Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Brief informative article here about ARES
Advanced Rail Energy Storage System | Old and New Technology

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?

Thanks Bob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

ARES also apparently takes up considerable space

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Yeah. Billboards are a bit of an eyesore too.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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. I don't know how many of those EVs are planned to be hydrogen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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.

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

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.

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?

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

and here is one in Sweden that is 100% Hydrogen - First in the world to heat steel using hydrogen - Ovako and https://www.rechargenews.com/transit...ion/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 )

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

Attachment 508506 Attachment 508507 Attachment 508508

Attachment 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

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

This news is daily.

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


Investments have gone absolutely wild.

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

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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

Quote:

---

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

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
-- 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Maybe take a read of this
Debunking Three Myths About “Baseload” | NRDC

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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
-- 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.

---

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

“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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

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)

How Scav Hunt helped prepare alum to work at NASA | University of Chicago News (uchicago.edu)

mick

China aims to build 450 GW of solar, wind power on Gobi desert | Reuters

....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.

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

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

It can be done.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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

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

It can be done.

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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

This news is daily.

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


Investments have gone absolutely wild.

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Attachment 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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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

---

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

Cheap shot....

Attachment 508594

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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

---

Yes. It. Is.

To change tack slightly -

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

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

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

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

Yep.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossM

To change tack slightly -

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

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

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

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

---

This is the exact opposite of what should be done.

We should suck up every spare watt and store it!

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossM

To change tack slightly -

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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

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

---

FF

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks TJ

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

Regards
Paul

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossM

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

---

no it doesn't

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

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