pure chance.

Now, lets PRETEND your very existence relies on you not being wrong. That of your friends. Family. Countrymen.

Now, some smartarse you fundamentally disagree with comes along and says "Well, we can begin to change all of this by putting up wind turbines, a lot of batteries and using less petrol in favour of (lets pretend) Methanol.... We know how. There are existing systems, being used, now. Its not hard".

NOPE. You still disagree with it.

Because you are right.

Because none of it is real.

Beardy

5th March 2022, 05:29 PM

Maybe take a read of this
Debunking Three Myths About “Baseload” | NRDC (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload)

Maybe I am not that smart but all I see there is a lot of words that say nothing.

Chris Parks

5th March 2022, 06:02 PM

Chief Tiff

5th March 2022, 09:38 PM

“Create” magazine (published by Engineers Australia) has an interesting article on alternative method of electricity storage combined with repurposing coal fired power stations. See HERE (https://www.mgathermalstorage.com/) for further info, but in a nutshell an Engineer in Newcastle University has developed a way of combining simple metallic compounds in a graphite matrix that are essentially stackable blocks that can used as a thermal mass energy storage unit. Rather than decommissioning and dismantling coal fired stations you replace the boiler with this thermal mass and add electrical heating for “charging” the mass with heat using solar and/or wind derived power. When the power switches off the mass can then be used to boil water for steam to drive the existing generators.

The science-y bit is how the masses actually work. Don’t think of them as glorified bricks; that sort of mass only uses “sensible heat” ie as you heat up the mass it gets hotter, the more heat you add the hotter it gets. These blocks contains approximately 50% metallic compounds with specific melting points that even though they can melt they can’t run, ooze or otherwise leave the matrix. This is important because it allows the mass to utilise the properties of “latent heat”, where once the melting point of the metallic compounds has been reached the block stops getting hotter until all the heat energy being absorbed has completely melted the compounds. After that point sensible heat kicks in again and you get further temperature rises. It’s the phase change between solid and liquid that uses huge amounts of energy; the same principle explains why an ice cube in your glass will chill your rum down much lower and for much longer than those granite cold rock things. Melting the ice requires massive amounts of heat energy to be sucked out of the rum, but raising the temperature of a little block of stone takes comparatively sod-all. They are calling this technology “Miscible Gap Alloys”.

Thermal storage isn’t a new concept; currently most systems use salt as the medium but they use lower temperatures and can’t be easily retrofitted into existing power generation plants. Plus you have to be able to contain bloody large amounts of molten salt… These MGA blocks are 100% totally inert and safe and can be made from recycled materials; even their manufacture is doesn’t leave a large carbon footprint and are cheaper than the equivalent batteries. The team are currently setting up to be able to produce one to two Megawatt Hours of storage material per day and will be trialling the technology in Europe first. One MW/hr takes approximately 4 cubic meters of blocks; the article in Create gives an example of a 200MW power station having it’s boiler replaced with MGA. In order to give 10 hours of storage capacity 8000 cubic meters would be required; most of that would still fit on the footprint of the boilers and after discharge the blocks would only be around 50 degrees below the phase change temperature ready to be recharged with heat.

Glider

6th March 2022, 11:40 AM

Maybe I am not that smart but all I see there is a lot of words that say nothing.

The article appears to be about the use and meaning of the word "baseload power" which some interpret as comprising coal fired and nuclear sources only. It sounds like an American thing. The NRDC is a non-profit organisation promoting sustainable energy.

In his Quarterly Essay Getting to Zero, Australia's former Chief Scientist wrote about the obvious need to maintain electricity supply at a dependable level and suggested that gas powered generators could fill the gaps economically until sufficient storage became available. I understand they can be fired up quickly to meet peak demand whereas coal fired sources basically run 24/7 whether the grids need it or not. In the case of the latter, they lose money; and with the advent of solar, that's becoming increasingly frequent so the privateers want to bail out asap. I've just bought Saul Griffith's new book The Big Switch which has enjoyed great reviews.

FWIW BWX Technologies in the U.S. have just received a USD28 million grant from their Dep't of Defense to develop a transportable nuclear generator. Road, rail, air or sea.

mick

woodPixel

6th March 2022, 02:36 PM

Evan, can we have this in plain english with no embellishment please because I have no idea what you are on about.

A sad realisation that no matter how much proof, how much logic, or how much need there is to change - that people can't change.

Can't do it. They are so hopelessly inured to their delusions that they cannot be unplugged.

The ridiculous situation is I ask people "What PROOF, that would be acceptable to you, would change your mind"..... on climate change.

They simply don't want that proof. They don't want to know.

NeilS

6th March 2022, 06:07 PM

FWIW BWX Technologies in the U.S. have just received a USD28 million grant from their Dep't of Defense to develop a transportable nuclear generator. Road, rail, air or sea.

