The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 85% renewable electricity system cheaper than renewing the current coal and gas > Comments

85% renewable electricity system cheaper than renewing the current coal and gas : Comments

By Ben Rose, published 30/6/2016

The modelling I present here focuses on electricity generation. It disproves two myths –that renewable electricity is not workable without baseload fossil fuelled power and that in any case it is too expensive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
I'm Sorry, base load power isn't necessary? Sure but only if you eliminate industry and transport and all dwellings have storage like a battery wall?

If you want base load options and the national grid then you can't go past solar thermal, which if rolled out as very large scale projects, competes very effectively with similar size coal projects (currently operating) in roll out costs.

The real difference becomes obvious, when in the case of coal, mountains of coal need to be delivered and burnt for decades at exponentially increasing cost, whereas, with solar thermal the only ongoing costs are routine maintenance!

Even so, we can do much better with very localised carbon free thorium power generation, Which given fuel use and requirements has to be much cheaper (half price) than coal!

Moreover, this liquid heat reaction consumes around 95% of its fuel type, leaving around 5% as vastly less toxic waste, which is eminently suitable as very long life space batteries!

We have enough to power the world for around 700 years, or ourselves for far longer if we are but intelligently led!

I like electric vehicles, trolley buses can be recharged on the go with a magnetic interface that is buried just below the pavement!

The new tesla Xover has a range exceeding 400 kilometres and competes with formula 1 in acceleration and top speed. Driverless cars of that genre, would make the best possible taxi service or car pooled transport to unlock our gridlocked highways. And could even share the proposed magnetic interface?

High speed rail might be powered via gas powered ceramic fuel cells? Meaning vast savings on rollout costs and critical infrastructure! The exhaust product from this most efficient of all combinations is mostly pristine water vapor.

Similarly most households can be powered 24/7 by the biological waste they create, which can produce methane which works nearly as well in ceramic fuel cells as hydrogen! And given a world bearing 80% energy coefficient; for far less than anything else under discussion!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 30 June 2016 10:34:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I previously written before:

It is pretty obvious renewables will never provide our entire electrical needs at current demand levels.

Nuclear is the solution, but not existing silly uranium powered technology.

Liquid Floride thorium reactors (LFTR) are the only sustainable electrical generation source we can sustainably rely on for the future.

LFTR operation not only provides cheap electricity, it can generate liquid fuels (similar to diesel), reprocess spent existing nuclear fuels, produce much needed medical isotopes and a myriad of other benefits. LFTR is also scalable and can be mass produced if required.

This technology is also safe, it operates at low pressure/high temperature, thereby negating the current nuclear technology problems and most importantly, the world has an abundance of Thorium unlike uranium.

A no brainer, we should embrace this technology now but probably won't because of political mismanagement, corruption via vested interests and the ridiculous scare mongering by green manta advocates.

Green energy, particularly in its current guise is a Ponzi scheme.

Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 30 June 2016 11:09:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The LCOE for new nuclear is probably way too high (perhaps double) after several are built and the 'behind the meter' cost of batteries probably assumes cost reductions that may not eventuate. Assumptions of a $30 carbon price and removal of renewable subsidies also seem politically unlikely. The article while necessarily brief doesn't say how much energy storage is envisioned. A plausibility check is that Australia burns through a Gwh of electricity every half a minute so x Gwh of storage is 2x minutes of power supply.

Studies like these sometimes assume huge (say fourfold) increases in energy efficiency which implies draconian reductions far greater than consumers will accept. I see no way peaking plant will be run on biofuel so long as there is an ounce of gas left... Rottnest and King Island are small demo projects, not mainstream. Then the prospect of 10 million electric cars is curiously glossed over. All this requires massive subsidies and acceptance of private costs or voluntary consumption cuts which are politically unlikely.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 30 June 2016 11:22:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan,
Yes, electric cars are the future for transport; already happening.
Geoff (and Alan), nuclear is too expensive; (Taswegian has made this point) and the cost is increasing whereas wind and solar cost is decreasing.

Re solar CST, yes it has a place in the clean generation mix and can provide 24 hour balancing power thus enabling 100% renewable energy IF it is co-fired with biomass. It is simply not economic to provide enough storage to carry the system through several cold still winter days. Gas turbines (running on gas or bio-fuel) or solid fuel co-firing of solar thermal molten salt storage (CST) are the way to do this.

Base load power is not necessary, in fact it is too inflexible and expensive when only used intermittently so really does not fit with renewable generation systems
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 30 June 2016 12:01:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben Rose,

The modelling you present is based on assumptions that make electricity more expensive. Change the assumptions and renewables can deliver CHEAPER electricity instead.

The RBA cash rate is currently 1.75%, yet you're sabotaging the case for renewable energy by using figures of "10% for all generation); Government low risk rate of 6% for transmission and pump hydro storage projects; 5% savings rate for ‘behind the meter’ PV and battery".

You've set all the other assumptions to favour renewable energy, so why do you continue to set the most important one so strongly against it?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,

Why the idiotic base load fetish?

