Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

But not "any power plant".
as mentioned previously, the grid has to maintain supply stability to prevent a state-side black out. I'd content that in the current

In the "olden days" this could be done using an inertial generator located inside a large power station. Unfortunately I forget what these inertial generators were called, or even if they are still installed in power stations.
Since the advent of SA's Tesla battery, grid stabilisation -- at least in SA -- has been achieved by using the micro second response rate of the battery.

the inherent variability of wind and solar rules out both sources.
A largish gas turbine could be started and stabilised using the grid and then, using "smart" electronics, take over the grid stability issue, but such a generator is still producing CO2.

I believe the issue is spinning momentum. Really big generators -- say 500 MW size -- have momentum in spades

---

Ian

I suspect (but don't absolutely know) that the Tesla battery's main function today is frequency control and there can be quite a deal of money for that specialised market. There are three price scales for regulation raising and another three for regulation lowering. Being in SA with large quantities of solar and wind it is ideally placed. The politicians are quite pleased with it too as it looks as though they have produced a whole swag of power. They don't point out that it can only produce 5% of demand from what is one of the smallest states as far as electricity demand goes and it can only do that for a single hour. I don't wish to detract from the Tesla battery as I think it is proving it's worth, but also I don't wish to propagate any misconceptions not that you, ian, were trying to do that.

It is probably my own hang up that feels the need to mention these limitations any time Tesla is mentioned. Incidentally there are other similar batteries around, I have been told, including Sydney.

To put the Gas turbines into perspective regarding carbon emissions they have a carbon intensity around .6 but only if they have a HRSG tacked on to their exhaust. About .8 if there is no HRSG tacked on to the exhaust gases and this compares with the coal fired stations of 1.0 (The now defunct Hazelwood was 1.6 to put the polution factor into perspective.) Trouble is the gas is expensive. HRSG stands for Heat Recovery Steam Generator and is simply a turbine that is powered by the low pressure steam extracted from the turbine's hot exhaust.

I am not sure if the "olden days" generator you mention was an asynchronous generator. If it was, then you are referring to very old days as it was archaic when I entered the power industry in 1982 and never saw one in action.

The grid itself is a juggernaut: An immovable force and any generators synchronising to the grid are carried along at 50Hz whether they like it or not. To cause a system disturbance, several generators (or transmission lines) have to fall off almost simultaneously. The last occasion I can remember this happening, apart from the SA storm that wreaked havoc, was in 2004 when a transformer fire at Bayswater caused several units (six) to trip and we had a power cut in Queensland as a consequence.

We were having tea at the time and had to finish it by candle light. :rolleyes:

https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/defaul...m-Incident.pdf

Regards
Paul

It is amazing what you turn up when looking through the web.

Another link:

Energy and Climate Change - Energy Facts Australia

I have not read all of it, but did pick up on this regarding the SA collapse:

"On 28 September 2016, South Australia experienced one of its most severe storms in recent decades.The storm involved at least seven tornadoes, wind gusts of 190 – 260 km/h (similar to wind speeds experienced during Cyclone Tracy), large hailstones and intense rainfall. The supercell thunderstorms and tornados knocked down 23 transmission towers in South Australia triggering a statewide blackout (Burns et al 2016)."

and this on how power stations and people are more susceptible to climate change as they get older.

"Just as old people suffer in the heat, our ageing fossil fuel power stations don’t cope well. Extreme heat reduces output and they suffer mechanical failures, right when they are needed most."

I think they are referring to power stations of about 50 years old and by older people I hope they mean people greater than 110 years.

:wink:

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller;

"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"


Well sheeeyit, I finally get it.
You took up the wrong career Paul.
You did tell me once (I think over the bottle(s) of spectacular 2016 Petersen's Pressings at your place) that you were easily corrupted. I fully understand now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

by older people I hope they mean people greater than 110 years.

---

You mean the Japanese guy that died a few days after becoming world's oldest? It's not really a record that you want is it eh? Almost a death sentence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Bushmiller;

"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"


Well sheeeyit, I finally get it.
You took up the wrong career Paul.
You did tell me once (I think over the bottle(s) of spectacular 2016 Petersen's Pressings at your place) that you were easily corrupted. I fully understand now.


You mean the Japanese guy that died a few days after becoming world's oldest? It's not really a record that you want is it eh? Almost a death sentence...

---

Brett

I absolutely remember that bottle. Possibly the best red wine I have ever drunk.

As to any admissions about corruption, I don't recall (sorry Alan Bond). Also I confess to being a little confused:

Just before I get into my confusion and to add some levity, What would you say about a citizen of South Korea who travels to live and work in the Democratic Republic immediately to the North?







A bad Korea move....:-

Back to my confusion. What career should I have chosen. (I'm sure I am going to regret asking this.)

Regards
paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I absolutely remember that bottle. Possibly the best red wine I have ever got drunk on.