That would be a nuclear submarine without the submarine...:rolleyes:

FenceFurniture

6th March 2022, 06:14 PM

That would be a nuclear submarine without the submarine...:rolleyes::D Well I was going to make the point in my last post (possibly tongue in cheek) that we could get some nuculur reactors going for the lights until we sort out green hydrogen (or whatever) and then re-purpose the reactors into the subs later on. But then I realised that the reactors would be rusted out by the time the subs were ready for them...

FenceFurniture

6th March 2022, 06:32 PM

Maybe I am not that smart but all I see there is a lot of words that say nothing.Yeah, it's a bit like stereo equipment reviewers (which I'm seeing a bit of atm) – they sure can go on with a lot of tosh that doesn't actually mean very much, and can certainly be said far more simply (but they may not sound so smart to themselves). My takeaway from that article is that "base-load power is the minimum power required consistently every day". Crikey, that's 10 words...better add some more for my ego...

So that clears up that baseload power doesn't seem to be an issue, providing we have a reasonably good mix of renewables and storage (later on). For whatever reason I had always thought that base-load power was much more complex, and to do with heavy-industry requirements.

Ignoring hydrogen for the moment (because it may not be ready for large scale use for some years) what about the power requirements for the likes of smelters, steel mills and other power gluttonous industries? Do they simply run on enormous amounts of 3 phase power? How does 3 phase fit in with renewable energy? Or is there not much of an issue use renewable energy, apart from the scale and quantity?

Glider

6th March 2022, 10:01 PM

That would be a nuclear submarine without the submarine...:rolleyes:

Much smaller than the donk in a nuclear sub, Neil. My American mate's son is the deputy head of technology at BWX and has a bit of form in the micro-reactor area. In 1999, as undergrad students at U Chicago, he and his mate Fred Neill built a tiny nuclear breeder reactor in their dormitory room. They managed to produce a very small quantity of U235 and write themselves into annual scavenger hunt history. You can read the full story here The homemade breeder reactor | The University of Chicago Magazine (uchicago.edu) (https://mag.uchicago.edu/science-medicine/homemade-breeder-reactor#)

How Scav Hunt helped prepare alum to work at NASA | University of Chicago News (uchicago.edu) (https://news.uchicago.edu/story/he-once-created-nuclear-reactor-his-dorm-now-hes-building-impossible-nasa)

mick

woodPixel

7th March 2022, 12:08 AM

China aims to build 450 GW of solar, wind power on Gobi desert | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-aims-build-450-gw-solar-wind-power-gobi-desert-2022-03-05/)

....pledged to bring China's total wind and solar capacity to at least 1,200 GW and to cap its carbon emission to a peak by 2030.

woodPixel

7th March 2022, 01:18 AM

Beardy

7th March 2022, 07:31 AM

State Grid of China unveils plans for 100GW battery fleet – pv magazine USA (https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/02/28/state-grid-of-china-unveils-plans-for-100gw-battery-fleet/)

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.

havabeer69

7th March 2022, 10:23 AM

9 GW more: Victoria sets "game changing" offshore wind target of 9GW to replace coal | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/victoria-sets-game-changing-offshore-wind-target-of-9gw-to-replace-coal/)

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

508590

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?

woodPixel

7th March 2022, 04:52 PM

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 (https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/)

woodPixel

7th March 2022, 04:57 PM

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....

508594

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

Yes. It. Is.

RossM

8th March 2022, 12:56 PM

woodPixel

8th March 2022, 04:15 PM

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 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-08/rain-continues-with-flooding-continuing/100890232)

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 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-03-07/climate-change-floods-storms-weather-time-to-talk/100882016), atomic bushfires and diseases (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-07/two-japanese-encephalitis-cases-nsw-health-concerned/100889668) connected? DUH.

They won't stop until they are MADE to stop (this is from today).... What Coal Miners Think About Climate Change - YouTube (https://youtu.be/EGCYrK9ZC7k)

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 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-08/russia-ukraine-war-drives-high-global-coal-prices/100889762)

woodPixel

8th March 2022, 04:46 PM

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 (https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/11/30/wa-introduces-remote-solar-switch-off-following-sa-model/)

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 (https://interestingengineering.com/largest-green-hydrogen-plant)

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.

BobL

8th March 2022, 06:33 PM

Bushmiller

8th March 2022, 07:18 PM

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

BobL

8th March 2022, 07:31 PM

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 (https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating)
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.

truckjohn

10th March 2022, 12:55 AM

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.