Nobody is saying power shouldn't meet base demand. But the number of base load power stations needed to reach base demand is zero. And supply needs to reach peak demand; base demand is irrelevant.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Geoff of Perth,

There is no good reason why renewables will never provide our entire electrical needs at current demand levels. It seems weird that you have so much difficulty comprehending what renewables can do, yet you're so enthusiastic about as yet unbuilt nuclear technology.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 30 June 2016 12:25:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, it's not an unbuilt technology, the US built a working Thorium reactor in the late 50's/early 60's and India and China are surging ahead with construction of new LFTR's.

We are not just talking about base load power, these things will be scalable and therefore provide smaller scale electricity and fuel production at a cheap and safe level.

Ignorance of LFTR technology is the main reason this superb technology has not been adopted.

This is nuclear power generated at low pressure, therefore the inherent dangers and problems existing with conventional nuclear disappear.

Your concerns and assumptions are wrong
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 30 June 2016 1:58:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Roses1 I think baseload generation is the key to both low carbon and price stability. If 100% of generation came from intermittent or short buffer sources which then dropped out peaking plant (most likely gas fired) has to take up the slack. With baseload only 50% or so has to be made up.

After we've built several large Gen 3 reactors I'd expect the LCOE to get down to ~$90 per Mwh. Batteries large or small need to add up to Twh capacity or at the very least tens of Gwh. There's no sign of that yet.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In answer to the comment about SEN's assumed discount rates being too high.
Yes, good point. Both private and government rates are going down and are currently below our conservative estimates of 10% and 5%. Lower discount rates means that the capital intensive options (such as renewables) will be relatively cheaper, so now is a great time to be installing them.

Higher gas prices such as we are currently experiencing are and will make fossil generation more expensive, adding risk and uncertainty. Wind and solar of course use no fuel and are not exposed to that risk.

We deliberately made conservative assumptions so we couldn't be accused of costing bias in favor of renewable options.

Ben Rose
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:19:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Time to consider nuclear power for nonstop 24/7 reliable supply of electricity and why not? Australia is already one of the world's richest sources of Uranium, so we are already of to a good start. We don't have to exclusively use it to the detriment of other electricity generation techniques BUT it should be considered a major player in our countries future energy portfolio.

Other reasons:

1. Unmatched reliability
Summer and winter have one thing in common: Electricity demand rises dramatically, as the power grid shoulders the added load from air conditioners or heating systems running at full blast. Reliable nuclear power plants generate vast amounts of electricity, and extreme weather brings their value to the electricity grid into sharp focus. Learn how nuclear energy helps to keep our homes comfortable and businesses humming.

2. Electricity supply
It’s a secure source that we can depend on 24 hours a day because it isn’t subject to changing weather conditions, unpredictable fuel cost fluctuations or over-dependence on foreign suppliers.

3. Energy diversity
Energy diversity helps balance the benefits, risks and costs associated with producing electricity. Nuclear energy plays a vital role in America’s diverse electricity portfolio because it is a clean-air source that produces large amounts of affordable electricity around the clock. Maintaining a diverse supply of fuels for electricity production protects consumers from potential price volatility from any one fuel.

4. Life cycle emissions
All energy sources produce greenhouse gases in the life cycle of a facility—from construction to operation. However, several independent studies show that nuclear energy’s “life-cycle” emissions of carbon dioxide are comparable to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro power. Those independent studies are easily located using your favorite search engine.

Also, lets not forget that current designs of nuclear reactors are significantly more efficient and safer than anything made in the last century. So we have the added benefit, if implemented this decade, of cashing in on the latest and greatest designs.

Nuclear power was one of 10 recommendations to come out of the recent South Australia Royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle.
Posted by Rojama, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Fairy Story:

Well folks

We all know China and India will have 100 millions Additional vehicles = cars and dirty diesel trucks and trains over the next decade.

But we Australians don't have to worry about that because, you know, Australia has a big impermeable Plastic Bubble over it.

So with a bit of simple modelling we can save Australia, all by ourselves. Or we can use Australia's heavy moral weight in the world (we actually have Zilch) to shame China and India into staying poor and not building vehicles to improve the lives of their teaming growing 100s of millions.

Or they can can build 100s millions of disposable Lithium-ion batteries to power all those vehicles with miraculous mains electricity :)

Thank you Ben Rose for yet more Greenie money-making Rubbish.

The End
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 30 June 2016 5:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What utter garbage you activists talk. That is putting it nicely too. There are other words for the telling of untruths too.

The only way you can make any sort of case for renewables is to saddle coal, by far the most efficient, with an emissions charge, equal to or exceeding, the cost of the actual generation. This is a total contrived bit of bulldust, & you know it.

Even places like Germany, the poster boy for renewables are now running as hard as they can away from the total catastrophe. Their offshore wind doesn't work, onshore wind installation is stopped, & they are already loosing industry almost as fast as us.

It is now totally obvious from hundreds of peer reviewed research papers, that CO2 has a very very minor effect on anything but vegetation. Global warming promoters can produce absolutely no evidence of harm, but the satellites show the greening of deserts all round the globe.