---

But not the second one, apparently :D




Well given that you acknowledge that "Power tends to corrupt", ahhh, anything but a career in Power generation?
(I know, I know, an explained gag never works as well...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The grid itself is a juggernaut: An immovable force and any generators synchronising to the grid are carried along at 50Hz whether they like it or not. To cause a system disturbance, several generators (or transmission lines) have to fall off almost simultaneously. The last occasion I can remember this happening, apart from the SA storm that wreaked havoc, was in 2004 when a transformer fire at Bayswater caused several units (six) to trip and we had a power cut in Queensland as a consequence.

We were having tea at the time and had to finish it by candle light. :rolleyes:

https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/defaul...m-Incident.pdf

---

An interesting read.
I'm not aware of what changes NEMCO subsequently made -- but would suggest that their (NEMCO's) contingency planning needs to extend to loosing all the output from the largest power station in the "grid". Not just one generator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I suspect (but don't absolutely know) that the Tesla battery's main function today is frequency control and there can be quite a deal of money for that specialised market. There are three price scales for regulation raising and another three for regulation lowering. Being in SA with large quantities of solar and wind it is ideally placed. The politicians are quite pleased with it too as it looks as though they have produced a whole swag of power. They don't point out that it can only produce 5% of demand from what is one of the smallest states as far as electricity demand goes and it can only do that for a single hour. I don't wish to detract from the Tesla battery as I think it is proving it's worth ...

It is probably my own hang up that feels the need to mention these limitations any time Tesla is mentioned.

---

Paul

as I interpret the "tea leaves", 70% of the battery's output is reserved for frequency control. This percentage may fall after the battery's capacity is increased by 50% -- the 50% upgrade will allow Neogen to sell more peak capacity into the market -- but, in absolute terms, I understand that around 70 MW will remain reserved for "grid stability" purposes.
so leaving aside the boasting of politicians about how the battery allows SA's lights to remain on, the lights are staying on because SA's load is not being automatically shed in order to protect SA's grid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Maybe I haven't been as clear as I could be, but I'm just talking about reducing the demand on CF Base Load - not replacing it altogether for each user with a battery. And to repeat again - this would be part of the transition, until BL can be delivered by a properly "clean" or at least "much much cleaner" system, such as Hydrogen or whatever it turns out to be.

Basically trying to find a way through the looming deficit of BL without building CF.

Turn off a few appliances? Not such a bad idea anyway. They could start with the idiot box screen (in whatever format). :;

---

Brett
IMO there is little point in reducing the demand for coal fired base load unless it is substituted with another form of reliable power that doesn't generate CO2.
Talk to Paul, but my understanding is that the economics and response times of a coal fired generator are such that they need to run at near maximum capacity 24/7. I'm not sure of the exact timings, but the response time of a coal-fired base load generators are so long that the plant runs at a loss during the middle of the day when the sun is shining. The flue CO2 is still being exhausted, even if the generators are just spinning and only working at 50% capacity.

The Dinorwig Power station in Wales is perhaps the best example of a rapid response hydro power system. 2800 MW (capacity is 9.1 GWh) available to respond to all those pommy kettles being at flicked on almost simultaneously at half time in the footy. Perhaps the definition of the "flick of a switch" scenario.

I've seen a paper, or news report, suggesting that in a carbon free world, Australia needs the capacity to generate hydro power for around 3 days to cover for the intermittent nature of grid scale wind and solar, and the certainty that at any given time much of the country is affected by drought. So at a national scale it has to be assumed that most dams are near empty because of a drought. That works out at something in order of 2100 GWh of energy storage. Water is possibly the most efficient energy storage medium but where would we put the required infrastructure? There's no way that it will fit in mine.
BTW: 2100 GWh is approximately 20 times the pumped capacity of Snowy 2.

Here is something just announced. Adds some flavour to the soup.... Empowering Homes Pilot Program

The program will run as a pilot for up to 12 months and will then be rolled out statewide to provide the solar battery loan offer to up to 300,000 NSW homeowners. The program provides interest-free loans of:

• up to $14,000 for a solar battery system; or
• up to $9,000 for the addition of a battery to an existing solar system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

But not the second one, apparently :D




Well given that you acknowledge that "Power tends to corrupt", ahhh, anything but a career in Power generation?
(I know, I know, an explained gag never works as well...)

---

Brett

The second bottle, although still Petersens was very slightly different (still good, although not quite as good).

"Things" are returning slowly and I believe your memory of me being easily corruptible may have been confused with me admitting, in a moment of vino fueled clarety, that I have an "addictive nature" which is why I keep the saw collecting under such tight control. :rolleyes:

In a management interaction at work a couple of years ago I was asked how I felt about working at Millmerran. I replied that "If I had to work at a fossil fueled CO2 polluting power station Millmerran is absolutely my first choice." I don't think it was the warm and fuzzy response the manager was expecting.

When I was at school, a very conservative establishment(nobody would have dreamed of voting anything but Tory), we had a new, young, history teacher arrive. It was quite clear, in fact he made no secret of it, that he was an out and out Labour voter. Collectively we asked him what the hell he was doing there (perhaps we did not ask exactly like that) and he said he was working to convert from the inside. I have not forgotten that.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Here is something just announced. Adds some flavour to the soup.... Empowering Homes Pilot Program

The program will run as a pilot for up to 12 months and will then be rolled out statewide to provide the solar battery loan offer to up to 300,000 NSW homeowners. The program provides interest-free loans of:

• up to $14,000 for a solar battery system; or
• up to $9,000 for the addition of a battery to an existing solar system.