Bushmiller

10th March 2022, 10:19 AM

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

Beardy

10th March 2022, 12:16 PM

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

havabeer69

10th March 2022, 09:51 PM

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?

truckjohn

11th March 2022, 03:42 AM

Beardy

11th March 2022, 06:21 AM

I just fitted solar to my place and the power entering my property during the day is 256volts, I reported a fault to the authorities
We are at the end of the supply chain and the power at the node is 240v, by the time it gets to us it has jumped up that much from all the domestic solar feeding the system so they can’t do anything about it

truckjohn

11th March 2022, 10:41 AM

Yep. Voltage rise due to wire resistance on a supply system is a real thing most folks don't understand. Newer solar installations are designed with voltage regulation so they don't over supply the grid in hot weather, but it's really a power line problem.

Luckily, most appliances can easily handle a wide range of voltage fluctuation. 16 volts is under 10% - so it should be ok, maybe even a little beneficial. Power consumption is Volts x Amps - so a 1500 watt appliance consumes 6.25A @240 volts, but only consumes 5.9A @256v. The lower current consumption causes less resistance heating in the circuitry - and things settle down. Going the other way is a worse problem, when you're 16v down on 240v system, you fall into the death spiral where everything consumes more current, which causes more resistance heat losses... Which causes more current drop...

FenceFurniture

11th March 2022, 10:43 AM

by the time it gets to us it has jumped up that much from all the domestic solar feeding the system so they can’t do anything about itOthers more expert can comment better than I can, but this and other problems with the grid coping with scattered solar input is caused not so much by the rapid solar take-up, but by not having a grid that is suitable for it. We have a technology that is 80-100 (?) years old that was designed for energy supplied from a handful of sources (CF power plants) to go in one direction, and we are trying to force it to work with a brand new tech that is two way and scattered. It seems to me that there are band-aids everywhere.

We need a whole of Federation approach for a grid (et al) that is appropriate for the times.

Optimark

11th March 2022, 11:21 AM

We have a reasonably sophisticated solar and battery system, one of the by products of this is the ability to see lots of recordings of various power figures. It doesn't mean I understand many of these figures, but they make interesting reading.

Beardy reported an excess of power in his measurements in the daytime, this does happen and I've seen it a bit myself. I did note when I was eating breakfast and musing on the state of charge of the batteries and where current solar was at around 08:00 this morning.

After reading Beardy's post, I checked out some figures from this morning.

As I was having breakfast this morning, I noted that the sun was shining very brightly; we were doing quite well in the generation department from the rooftop solar. Now after looking at some of the figures this is what I noted.

At 07:49 the street side of the meter was measured at 245.8V this was around the start of some serious sunshine appearing from nowhere. By 07:59 the voltage was now at 238.9V still with serious sunshine. I take from this that the system levelled out the higher voltage by itself, possibly as many toasters and coffee machines were being employed by the populace.

But I did find something quite interesting, something I wasn't looking for and only because I scanned the period from 00:00 11/03/2022 to around 10:30. At 02:29 the incoming voltage was 248.7V at 50.1Hz.

We haven't had any issues as we have been running solely on battery power for the whole of the night. At the time of the 248.7V street input situation, our house was consuming 99W from the batteries. As this is below a refrigerator running consumption and above our normal standby consumption, I'm assuming the missus was still up and reading with a light or two on. :rolleyes:

By the way, nominal grid voltage in our part of Australia is 230V.

Mick.

havabeer69

11th March 2022, 08:37 PM

Right.

Nukes and coal plants are incredibly difficult to "turn down" and "turn up" with demand fluctuations. They are ultimately steam plants, and it takes a LONG time to generate that much steam.

And even better, the grid can't store energy, it can only supply it... All the extra has to go somewhere.

One of the "Interesting" business developments cropping up is electricity shedding devices which are installed and controlled and generate a side benefit of soaking up extra production. One that most people haven't heard about is specially designed hot water
heaters which are plumbed to sprinklers. They use excess electricity to heat water and spray it out... Yes - for real. This is not a small thing in solar heavy areas.

I think most would agree that simply turning down excess solar production is preferable to cooking up a myriad schemes to create of excess consumption on demand...

I always love to tease people that it's a shame Nature didn't sort out things which harness excess energy and use it to create renewable, consumable matter.... Oh yeah... Trees... ;)

You'd actually be surprised how quick the old coal clunkers and respond to load, obviously no where near instantaneous as a battery bank but some coal stations have about 10% "spinning reserve" of steam that can be used pretty much straight away.

On the last point of trees, its actually surprising the sheer volume of trees you actually need to burn to get the same amount of power from coal. And there is one other issue with it... throw a green log into your combustion fireplace, and you definitely know it compared to a well seasoned/dry one. its like a 1 to 5 or 6 ration. so for every ton of coal you can burn, you need 6 tons of wood and if you're station burns 8000T in a day of coal, you're getting close to 50,000T of wood.