I am so sick of those with vested interests in alternate energy getting away with huge untruths whenever they open their mouths.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 30 June 2016 5:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real idiots commenting here are those so gormless as not to understand, we need base load power! And yes, as proved by recently built working examples; that's available as solar thermal and heat retaining towers utilising liquid lithium thorium salt. And the available working example proves it can be rolled out for around the same money as comparable coal!

However, this technology is best suited to desert regions with maximum sunshine, and have the failing of still needing to be connected to a national grid! Which basically doubles the end user price!

Why would anybody think that uranium is the way to go, when we have so much more thorium! And where uranium consumes around 5% of its fissile material, leaving around 95% as highly toxic waste, thorium consumes around 95% leaving around 5% as vastly less toxic waste that can be safely used in long life space batteries.

As a knowledgeable Geoff remarks, this is old technology that has no weapons spin off! And is far safer than the oxide reactors! Meaning they can be built almost anywhere you have good bedrock.

The Indians are working on a 300 MW prototype, which in operation as soon as this year? Would power many an industrial estate or smelter with carbon free energy not even hydro could compete with? Unless the industrial estate was virtually next door, as opposed to being connected to a great white elephant of a very vulnerable and costly national grid!

Thorium reactors can be built almost anywhere? A good businessman knows when to cut his losses and get out and we need to get out of coal! But particularly privatised power, with its gold plated price gouged delivery system and total lack of any self evident vestige of price moderating competition!

I've read many of Adian's comments over time and note, when he's out of his very shallow intellectual depth resorts to customary abuse!

Y'all have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 30 June 2016 5:42:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1,

"We deliberately made conservative assumptions so we couldn't be accused of costing bias in favor of renewable options."
And in that you have failed dismally (as can be seen by looking at Hasbeen's post).

You're relying on some assumptions (such as a carbon price) going your way. But funding renewable energy with concessional loans is likely to be less controversial than a carbon price, especially when you can demonstrate that it will result in cheaper electricity.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Geoff of Perth,

I'm well aware that experimental thorium reactors have been built before now. But the fact remains that there aren't yet, and never have been, power stations using LFTRs.e wrong: I think LFTRs have a great future, especially in countries with a high population density. But we aren't there yet. We don't know what the cost will be.

You enthuse about what LFTRs can do, but they are no better than other energy sources for synthesising diesel. And AIUI they're not as good as particle accelerators for producing medical isotopes.

Don't get me wrong: I think LFTRs have a great future, especially in countries with a high population density. But we aren't there yet. We don't know what the cost will be.

____________________________________________________________________________________

plantagenet,

It's not about heavy moral weight. It's about showing how it can be done rather than our inaction (despite being one of the highest per capita emitters in the world) being used by other countries to justify their failure to tackle the problem.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.

Just repeating the claim that we need base load power does not make it so. We need to meet our power needs at all times, but there is no good reason why any of it should come from power stations that are no good at varying their output.

Your hypocritical bluster about intellectual depth is belied by your failure to engage with any of my arguments! When you repeat the same claims over and over again, ignoring the criticism, does it not deserve the (very tame) abuse?
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B, please give just one good, & real reason why we should get out of coal, the cheapest most reliable source of power on the planet.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 1 July 2016 12:16:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The latest study on generation technology http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf costs sees nuclear as increasing to $180 - 220 per MWh by 2030 (significantly higher again than the costs SEN used in their study). This study is by 5 government agencies including CSIRO.
So nuclear enthusiasts (including Taswegian), why do you ignore these costs, which are 50-80% higher than the renewable energy scenarios I presented, with transparent modeling that you can check? http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings. There are 30 of the latest most recent, peer reviewed energy reports cited in our study. Where are your sources? All we hear from you is 'oh, there's a prototype thorium reactor being built....' or the 'Gen 3-4 reactors are safer' when there's none operating commercially. Do you know how many wind and PV power stations there are? Thousands. How many solar thermal powers stations operating? Scores.

As for the usual trolls on this site (hasbeen and plantagenet) who always make negative unsubstantiated statements about anything progressive - if the world had followed your line in the 1890's the cities would all be knee-deep in horse manure!
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 1 July 2016 11:48:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Predicted LCOE of advanced nuclear is about $95/MWhr and considering that it does not need vastly expensive gas standby, it is vastly cheaper and lower emitting than any renewable.

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 1 July 2016 2:35:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
Coal isn't that cheap. Even disregarding the huge environmental costs, the cost of digging the stuff up is fairly high.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,
Gas standby is not vastly expensive.

LCOE, like all single figure comparisons, can be highly misleading because it relies on assumptions about variables. Rather than declaring x to be better than y because these figures say so, we should look at what conditions x is better than y under, and what it would take for y to perform better than x.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 1 July 2016 3:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow
The $95 for nuclear (EIA report) is in $US. Also they claim a capacity factor of 0.9 where 0.8 would be more realistic. Scale those costs accordingly and you have $135. Scale it up again to account for the fact that none have been built here and allow for the OCGT generation that is required to provide load following for the inflexible nuclear plants and you'll get > AU$ $170

The same document states " LCOE for incremental wind capacity coming online in 2020 ranges from $65.6/MWh in the region with the best available resources in 2020 to $81.6/MWh in regions where LCOE values are highest due to lower quality wind resources".