---

WP

Most interesting. I will look into that.

Regards
Paul

Angus Taylor to announce shift in climate investment away from wind and solar

Scant, but no surprises there from Angus Trailer.

We are going to keep using fossil fuels and capture the CO2.... a sort of 'clean coal' initiative.

Let's hope the Lithium $s goes into battery research more broadly and isn't just a flip to the mining sector to go find some more lithium.

The hydrogen focus could be beneficial, provided it is generated by renewable energy.

And, it's OK Nats, we have a plan to stop your bovines farting!

A 'bottom up' approach seems like the right description there.

So, no roadmap, yet, not even a mud map, just some "consultation paper to inform the design of the roadmap". That doesn't fill me with any confidence. He is not out there leading but waiting to be pulled along after consulting with the bovver boys.

In the mean time, he's trying to work out how to wiggle out of a 2050 commitment!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

BTW: 2100 GWh is approximately 20 times the pumped capacity of Snowy 2.

---

I just can't see how that can happen with the topography of our landscape here in Australia.

In mountainous west area of Canada, yes (392 TWh of hydro). With 35 peaks above 4,000m

In mountainous Norway, yes (122TWh of hydro). It is just about all mountains with almost 300 peaks over 2,000m

In mountainous Sweden, yes (65 TWh of hydro). With 12 peaks above 2,000m

In the Swiss Alps, yes (36TWh of hydro). With close to 10,000 sq km above 2,000m and 50 peaks over 4,000m

In Australia, doubtful! With only one (little Mt Kosciuszko) above 2,000m and it has already been exploited for all its worth.

There are currently about 120 hydro plants operating here in Australia providing about 1/3 of out renewable energy generation. Perhaps some small/micro scale pumped hydro may be added to that, but I think it is unlikely that we will see much by way of any large scale additional generation (like in Tasmania and the Snowy) added to that.

The Swiss have the greatest potential for hydroelectricity. They could be Europe's battery, but there is some opposition based on environmental factors. I expect that would happen here. The following article is old, but still mostly relevant.

Swiss Alps proposed as powerhouse of Europe - SWI swissinfo.ch

And, for a nitty-gritty analysis, if that is your predilection.

Swiss pumped hydro storage potential for Germany’s electricity system under high penetration of intermittent renewable energy | SpringerLink

In any case Neil, pumped hydro is just a battery storage, not really an energy producer. It may make good use of Solar energy to be greener energy but its main function is to spread around the load by making use of cheaper energy produced earlier (more probably that excess CF energy when they are twiddling their thumbs keeping the turbines spinning in off-peak).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

I just can't see how that can happen with the topography of our landscape here in Australia.

In mountainous west area of Canada, yes (392 TWh of hydro). With 35 peaks above 4,000m

In mountainous Norway, yes (122TWh of hydro). It is just about all mountains with almost 300 peaks over 2,000m

In mountainous Sweden, yes (65 TWh of hydro). With 12 peaks above 2,000m

In the Swiss Alps, yes (36TWh of hydro). With close to 10,000 sq km above 2,000m and 50 peaks over 4,000m

In Australia, doubtful! With only one (little Mt Kosciuszko) above 2,000m and it has already been exploited for all its worth.

There are currently about 120 hydro plants operating here in Australia providing about 1/3 of out renewable energy generation. Perhaps some small/micro scale pumped hydro may be added to that, but I think it is unlikely that we will see much by way of any large scale additional generation (like in Tasmania and the Snowy) added to that.

The Swiss have the greatest potential for hydroelectricity. They could be Europe's battery, but there is some opposition based on environmental factors. I expect that would happen here. The following article is old, but still mostly relevant.

Swiss Alps proposed as powerhouse of Europe - SWI swissinfo.ch

And, for a nitty-gritty analysis, if that is your predilection.

Swiss pumped hydro storage potential for Germany’s electricity system under high penetration of intermittent renewable energy | SpringerLink

---

Neil

I think I mentioned before that different solutions will become apparent in different countries. However, even in Switzerland with it's abundance of sites it is not plain sailing and I took from your first link that they have to deal with the environmental issue and the potential changes hydro systems make to the ecology. Switzerland has a buoyant tourist industry and they need to preserve the natural beauty. There were large loses too in delivering power to Germany. They might have to consider DC connectors.

You are right that we don't have the mountains to justify too much hydro despite the earlier identification of 10,000 sites. I think some of those may be a lot more marginal than was admitted.

Regards
Paul

PS. What I did take from the two articles was that the Europeans may be moving away from nuclear but really the main one was that they have been talking and making plans since 2012! In a way, it is our abundant fuel sources (coal and gas) that are inhibiting the development of research and any degree of open mindness amongst the government in particular.