So trying to dry and season a couple of hundred thousand tons of wood is a challenge unto its self, then it has to be processed so it can burn efficiently and not cover the whole area with smoke. There where a number of pilot plant ideas to try and pelletise wood for burning but it starts to get cost prohibitive when you need to pay for a fuel to provide heat to dry out your wood so it'll crush properly and actually burn in a boiler.

not to say you can't do it but it does get tricky trying to go large scale with it
Wood Burning Power Station at Wilton 10 - Power Technology (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/wood-burning/)

this place in the UK is a 30MW unit burning approx 300,000 tons of scrap wood and other such timber products all while meeting emission specs. shoving one down in the pine forests of S.A might make sense

truckjohn

12th March 2022, 12:49 AM

Oh, absolutely, wood burning is one of those solutions that falls under "It's ok when one person does it, but becomes a catastrophe when everyone does."

Many of the huge older papermills and sawmills had their own cogeneration plant to burn scrap wood waste for electricity. Besides the smoke, they generate a giant amount of ash.

Beardy

12th March 2022, 07:22 AM

The Endeavour Energy representative said they were trialling some stabilising devices to alleviate the higher voltage problem but it is happening everywhere
@truckjohn as you pointed out the systems have protection built in so as to not oversupply the system but the flip side of that is that when this happens you are not sell your power back to the grid.

Bushmiller

12th March 2022, 05:40 PM

.

By the way, nominal grid voltage in our part of Australia is 230V.

Mick.

My understanding is that the nominal single phase supply was recently changed to 230V instead of the 240V we were all used to. As has been mentioned, the voltages can go higher than this nominal figure. When it was 240V those higher figures could cause damage to some machines. It is also a demonstration of the requirement for frequency control.

Regards
Paul

BobL

12th March 2022, 07:37 PM

My cousin operates two 12 MW thermal generators powered by local sawmill offcuts and tree waste trimmed annually from tree overhangs on roads in the Italian Alps. They have relatively cheap hydro power so they don't really need the electricity from this system but read on to see how the whole system works.

The cooling system for the plants is a hot water and central heating heat exchanger that recirculates water to and from houses and businesses in a nearby town.

To be efficient the wood has to be collected within 30 km of the power plant otherwise the cost of diesel becomes too high.
The waste is chipped and transported and stored in large stockpiles at the plant.
There are heaps of roads snaking through the mountains that have to be trimmed of overhangs, plus there are a fair few falls collected after storms etc and there's a constant supply of sawdust from the 4 local sawmills.
Seeing as all this this stuff is just burned anyway it might as well do something useful.

The savings are huge, around 100,000 litres of heating oil a year that normally provides the heat for the town.
They do have a back up oil powered generator that is used when it gets really cold and they happen to be doing maintenance on one of the generators but this is nominally being used at rate of about 10,000 litres a year.
So, much less money leaves the town to line the pockets of some Russian Oligarch or Middle Eastern Warlord.

The real bonus for the town is the snow on the surrounding ski resorts is no longer covered with a oil brown film from burning oil. The scheme is so successful its being rolled out to over 40 similar locations across the alps. The setup cost was funded by the local community plus some government grants and loans. Even the 90 year grandmothers were happy to chip in to make this work.

Oh yeah and the waste ash is used in road maintenance and construction sometimes by the crews on the council trucks collecting the overhangs.

FenceFurniture

12th March 2022, 09:58 PM

My understanding is that the nominal single phase supply was recently changed to 230V instead of the 240V we were all used to. As has been mentioned, the voltages can go higher than this nominal figure. When it was 240V those higher figures could cause damage to some machines.AFAIK, appliances, machinery etc must be able to operate on ±10% of the voltage. Now whether that is on 230V or 240V, I'm not sure, but that still only 1V difference in the variance range of 46-48V.

FenceFurniture

12th March 2022, 10:05 PM

Seeing as all this this stuff is just burned anyway it might as well do something useful.Yebbut surely the point is that this stuff shouldn't just be burned anyway, but left to decompose.

russ57

12th March 2022, 10:54 PM

ian

13th March 2022, 04:42 AM

I may be wrong, but if i recall, the change from 240 to 230 was a 'nominal' change only. ie, no one actually went around and changed settings to deliver exactly 230v.
Rather, as noted above, its now normal for the supply to be over nominal (230) by 10v, or 8%.(240v). So long as it is between +10% and - 6% or 216-253, all is ok. (the 240v standard was +/-6%..
Today for example, the voltage did read 230 at about 4pm, but the rest of the day it was over 240, peaking @246.
Now we are really going back in time ...