So they have wind, a clean source requiring no fuel with none of the disaster underwriting and waste disposal costs that nuclear places on governments, coming in at 70% of the cost of nuclear with all of its additional externalized costs and risks.

The EIA site also tells us that nuclear plants in the US average 35 years old, and construction might commence this year on the first one since then 1996.

Its easy to see why they aren't very enthusiastic. Have you heard of the 3 Mile Island radiation spill and the 1987 Shoreham reactor that Long Islanders are still paying for but has never generated any electricity as it was deemed too risky to commission? I've been there; I know people who worked on it; I have photos of it; you can easily google it.

Nuclear will never be a goer in Australia with our cheap wind and solar. As for the US, I reckon they'll try for as much renewable generation as they can. But unless they curb their crazy energy guzzling habits (4 tons of oil to heat a typical house over winter), they may have to put in a few new nuclear plants in the colder areas. (it will be interesting to see if anyone will accept them near their back yard in these post 9/11 times)
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 1 July 2016 5:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan
You are quite correct in saying that gas stand-by is cheap. To be more precise the fixed cost (mainly capital) of OGCT (gas) is about $90,000/ MW/ year whereas nuclear is around $1000/ MW/yr. Also aero-derivative OCGT's can reach full power from a cold start in less that 10 minutes, making them ideal as standby power for renewable sources. With nuclear its impossible to do this even in several hours.
In our (SEN's) scenarios, we have 2800 - 3600 MW of OCGT mostly on standby, with a CF of 0.1, quite economically, with no 'base load' generation at all.

Another point worth noting is that nuclear and coal, being inflexible in terms of ramp speed also need OCGT's for load following (on the other hand for renewable gneration it is more for following predictable changes in wind and solar generation). OCGT's are an essential part of all modern electricity generation systems.
Posted by Roses1, Friday, 1 July 2016 5:55:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Do you know how many wind and PV power stations there are? Thousands. How many solar thermal powers stations operating? Scores."

Whoopee. Does that mean they should be main-grid? Nup, not when there are better choices.

We've decades and decades and decades to use all known uranium deposits, and more to discover. Well within that time the thorium fuel cycle will be deployed (thermal breeders)in conventional reactors in India (imminent) and China, then in modular liquid salt reactors. Add in plutonium (fast breeders) in Russia and France, and all fuels will be in play, burning up existing nuclear waste and powering growing needs.

To dismiss Gen 4 reactors to make an argument for renewables is plain silly. If the major players are going so hard at it, why shouldn't breeder reactors become ubiquitous? It would only be by the nobbling and stymying of Greens, Big Oil or Big Coal that nuclear is not advanced over the next decade. They even oppose fusion, tho' that looks decades away.

Point is, nuclear can be deployed right now, with the will, and can only get better. It is the only proven way towards a zero carbon world running 24/7.

Just as importantly, it is the cheapest way to run a 24/7 world. Already a loser, when you add in the energy storage issue the wheels fall off the renewables case completely.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 1 July 2016 6:05:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses, Aidan et al,

The single biggest problem with renewables is their unreliability. A prime example is the German system which recently (May) during a period of sunny and windy weather reached nearly 100% demand supplied by renewable generation.

The fly in the ointment was that in order to achieve this the peak renewable capacity is close to 120% of demand, which generates an average of 30% demand, but during windless nights generates as low as 10% of demand, which given their biomass and hydro capacity says much about the reliability of the cheapest renewables i.e. solar and wind. Notably, during this peak supply they had to pay other countries to take their excess power.

Any system that could supply an average of 85% renewables would require a vast excess of generating capacity, in the order of 250% plus a standby capacity in the order of 75% in order to reach the reliability that the present systems are required to meet.

Once these criteria are met, the LCOE of renewables is vastly higher.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 2 July 2016 8:14:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow
Your statement "Any system that could supply an average of 85% renewables would require a vast excess of generating capacity, in the order of 250% plus a standby capacity in the order of 75% in order to reach the reliability that the present systems are required to meet" is broadly correct.

Our 85 % and 91% RE scenarios have 6000 MW of wind, 3000 MW of PV and 3500 MW of gas OCGT, with 8,000 - 42,000 MWh of storage (some battery plus pumped ocean hydro for the 91% scenario). One of our 100 % scenarios has 1200 MW of CST with biomass co-fired molten salt storage and 2300 MW of OCGT. At the above levels of storage it becomes uneconomic to add more as it is not used often enough; the OCGT's are used instead

So yes there is a lot of OCGT capacity. But so what? OCGT's are cheap - as I explained fixed costs are <10% of nuclear's and <20% of coal's. It is therefore cost effective to have that amount in standby to provide balancing power when required (it's CF is about 0.1).

Weighted average LCOE is $128 for the 85% scenario, about the same as a new coal-gas system equivalent to the existing one, which would have 1750 MW of coal, 1800 MW of gas OCGT and 1250 MW of gas CCGT together with <1000 MW of wind and <500 MW of solar PV. The 91% and 100% scenario LCoEs are $138 and $160 / MWh.

You really must read the report and go through the modelled scenarios and costings: http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings

Ben Rose
Posted by Roses1, Saturday, 2 July 2016 2:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Granted Roses we are not knee deep in horse manurer.

However after reading your posts I now find myself knee deep in your Bulldust, & it is much more smelly than anything that ever came out of a horse.

Unfortunately for you & your mates, the quiet sun is about to make fools of all of you.

With what's happening in Europe, where now the third hugely expensive offshore wind park is out of production, & their grid struggling, I can't imagine how many people can still push this fool technology.

You should look at history & the blind alleys some technology has proved to be. Stanley steamers did not die because dinosaurs like me didn't like them, but because it was poor technology.

An electric car once held a world speed record, but the technology was not practical, as is the case with electricity cars today, or alternate power generation.

Unfortunately we seem to have very many earning a good living from this scam, but they won't be able to for all that much longer. Isn't it lucky you are at retirement.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 2 July 2016 8:58:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses,

As a power systems engineer, I find the modeling in your link a complete joke.

Firstly the surplus/deficit scenario means that your system cannot function without connection to the other states to take the surplus/deficit, secondly in rebuilding almost the entire electrical infrastructure, at $100bns for no financial benefit.

Epic fail.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 3 July 2016 12:53:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Shadow - 'The modelling in in your link is a complete joke?' You have not read it through.

1/ Firstly the capital cost for the 85% scenario is less than $23 billion (Appendix 13) including new transmission infrastructure (Section 5.3), so the figure of $100b you pulled out the the air is only too high by 400%.

2/ The 85% scenario assumes all surplus wind is spilled, ie. it is not used, not sold (Section 4.8.1). It is however costed at the full LCOE of wind and the scenario still stands up economically.If some of the 22% surplus could be sold to opportunistic uses within the SWIS area, the cost would reduce even further from the $128/ MWh.

3/ There are 3 power engineers on our team including men who have worked for Western Power and Horizon Power in both transmission and generation.

4/ The $23b will be paid off by electricity revenue the same as the existing generators are/ were. It will not cost taxpayers anything.

PS. Capex on WA gas project - Chevron Gorgon project was nearly twice as much ($54 billion) as it would cost to convert WA's electricity to wind / PV and cut fuel costs by > 85% forever.
Posted by Roses1, Sunday, 3 July 2016 4:31:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses,

Just for starters, the 85% model incl 6000MW of wind generation. Given the 25% yield of wind generation that would require 24000 MW of wind turbines at least $2m per MW installed that would be $48bn, excluding the network requirements, the gas generation backup, or the PV cells so with very little effort we hit $100bn.

Secondly the LCOEs you give base their costs on 30yr investment, the problem with that is that wind turbines useful life is 20yrs, yet Nuclear plants are >40yrs.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 3 July 2016 7:22:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses, I am interested in your approach. From my standpoint not being
a power generation engineer I think I can see a problem.
You have included storage and its cost in your model.
How many serial days of heavy overcast and very light winds have you modelled ?

My reasoning says that generation & storage has to cater for
N X the number of overcast still days + 1 where N = the generation
capacity and storage needed for one day..
If you cannot reach 100% reliability then all those multistory
office blocks and residential units will have to be abandoned.

I have personally logged 5 heavy overcast windless days in a row.
Some articles I have read suggest that the cost of alternative
electricity rises in a steep curve as you approach 100% reliability.
It looks like an exponential curve but no one has suggested that the
cost approaches infinity dollars, yet !

Hasbeen asked: please give just one good, & real reason why we should get out of coal,

China & the US and I believe Europe are now working on deposits that
are increasingly expensive to mine. Australia is better off but overseas
demand will push our prices up.
We will have to leave oil & coal before oil & coal leave us.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 3 July 2016 7:43:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bazz,

You have raised a few good points:
1/ You are correct - renewable energy (RE) generation systems do have to cover periods of 5 or 6 consecutive cloudy days with light winds in a typical year. Furthermore in some winter months there are only a few sunny windy days between such periods. This is clearly shown in the hourly wind energy and solar radiation data, which we sourced from NASA.

2/ That means it would need huge amounts of storage to get through a full year with wind and solar energy alone and we have modeled this as being prohibitively expensive (LCoE > $500 / MWh). Instead, these periods must be covered by fueled generation. In 100 % RE scenarios this is a combination of OCGT turbines fueled with bio-oil and solar thermal with molten salt storage co-fired with solid biomass.

3/ Yes the cost of RE scenarios does increase steeply from 85% to 100% RE, but it's nowhere near exponential; 100% costs about $160/MWh compared to $128 for 85% RE.

4/ With regards reliability, no cost effective electricity generation can be 100% guaranteed to never fail, but the ones we modeled would be at least as reliable as the current coal/ gas system, as the same auxiliary reserve requirement has been costed in.