My recollection is that the discussion around the 'nominal'change in supply voltage -- from 240 to 230 -- occurred sometime before 1981. My father retired at the end of 1981, but before he retired he had some role in the Australian Standards consultation around the proposed change. Dad ran what was then the only Government toxicology lab in NSW and was also an executive member of the Royal Society of NSW -- I don't know if dad's involvement was because he was associated with the NSW Royal Society or on account of his Government job.
Whilst the change in voltage might have been sold as a 'nominal' one, the background was that by the late 1960s electrical motors were increasingly sourced from Europe where the supply voltage was standardised at 230V. Motors designed for 230V would burn out if subjected to 240V plus whatever the then current over-voltage tolerance was. Changing the nominal supply to 230V (+10%, -6%), meant that domestic appliances could be connected to the Australian grid without any significant issues.

As an aside, at one time during the 1970s, Australian Standards was looking to modify the applicable Australian standard test for fridges and freezers to something like test the device's operation at 35*C. This thought bubble went away when it was pointed out that ambient temperatures in much of Australia regularly exceeded 40*C. Unfortunately, I don't know what the current Australian standard environmental test temperature is for fridges and freezers but some years ago, LG(?) was done for having fridges and freezers that would measure the ambient environmental temperature and thus determine if the device was being subjected to a Standards' compliance test and lower the fridge/freezer's power consumption accordingly to obtain a better star rating.

BobL

13th March 2022, 09:14 AM

Yebbut surely the point is that this stuff shouldn't just be burned anyway, but left to decompose.

Either way it makes CO2.
The main reason it's burned is the volumes of waste are quite large so where are they going to put it, and if they did store it, over time it becomes a fire risk.

woodPixel

13th March 2022, 06:38 PM

LG(?) was done for having fridges and freezers that would measure the ambient environmental temperature and thus determine if the device was being subjected to a Standards' compliance test and lower the fridge/freezer's power consumption accordingly to obtain a better star rating.

Oooo, they "did a Volkswagen". :)

I did a little reading on the historical reasons for voltages, amperages, frequency, etc last night.

I'd hoped for a really good scientific basis, solid with engineering, intelligent consideration and logic.

But, nay. It is a compromise of a compromise of a hack, of a competing system stolen off an inventor and its all arbitrary and all rather MESSY and disappointing.

Most of it is based on 1890's tech, such as filament lightbulb flicker, abilities of materials at the time, minimisation of public panic ("oh! The Vapours!") and sheer bastardry.

Bummer hey!

I'd hoped the numbers of 10/20 amps, 50/60hz, 120/240/360 volts and 2/3/4 wire distro were all rather neat science to do with neatness of circles and such. SO DISAPOINTING! :)

BobL

13th March 2022, 07:33 PM

I'd hoped the numbers of 10/20 amps, 50/60hz, 120/240/360 volts and 2/3/4 wire distro were all rather neat science to do with neatness of circles and such. SO DISAPOINTING! :)
Electrical distribution systems are a bit like the railway gauges. Once they are set up they are very hard to change.
The problem is that initially every engineer had their own idea of what was right and in the early days in some US cities the systems changed between city blocks.

Electrical quantities used these days are more or less chosen for a balance of practical purposes.

Let's start by looking at something as the energy requirement for boiling 2L of water.
You can can boil it quickly but you need high current and or high voltage - unsafe.
Too low a current/voltage and it will take too long.

10A at 240V = 2400W = 2400 Joules/second
To raise the temp of 1g of water by 1ºC takes 4.2 Joules
To raise the temp of 2000g of water by say 80ºC = 2000 x 80 x 4.2 = 672000 J
Divide that by 2400 = 280s or about 5 minutes (it turns out in practice to be a bit more because of heat losses.

Would you be prepared to be safer and for it to take 20 minutes? or would you be prepared to risk electrocution and go for 2 minutes?
Higher V would require much better/expensive insulation and protection mechanisms.

240V compared to 110V is interesting.
110V means less likely to get electrocuted
BUT
It means greater currents have to be used, so thicker wires are needed ie more copper in the wires, and this also results in more house fires.
It turns out about the same number of people die, ie house fires versus electrocution.

50/60Hz is primarily historical.
These days with VFDs you can have whatever frequency you like.

What's more whacky is the choice of 220-230-240-250V but for most purposes it doesn't matter. as most appliances can handle this range of V anyway.

Most people think of the V arriving at their shed as being something constant but it's rarely that. All its meant to be is a supply of power which the appliance eg computer, regulates to its specification.

BobL

14th March 2022, 10:28 AM

The scientific definitions of voltage and current are interesting

Ampere is now a fundamental or "base unit" in science and tech
The base unit used to be Charge (Q, in Coulombs) based on the charge on an electron.
Current (amps) was then was "so many charges per unit time".
In 2019 current became the base unit because it could be defined in terms of of a force between two wires carrying currents ie mass/length/time.
Form Wikipedia
"The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre) apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)) per metre of length."

Volts are defined in terms of kg/m/s and elementary charge "e"

Here is a very informative diagram from Wikipedia showing how all 6 of the base units are related.