Shadow,
You have still not read the report. The 6000 MW of wind and 3000 MW of solar is INSTALLED CAPACITY (expressed in megawatts (MW)) NOT GENERATION (which is energy, measured in megawatt hours (MWh)). We have costed the full capacity required, it does not need to be multiplied by 4 as you blythly claim. Capacity of wind required for any given amount of energy generated is greater than coal because the capacity factor of wind is about .38 compared for about .83 for coal and of course our modelling takes this into account. Annual generation from the 6000 MW of wind is 18.7 million MWh and from the 3000 MW of solar, 6.8 million MWh.
Posted by Roses1, Sunday, 3 July 2016 10:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a plan to use mice on treadmills to power the world. It's feasible, I calculated it. With genetic engineering of hairless mice with photosynthetic skin allowing them to run while storing fat for night-work, photorodentic cells (PRCs) will allow us to leave fossil-fuels behind!

Seriously, tho': http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993714000050
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 4 July 2016 12:14:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses,

Looking in more detail, I still find the report full of heroic assumptions.

1. That the average generation of wind power is 0.38 of installed capacity, as this goes against the experience of existing installations, especially if while the PV is generating, a large portion of the power has to be spilt. The average generating capacity outside the PV range would optimistically be 3MW not nearly enough to meet peak demand.

2 The total peak demand is on average 3700 MW, and this peak demand occurs between 6:30 pm and 9pm. This would require at least 3400MW of reserve capacity and with gas availability of 80% would require > 4000MW of gas installed capacity.

3. Batteries used for storage degrade over time with constant use. Lithium batteries are significantly degraded over 2 years and need constant replacement. (your mobile phone is a perfect example)

I could go on, but in all the capex costs are hugely optimistic.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 4 July 2016 6:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses, we all know that the current system is not 100% but for all
practical purposes it is so close to 100% that it does not matter for
the purpose of discussion.
Regarding your storage, the input to output ratio can be pretty
dismal but how many days storage are you working on ?
The longer the number of days the higher the internal losses.

Your figures though seem to assume current electrical consumption.
With the decline in petrol & diesel use the electricity consumption
could be close to double.

Australia's high risk to petrol & diesel could mean a massive shift
to electricity for transport.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 July 2016 11:22:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
The economic amount of storage is about 30,000 MWh for CST/molten slat or 50,000 MWh for pumped hydro. That is enough for 24- 48 hours of demand. Battery is more expensive than either of these technologies and in my view always will be, so the economic limit would probably be 5 - 10 hours.
We assumed efficiency of 70% for pumped hydro (it will likely be better than this) and 90% for molten salt.
We scaled the 2014 load profile up by 126% for 2030. You could well be right (I hope you are) that the load will be higher than this due to widespread adoption of EV's. Electricity demand does not affect LCoE, you simply install more wind, PV, CST and OCGT's to meet the demand.

Shadow,
Glad to see you've read some more of the report, but you're still not making sense. Something about average 3 MW generating capacity outside the PV range??. Go to: http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings#Attachments and study Attachment 1 (pink tab labeled 85%....).
OCGT requirement in that scenario is 3500 MW; leave one turbine in reserve and that would be 3600 MW. Even if you did need to have 4000 MW as you erroneously suggest, so what? It would still be economic because these units are cheap to install as I explained before.
We assumed an economic life of 10 years for Li batteries and this is well proven in EV's.
Our assumptions, which you allege are 'heroic', are in fact deliberately conservative.

Luciferase
Sorry I can't share your and Barry Brooks' enthusiasm for the safety of nuclear and I've already explained the prohibitive cost. I think the people of Fukushima would be the best ones to judge nuclear safety. Problem is the Fukushima disaster scenario is now (post 9/11) possible at any location; reactors have to be built to withstand the impact of a 200 tonne A380 loaded with fuel and that's why their cost has escalated in recent years. In contrast, kamikaze attacks by aircraft are hardly a problem with wind turbines....
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 4 July 2016 12:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1,

You bring a cost case against nuclear when French households (nuclear) pay around half Germany's (RE), while for industry it is two thirds. (Domestic users subsidize industrial users in Germany, hence the difference in the fractions.)

What of methane escape (Section 8 of the link I provided)? If the point is to mitigate AGW, why blow that off?
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 4 July 2016 4:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fukushima always seems to me to be a bad example of the danger of
nuclear power. If it had been built on the west coast instead there
would have not been a tsunami.

It seems to me that distributing the generating centres to take
advantage of geographical weather differences will mean each centre
will have to be many times the size of its local needs.
It may well have to support several other centres.
All this will mean a significant upgrade to the eastern market grid.
For hydro are there available sites and would it be more useful to
use them for fresh water storage.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 July 2016 5:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

Yes there will be significant new 330 kV AC transmission needed in the renewable energy scenarios. This would cost about $2.5 billion (see section 5.3 of the study, which can be downloaded from http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings). This will add about $6-7/ MWh (< 1c / kWh) to LCOE, some of which could be offset by selling the surplus renewable energy. As you say very little of that energy would be used locally; in most cases all of it would be transmitted 100 - 500 km to the load centres (mainly Perth Metro region) Transmission losses of at most 3 % have been accounted for.

Luciferase

The main reason France's energy is cheap is that the nuclear power stations are old and the capital cost has been paid off. Germany has a lot of new RE plant that is being paid off. If the nuclear capacity in France were replaced by new plant the electricity price would increase greatly. But they plan to phase it out from 75% of generation to about 55% by 2025 while they are at the same time increasing wind and solar generation http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/france-loses-enthusiasm-for-nuclear-power/
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 1:01:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses,

I was in a rush and mixed up my GW and MW.

As for the back up power, even your statistics show that there frequent large deficits in power generation. As the cost of a power deficit with insufficient back up would be forced outages or network collapse, there would have to be far more back up, given the availability of standby gas gens could be as low 80%, so installed capacity needs to be in the order of 4.3 GW.

Secondly, the highly optimistic $28bn spent giving WA an unstable power supply would involve shelving existing infrastructure that would be perfectly capable of providing cheap power for several decades, and ramping up electricity prices for decades, with otherwise no economic benefit.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 6:05:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To put it into perspective:

WA state population 2.5m
WA state budget tot $26bn

Present generation costs +/- $40/MW

Plan as presented:

Spend 8% of budget for 13 years
Result: Cost of power generated in 2030 = $130/MW

Can you see why no one is jumping for joy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 7:17:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses 1

France's power costs were amortized as are Germany's, but the massive basic cost of renewables is what makes the difference. Do you think France's power producing infrastructure is just being run down with nothing built into prices for its renewal? How is Flamanville 3 (that Greens want shut down before it starts generating) being paid for?

France is heading towards higher renewables in the mix, why, because of politics of fear and painted dreams, nothing to do with economic reality. And what is the point of renewables co-existing with nuclear on the main grid? Some supposed "energy security" furphy promulgated by anti-nukes doesn't cut it. Being only half pregnant with nuclear reactors seems pointless. Stupidly, reactors now have to be closed for Flamanville 3 to come online and keep nuclear energy capped to make way for renewables, while electricity is one of France's main exports!

Future generations will ask, "What were you thinking?" about madcap dreams that leave them dangling.

PS What of the methane issue, gas turbines, and GHG's under your scenarios? Isn't the whole point to mitigate AGW? If the nett effect is the same as coal-burning, what's the point? Also, I'm not sure from your link who's supposed to pay for behind the meter batteries and their renewal. The overall cost of your scenarios should include these if they are necessary to making scenarios work, IMO.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 10:45:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow
You are making more attempts to fudge figures and tell untruths.
1/ Expenditure on new power stations is by private investors; it does not impact on state expenditure and will be paid off from electricity revenue not by taxpayers.
2/ You state a figure of $40/MWh for wholesale electricity which is entirely misleading as it represents the lowest spot price.
Spot prices are not the full cost of wholesale electricity. Once the costs of hedging, PPA's and standby power are taken into account, the wholesale cost of power in WA was over $100 per MWh in 2014-15. Go to page 190 of: http://www.aemc.gov.au/getattachment/02490709-1a3d-445d-89cd-4d405b246860/2015-Residential-Electricity-Price-Trends-report.aspx and you will see that "In 2014/15, wholesale
electricity costs comprised 40 per cent of the total cost of supply", which was 25.2 cents. Figure G2 on p188 shows wholesale plus retail costs to be $135/ MWh.

Our study compares the cost of new coal/ gas and new renewables. WA's existing plant is already paid off, is aging and all will have reached the end of its economic life by 2030.

Luciferase
The argument re nuclear could go on for weeks and it is not my intention to spend any more time on that here. I have shown you that new nuclear is far more costly than new RE in Australia. That fact alone means it is not in the race here, even if the externalized safety, waste disposal and insurance underwriting issues are ignored.
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 11:54:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And methane?
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 12:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1, I am illequipped to argue much detail in the actual generating
system economics but I do not have a grip on what period of overcast
your design is capable of handling.
Just two or three weeks back we had a long period of very widespread
bad weather. Victoria, NSW and Southern Queensland was covered by the
one front which was moving east in a North South line roughly and
seemed to be 500 to 600 km wide.
There were very high winds at times but here in Sydney the wind did
not seem anything special. It lasted I think about four days.
I suspect that the Eastern Electricity Market would have had to buy
in a lot of power from Sth Australia and Nth Queensland in your model.
For how many days like that are you catering ?

There might be a market for a mega volt Transcontinental Electricity Grid.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 1:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses,

Now you are fudging, I quoted generation costs not residential costs. Spot prices on spinning plant can go down to $0 or less if there is a surplus.

Secondly investors are not going to invest in a market where the existing product is supplied at a fraction of what they can produce it for. The only way is if they are guaranteed a price, which is higher than their cost and your quoted figures. The huge increase in power costs is passed directly to taxpayers, which increases the cost of living and puts industries out of business.

Finally, WRT the nuclear industry, France has just commissioned some new reactors which produce power at a fraction of renewables. The government covers the insurance, and reprocesses the waste enabling much of the uranium to be recycled and reducing the waste for disposal by 99%.