The base units are the 7 shown in the inner circle
s , seconds for time
kg, kilograms for mass
mol. mole for amount of sunstance
cd, candela for luminous intensity
K, kelvin, for thermodynaic temperature
A, ampere, for current
m, meter for length

The outer ring (except V which I have added) are the fundamental constants used to define the base units, eg the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light "c", the ampere is defined in terms of fundamental charge (e)

I have added voltage so you can see where it comes from - it is derived from three base units (m, s, kg) and a fundamental constant "e" which is elementary charge
This was only worked out in 2019.
From about 2000 to 2013 I was in the thick of the redefinition of the "mole" but I've forgotten most of what happened because it was largely about chemists arguing with physicists over gnats whisker - being a physicist I was on their side, and all I remember is we won! :D
The wWikipedia article also has the pre 2019 version of the this diagram
508774

truckjohn

15th March 2022, 07:29 AM

Yep, electrical systems were often patented, and so like trains, every system did something a little different to skirt the competing patents. Also, the people doing the systems were competitors, so damn that fellow, I'll make sure my stuff won't work on his grid... and so forth. Sort of like trying to fit Toyota rims on a Nissan...

In the US, 220 v is 2 phase 110... Even more confusing is that 230v in the US is 3-phase 110... Then go over to Europe and it seems like every single country does something different to spite all the others.

truckjohn

15th March 2022, 07:50 AM

The Endeavour Energy representative said they were trialling some stabilising devices to alleviate the higher voltage problem but it is happening everywhere.

@truckjohn as you pointed out the systems have protection built in so as to not oversupply the system but the flip side of that is that when this happens you are not sell your power back to the grid.

Yeah, well, that's just part of the "cost" of a cheaper system. Grid tie systems also automatically turn off if the electrical supply to your place shuts off - such as a downed line or a cyclone... So you may well be able to supply 100% of your own power, but you're still sitting there, sweating in the dark.

If you want to give the finger to the power utility and pocket all your "savings," get a battery system and set it up to only connect to the grid if your consumption exceeds your reserves. The trouble is that those cost like 3x more than a grid-tie system.

There's no free lunch... Either you pay, or I pay... I'm not surprised to learn that The Government always sides with itself when it comes down to shutting themselves down or shutting me down.

I could tell you all sorts of stories about municipal water utilities being forced to raise rates after successful water consumption reduction initiatives went through. I mean, you still have to pay for the water plant, ten-thousand miles of pipe, and it's employees, even if it's now operating at 2/3 capacity. Lots of fixed costs...

Beardy

15th March 2022, 08:17 AM

Yeah, well, that's just part of the "cost" of a cheaper system. Grid tie systems also automatically turn off if the electrical supply to your place shuts off - such as a downed line or a cyclone... So you may well be able to supply 100% of your own power, but you're still sitting there, sweating in the dark.

If you want to give the finger to the power utility and pocket all your "savings," get a battery system and set it up to only connect to the grid if your consumption exceeds your reserves. The trouble is that those cost like 3x more than a grid-tie system.

There's no free lunch... Either you pay, or I pay... I'm not surprised to learn that The Government always sides with itself when it comes down to shutting themselves down or shutting me down.

I could tell you all sorts of stories about municipal water utilities being forced to raise rates after successful water consumption reduction initiatives went through. I mean, you still have to pay for the water plant, ten-thousand miles of pipe, and it's employees, even if it's now operating at 2/3 capacity. Lots of fixed costs...

Yes I get it and understand the situation but the broader community seem to think it is their right to be able to sell the power they generate back to the grid and that it should be a financially viable venture for them :?
The general talk about domestic solar is that they are doing it for the environment but the focus of the discussions always seem to oscillate around cost and saving money which highlights the underlying reason.
My motivation to install a system was purely financially motivated. I am all for saving the environment but think this is largely a placebo effect item and there are many more effective changes we can make to our lifestyle to make a difference but that is heading OT.

BobL

15th March 2022, 09:13 AM

c In the US, 220 v is 2 phase 110... Even more confusing is that 230v in the US is 3-phase 110... Then go over to Europe and it seems like every single country does something different to spite all the others.

Nope, their grids and electrical standards are standardised, so except for Romania (220V) and Gibraltar (240V) all other European countries (including the UK) are 230V. Even Russia is 230V. But it doesn't matter whether its 220 - 240V all domestic appliance should work within this range. One of my cousins owns a custom electric motor factory in Italy. His motors have work across the EU. and His 3P motors work just about anywhere.

Here in Western Australian we are supposed to be 240V but I often see voltages as high 250V and as low as 230V on my machine V/I meters. About 10 years ago we had a dishwasher on which the mother board went wonky and would not work when the voltage dropped below 240V! It was probably a faulty V reg on the motherboard but as the whole motherboard was potted in epoxy I could not get at the reg to replace it and replacing the motherboard was going to be too expensive. For about 12 months I ran the dishwasher from a Variable Transformer (Variac) set at about 105%. Then it need and even high voltage which the Variac could have provided but I deemed it too dangerous and had to scrap
At work where we ran many delicate electronic bits of gear, in my 40 years experience we had one device (an expensive 7 digit voltmeter rated for 220V) that didn't like more than 240V and had to be run from a stabilised supply.

woodPixel

15th March 2022, 03:35 PM

I could tell you all sorts of stories about municipal water utilities being forced to raise rates after successful water consumption reduction initiatives went through. I mean, you still have to pay for the water plant, ten-thousand miles of pipe, and it's employees, even if it's now operating at 2/3 capacity. Lots of fixed costs...

This is EXACTLY what happened here in Canberra. EXACTLY.

We had a terrible drought. The dam was empty and the local emergency supply river (Murrumbidgee) was far too low. It is fed by the yearly snowfields which are diminishing.

The local supplier (ACTEW) ran a concerted campaign that appealed to everyone to cut back everywhere. An cut they did. By SO MUCH that the pipes, sewers and drains needed regular flushing as the volumes were too low to move the ..... wastes ...

Big Problem. They ended up using their OWN water to flush the systems. Guess who paid? Hmmmm.... :~

Next problem is there was a basic usage charge.. cents per megalitre.. That fell over. Revenues collapsed, so they introduced rammed through a base rate plus "new" usage fee that Surprise-Surprise was the same as the previously charged before-reduction cost. Bills were now the same as before! GOSH!

But with now less usage.

We were vastly unimpressed.

The drought broke, the ACTEW build a stupendous new dam (its mighty, but at users cost) and it is now overflowing regularly.

Water prices remain just as high - no alleviation either on price or volume.

Bloody Government. Every. Damned. Time.

woodPixel

15th March 2022, 08:40 PM

A big number was hit.

Humans have installed 1 terawatt of solar capacity, generated over 1 petawatt of solar electricity in 2021 – pv magazine USA (https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/14/humans-install-1-terawatt-of-solar-capacity-generate-over-1-petawatt-of-solar-electricity-in-2021/)

AlexS

16th March 2022, 08:45 AM

BobL

16th March 2022, 08:56 AM

Apologies for thread drift...

BobL, thanks for that diagram. Back in the early '60s I bought a set of log tables (remember them) which had, inside the covers, the definitions of many physical quantities in terms of other, basic, physical quantities. I referred to them so often that eventually I learned them, and even, sometimes, understood. However, when I had to use seven digit logs, I somehow lost those tables.
Doesn't matter now, i guess, if so many of them have been re-defined.

OK, you may now resume normal service.

Yep - log tables I remember well, used them mainly in high school along with slide rules which I used all through uni undergraduate. Only in my last year of uni were we allowed to used calculators in one final exam - statistics, and as I couldn't afford one I had to borrow one from a mate. My first year out teaching I bought my first calculator and a couple of Years later I bought a programmable HP41CV which I worked hard especially when I went back to uni to do postgrad stuff. I still have the calculator and it still works but I also have a 41C simulator App on my phone which I use almost daily.

AlexS

16th March 2022, 04:53 PM

Yep - log tables I remember well, used them mainly in high school along with slide rules which I used all through uni undergraduate. Only in my last year of uni were we allowed to used calculators in one final exam - statistics, and as I couldn't afford one I had to borrow one from a mate. My first year out teaching I bought my first calculator and a couple of Years later I bought a programmable HP41CV which I worked hard especially when I went back to uni to do postgrad stuff. I still have the calculator and it still works but I also have a 41C simulator App on my phone which I use almost daily.
HP41CV was an excellent calculator + peripherals. I once wrote a program for a HP9845 + plotter so you could type a HP41CV program in and produce the program in bar code, which could then be read by the 41CV+wand whenever you wanted to use it. Also loved the RPN notation.

BobL

16th March 2022, 06:08 PM

HP41CV was an excellent calculator + peripherals. I once wrote a program for a HP9845 + plotter so you could type a HP41CV program in and produce the program in bar code, which could then be read by the 41CV+wand whenever you wanted to use it. Also loved the RPN notation.

We had a 9845 in our lab - I loved using it.

At one stage I wrote a crude numerical model for a nuclear reactor for the 41CV. The memory was so limited the program had to be organised so parts of the program and intermediate data were held on about 10 magnetic cards and swapped in and out as required. It did this eight times over about 16 hours to get a final basic result. This came down drastically when I got my first PC and then down to about 3 seconds when I got a 386 with a maths coprocessor.

Of course then I expanded the model and had it running for about 20 minutes and then out to even an hour and was able to run multiple models at the same time. I still have the program cards and mag reader for the 41CV - haven't used them for about 30 years.

RPN - is indeed a winner.

Mr Brush

16th March 2022, 07:53 PM

I still use my trusty HP32S RPN Scientific which got me through uni some 35 years ago.

508904

We poor students could only lust after HP41C/CV, but thanks to the wonders of technology I now also use a 41C app on mobile phone.

Having grown up with RPN, it's very difficult to use anything else !

woodPixel

17th March 2022, 01:57 AM

BobL, its some of your VFDs, but REALLY BIG!

South Australia may be first big grid in world to go without synchronous generation | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-may-be-first-big-grid-in-world-to-go-without-synchronous-generation/)

woodPixel

17th March 2022, 02:00 AM

I still use my trusty HP32S RPN Scientific which got me through uni some 35 years ago.

We poor students could only lust after HP41C/CV, but thanks to the wonders of technology I now also use a 41C app on mobile phone.

Having grown up with RPN, it's very difficult to use anything else !

You blokes amaze me. I had mine for years.

It only left me in tears and very sad. Damned thing boggled my mind :(

BobL

17th March 2022, 09:54 AM

You blokes amaze me. I had mine for years.

It only left me in tears and very sad. Damned thing boggled my mind :(

I found once I had worked out what a "stack" was and how it operated it was quite easy.

Mr Brush

17th March 2022, 10:10 AM

Yup, to we RPNites, "brackets" is a dirty word :D. Stack trumps brackets every time.

Must admit it was fun when someone borrowed my HP calculator......just to watch them scratching their head for a while before they asked "Where's the equals key?"

russ57

18th March 2022, 11:24 PM

The hp45 was the go when i was a student.
Being a poor student, i made do with a clone, the corvus 500.
I stumbled across it the other day. I ought to see if it will fire up... (or perhaps smoke up..

woodPixel

18th March 2022, 11:55 PM

Glider

19th March 2022, 05:16 PM

Hows $1.50 for a Kg of Hydrogen!

New doodad is 95% efficient.

This will do quite nicely for storage of Wind/Solar and remotes.... NICE!

Record-breaking hydrogen electrolyzer claims 95% efficiency (https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/)

I imagine hydrogen will form part of the future energy mix as a storage system and it's great that they've managed to reduce the price. However, there are number of issues I now see with hydrogen. Firstly, at ambient pressure it only has 11 MJ/m3 whereas petrol stores about 36,800 MJ/m3. So it requires compression which requires energy and creates heat which is probably lost in process. Storage costs and transportation are also very high. Batteries are about 90% efficient whereas hydrogen is about 41% using fuel cells and 35% using combustion. That's a huge waste of green power when it could be used elsewhere. I cite Saul Griffith's book The Big Switch as my data source.

Griffith's overall message is electrify everything which uses energy. He posits that wind and solar convert natural energy directly into electrical energy whereas every other system converts its inherent potential through other forms of energy before generating electricity, and each time it converts, efficiency suffers. The beauty about wind and solar is that it is easily and inexpensively established versus the minefield of approvals needed for either fossil or nuclear fueled facilities; to say nothing of their capital cost and lead time.

mick

woodPixel

19th March 2022, 06:19 PM

The beauty about wind and solar is that it is easily and inexpensively established versus the minefield of approvals needed for either fossil or nuclear fueled facilities; to say nothing of their capital cost and lead time.

This is most interesting.

I saw a video where the maker said exactly this.

The Interviewed was asked why the USA was putting in such an astronomical quantity of solar. He cited the fact the approval was a local bumpkin council (easy - literally anyone can install it en mass, starting Next Tuesday) whereas a nuke plant was a regulatory hell (cost, specialists, regulation, 10 year builds, specific places, etc, etc, etc)

woodPixel

19th March 2022, 06:25 PM

That's a huge waste of green power when it could be used elsewhere. I cite Saul Griffith's book The Big Switch as my data source.

Just bought :) Thanks for pointing it out.

The Big Switch by Saul Griffith | Black Inc. (https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/big-switch)

woodPixel

21st March 2022, 01:27 AM

This is a small adjunct to the electrification-of-everything.

Robot Truckers Could Replace 500K U.S. Jobs (https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/self-driving-trucks-could-replace-90-of-long-haul-jobs)

and

Can a Self-Driving 40-Ton Truck Be Safe? Developers Say Yes - Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-09/robot-trucks-get-u-s-tests-raising-self-driving-safety-stakes?sref=JuSsFiEr)

Imagine having the truck simply as a big battery and motors, with a supplemental battery in the bogie. These things can putter back and forth, perfectly safe, on long haul deliveries.

Obviously not for the Nasty Parts (crappy roads, inner city to outer depot), but obviously very suitable to big chunks of Australia.