As for the Tsunami of 2014, the 25000 odd people who died and vast tracts of land that were made unsuitable for agriculture dwarfs the 1 person that died at the plant and the area temporarily evacuated.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 5 July 2016 3:48:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

You are right to focus on those cloudy cold winter periods as they are the crucial times for performance of renewables. If you download the full report and go to section 3.6 p 21 and 22, you'll see graphs of a typical 2 week period in summer, which has only a few hours where OCGTs are needed and a wet 2 weeks in winter where there are about 8 days of shortfalls interspersed with 6 days of surpluses. The surpluses are not sufficient to recharge the storage, so there is a period where OCGT balancing power is required all the time for 5 days straight. This is about as bad as it gets but it's no problem, the OCGT generation is there to balance those shortfalls.

The bar graphs in section 5.3.3 p 59 are also worth a look. Here we graphed the amount of renewable generation for 7 years. The lowest amount in any year is 85.5% and the highest is 90.3%, meaning that for this scenario the OCGT's only generate 9.7% -14.5% of the energy used in any year.

Yes, the NEM (eastern) grid does have the advantages of interconnectors like thoes you suggest. It also has some hydro, so RE would be a bit cheaper over there. We will be costing interconnectors in WA but I doubt they will be cost-effective - cost is 3- 4 billion for an east-west HVDC line. Also they don't eliminate the need for OCGT standby capacity in any grid.

Shadow
I think you are 'clutching at straws'. LCoE and average wholesale electricity costs are quite different and much higher than the variable spot prices. The wholesale cost of electricity from a modernized electricity grid, whether coal or renewable would be about 2c higher, not the 'huge increase' you allege. Once again, read the report right through and you'll see all this explained.

Well guys, thankyou for an interesting discussion; I hope we have all increased our awareness. I will sign out of the thread now.
Posted by Roses1, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 1:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Roses,
It looks like the greenies will have to be convinced that some fossil fuels will be needed especially in winter.
Still they will probably throw a tantrum and end up having the housewives chasing them down the street with cold dinners, hi !
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 2:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's right Bazz, some form of fast response fueled standby generation will always be needed. Currently fossil (gas) is the most economic fuel for that but in future bio-fuels and other renewable fuels (perhaps hydrogen produced by renewable electricity) will become cost-effective alternatives. As it will be less than 15% of total generation in renewable grids, fuel cost is not as critical as it is for base load technologies.

Wind and PV are now mature technologies, cheaper than new coal. So it's clear where government research money needs to go - finding cheaper renewable fuels and cheaper storage - as standby power for wind and solar systems and also transport.

Cheers

Ben Rose
Posted by Roses1, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 4:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What of the methane issue, Roses1, methane?!

Also, still not sure whether consumer purchase of BTM batteries and their replacement is included in costing your scenarios. Call me stupid, but it's not quite clear to me.

Hoping you can address these fully before departing this thread (or is it why you are departing?)
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 8:02:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

Methane leaks is a very important issue with significant global warming impact as methane is > 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is why we would advocate no more coal seam gas or other types of fracking and more stringent monitoring and rectification of existing gas installations.

We (SEN) also advocate utilization of existing solid bio-mass resources / technologies, establishment of biomass plantations on marginal land and commercialization of new cost-effective bio-fuel and other renewable fuel technologies as quickly possible to replace natural gas wherever possible. OCGT's can also be fueled by liquid bio-fuels, which should be the ultimate aim. Our Study gives details of the amount of land that would be required to grow bio-fuels for this purpose. There is also the option of producing renewable fuels from surplus clean (wind and solar) electricity; some research money should be directed to developing these technologies.

I re-iterate that some OCGT balancing generation is used in all electricity grids including nuclear, which is too slow ramping to follow rapid load changes.

Re costing of the batteries, we have assumed a subsidy of $40/MWh (similar to the existing RECS) be paid by the utilities to battery owners. That would nowhere near cover the cost of the batteries, but they are increasingly cost effective in their own right (as costs are falling), for residential and commercial consumers who can use more of their solar energy and buy in cheap off peak power to charge them. See page 38 of the Study; download from: http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings

Happy reading!

Cheers,

Ben Rose
Posted by Roses1, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 8:54:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Load following needs are reduced the greater the level of nuclear in the mix. Also, the newest reactors are nimble and the past is not a reliable guage for the future. No support here for your argument for future OCGT requirements for baseload nuclear energy:

https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf

The whole energy train for the biomass needed for your proposal needs to be looked at, not just the land provision for it.

The EROEI argument bites into battery storage, reducing buffered PV generation to barely break-even in real world experience (Spanish mass installations, Prieto & Hall). Even if your scenarios succeeded there will be little CO2/AGW mitigation.

Whatever, thank you for your prognostications and response.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 7 July 2016 12:40:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben,

Once again I was talking about power sold by the generators to the network. Not the wholesale or retail prices. The LCOE prices for generation are just that, for the prices at the terminals of the power plant. Presently average prices are about $40/MWhr, and after spending $28bn will be about $130/MWhr

Secondly, going through the "modelling" I found very little to no actual data, which leads me to believe that this is no more than back of the ciggie box calculations.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 8 July 2016 11:44:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy