Wind Generation and the Electricity Grid

[drron]

And of course in June this year the winds over SA were slower than usual.All of the companies that have wind farms in SA have notified the ASX of a reduction in forecast profit because of this.
Naturally the BOM expert says the slower wind speeds were due to the widening of the tropical belt.If so why the reliance on wind farms when global warming is going to make them useless?
Of course in 2011 the experts at the CSIRO predicted the widening of the tropical belt would cause higher wind speeds!
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/07/03/lack-of-wind-blows-out-south-australia-power-costs/

 

[TheRealTMA]

And of course in June this year the winds over SA were slower than usual.All of the companies that have wind farms in SA have notified the ASX of a reduction in forecast profit because of this.
Naturally the BOM expert says the slower wind speeds were due to the widening of the tropical belt.If so why the reliance on wind farms when global warming is going to make them useless?
Of course in 2011 the experts at the CSIRO predicted the widening of the tropical belt would cause higher wind speeds!
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/07/03/lack-of-wind-blows-out-south-australia-power-costs/

Oh stop with the Murdoch theory of power generation in SA.

Put your money on buying shares in new coal powered power stations with Tony.

 

[wandering_fred]

And of course a power grid connection from the southwest of WA (where the wind almost never stops) is far too expensive

The real question (which I hope history will be allowed to answer) is whether the "renewable energy" will offset enough fossil fuel cost to cover its installation. I am in the camp that it will. But perhaps not in my lifetime (those who have met me will understand the possibility of that statement).:shock:

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[RooFlyer]

Oh stop with the Murdoch theory of power generation in SA.

Put your money on buying shares in new coal powered power stations with Tony.

Nice factitious reply ... Now what about what drron actually said? Is the BoM on the money? Why go into wind farms if global warming (TM) is working against them?

 

[drron]

Oh stop with the Murdoch theory of power generation in SA.

Put your money on buying shares in new coal powered power stations with Tony.

Unfortunately what I said is fact.The total generation of electricity in June 2017 from wind was the lowest since April 2012 despite a large increase in wind generating capacity.
Maybe an inconvenient fact but a fact nevertheless.

 

[cove]

Had not realized that the wind was weak in June in SA. So many predictions don't quite work out. In Adelaide we have done really well with solar and LED lights rework.

 

[RAM]

How does the theoretical efficiency of this storage compare to hydroelectric pumping/powerstations such as they have in the Kangaroo Valley?

Currently the best efficiency for pumped storage is around the 67% mark. So for every 100 MW hours worth of water you pump back up you have used 150 MW hours of electricity to do it.

Which is why the Snowy Mountains scheme, IMHO, should be prosecuted by the ACCC for claiming they sell clean green electricity given they pump up at night using a large chunk of the output from Loy Yang A & B. The Snowy rank in the top ten users of brown coal generated electricity btw.

 

[whatmeworry]

Coal CEO admits Clean Coal is an unworkable myth.

While President Donald Trump continues to tout “clean” coal, coal baron Robert Murray says it’s just a fantasy.
“Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal,’” the CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, told E&E News.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), also called carbon capture and storage, is the process of trapping carbon dioxide from a power plant (during or after burning a hydrocarbon like coal) and then storing it permanently, usually underground.
It’s a technically challenging and expensive process — especially problematic in an era of cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Mississippi pulled the plug on one of the country’s biggest CCS efforts last month after the company spent billions on trying, and failing, to make it work.
While many clean energy analysts (including me) have long been dubious of CCS for economic, environmental, and practical reasons, the coal industry has touted “clean coal” as the long-term savior of the industry in a carbon-constrained world.
That’s why it’s so stunning a top coal CEO like Murray would now say that clean coal isn’t a real thing.
While President Donald Trump continues to tout “clean” coal, coal baron Robert Murray says it’s just a fantasy. “Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal,’” the CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, told E&E News. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), also called carbon capture and storage, is the process of trapping carbon dioxide from a power plant (during or after burning a hydrocarbon like coal) and then storing it permanently, usually underground. It’s a technically challenging and expensive process — especially problematic in an era of cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Mississippi pulled the plug on one of the country’s biggest CCS efforts last month after the company spent billions on trying, and failing, to make it work. While many clean energy analysts (including me) have long been dubious of CCS for economic, environmental, and practical reasons, the coal industry has touted “clean coal” as the long-term savior of the industry in a carbon-constrained world. That’s why it’s so stunning a top coal CEO like Murray would now say that clean coal isn’t a real thing.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-ceo-admits-that-clean-coal-is-a-myth-69570/

 

[RooFlyer]

Coal CEO admits Clean Coal is an unworkable myth.

Coal CEO admits that ‘clean coal’ is a myth : RenewEconomy

I agree (shock, horror!! :mrgreen: ). Just another multi-billion dollar rort of (mainly) universities to combat 'global warming' (TM). And for those who haven't caught up, now even the leading climate [-]scientists[/-] alarmists are confessing that the models of 'global warming' haven't stacked up. Note the authors ...

The latest instalment is a paper by a group of the world’s leading climate scientists who now admit climate models have been wrong and must be adjusted to better reflect the results of satellite temperature measurements. During the past two decades, these results have shown a slowdown in temperature rises in the troposphere, which is the lowest layer of the *atmosphere where almost all of our weather occurs.

The admission is contained in a new paper published in Nature Geoscience, which says a combination of factors including natural variability and unforeseen events have been responsible for models over-estimating the temperature rise. Natural variability includes the El Nino and La Nina weather patterns and oscillations on a decadal scale in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Unforeseen factors that contributed to cooling included volcanic eruptions, a weaker sun in the last solar cycle and increased particulate pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants.

The paper, Causes of Differ*ences in Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates, is lead-authored by Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, and includes Michael Mann from the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University and Matthew England from the University of NSW.

 

[RooFlyer]

Currently the best efficiency for pumped storage is around the 67% mark. So for every 100 MW hours worth of water you pump back up you have used 150 MW hours of electricity to do it.

Which is why the Snowy Mountains scheme, IMHO, should be prosecuted by the ACCC for claiming they sell clean green electricity given they pump up at night using a large chunk of the output from Loy Yang A & B. The Snowy rank in the top ten users of brown coal generated electricity btw.

It does make pretty good sense to use the power generated by base load power stations at night, when the energy of the burned coal and steam (which otherwise would be wasted) is used to pump the water back up to generate power during demand periods (think of hydro storage as a Tesla battery .. only hundreds ... ?thousands? of times bigger . ) Even at 67%, that sounds a good deal to me. If you have to run the base load stations (and they do!), use the power that's there and not being used.

Surely its very 'green' to use energy for some purpose, rather than have it wasted and the coal burned for naught?

 

[tgh]

Late to this thread and apologies if I am rehashing.. but swmbo was reading me some stuff this morning from that disgraceful right wing rag using our national id as a banner..

She was a little sad about the content , but I reassured her that governments of all persuasions had their hand on it….

Government can sell millions of tons of coal for other countries to burn while raking in lots of royalties.
Government can even use some of these royalties to underwrite new coal mines and fund education programs for those simpletons bleating about the Artesian basin. (what's that .. do you wash in it or cook with it ? )
( Of course these education programs are essential to social order and employ lots of bright young graduates , the current programme to explain that fracking is quite harmless is ticking along nicely )

Otoh , we will continue to devalue domestic living standards , explaining that people should be good global citizens and do their bit for the planet by paying just a tiny little more for their power supplies.

Executive summary :

Your governments at work: A perfect balance of brilliant , nay inspired, judgment ; great fiscal management, responsible global citizenship and electoral security..

whats not to like ….

 

[RooFlyer]

So few words, so many non sequiters and put-downs ... Your base premise that governments sell the coal is wrong, and so almost all of the rest crumbles ...

 

[PLANT]

I heard he is connecting to solar farm and will have super charging for the batteries

 

[tgh]

So few words, so many non sequiters and put-downs ... Your base premise that governments sell the coal is wrong, and so almost all of the rest crumbles ...

Well it was just a bit of loose prose, almost troll like in retrospect, did you find it offensive ? .. sorry

It's a bit hard to take this stuff seriously and my irritation flowed through into the keyboard.

Words have meanings : The "people" conceptually own the resource and therefore "sell" it ; for what ?.. the taxes ? the employment ?

Anyway , I'm not really arguing one case or t'other.. just opining the hypocrisy of :

(a) Complicity in continuing to support worldwide CO2 escalation

while

(b) Introducing renewables at home on the basis of supporting CO2 reduction

 

[RAM]

Shirley you can't be serious.

OK, much sun has shone and wind blown but DON"T call me Shirley!

I think rather than a conspiracy, think stuff up, or incompetence.

Unfortunately, my experience in the business world and funds management has taught me that one person's "conspiracy theory" is often several senior execs' "collusion"aka bonus material. As the Federal laws stand currently - there is absolutely NOTHING ILLEGAL in what the State (& private sector) generation companies have been doing. Morally wrong -absolutely. Sure helps the senior mgmt's remuneration (aren't public sector Annual Reports good value reading!).

The Qld State-owned Power Generation companies have been named and extreme detail provided about the practices that led to that profit. The regulator's report on it is actually very much Yr 4 English (was written with hope that the senior Federal Politicians may look at it after all).

Or the time I was told more than 6 weeks out from the first Wages Summit, with Hawke, Keating, the Unions and Employers organisations in Canberra, exactly what the wage rises/super/tax trade-offs would be and what dates they would take effect from. Well wasn't told, he took a Telecom Australia envelope out of his top pocket, pulled out the bill and WROTE ON THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE.

I could not keep from smiling as he wrote it down, then went back to work and saw the MD who proceeded to tell me how certain people liked nothing better than making Fund Managers look stupid, and how he thought I was more worldly than to believe such a scam as this.

Six weeks or so later, at 2.31pm I went back into his office and asked who was more worldly. Last time he ever questioned my judgement of people.

I always read your analyses, and enjoy them very much, and often learn a bit, but the conspiracies are getting in the way of some sensibility these days.

That's not what the NSW State Auditor General has stated btw....

 

[Pushka]

Our BOM moved locations a couple of weeks ago. From a mid city urban building back to the parklands on West Terrace. Watch for climate change as the sprinklers get turned on.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Excellent quote "Criticising South Australia’s battery for not meeting peak demand is akin to raging at your smartphone because it can’t send a fax."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...he-grid-should-butt-out-of-the-battery-debate

 

[SFSC]

Excellent quote "Criticising South Australia’s battery for not meeting peak demand is akin to raging at your smartphone because it can’t send a fax."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...he-grid-should-butt-out-of-the-battery-debate

Interesting read. As I have said in earlier posts, the generation and distribution of electricity is still evolving and will continue to evolve. Which direction this will take is unknown at this stage.


For example, if people and businesses are able to cheaply generate and store electricity on their premises will we still need a system? Perhaps the poles and wires will eventually go the way of certain country railway lines? If long distance transmission becomes no longer necessary, will AC still be necessary? Some may recall that the last DC distribution in inner Sydney was only shut down as recently as the mid 1980's. I recently bought a well-known Japanese brand flat screen TV and was surprised to find that it runs on 19.5V DC supplied from a plug-in 100- 240V 50-60 HZ adapter so perhaps change is already coming.


Perhaps the governments who sold off their poles and wires have been extremely smart in divesting themselves of infrastructure that may become redundant in the not so distant future at a reasonable price in the present.

 

[drron]

But the article also shows the stupidity of the SA Government and AEMO for closing base load power generation before the grid had made the necessary changes.As well as showing the costs of bringing the total grid up to speed.
The Northern power station at Port Augusta supplied 240MW of base load power.It was only operational in summer since 2012.Blackouts occurred when it was still in operation and major blackouts have occurred since September 2016 without any power lines down.Now if the current battery proposal supplies 40Mwh to the grid that supply will only last 3 hours.The Northern power station would supply 6 times that for the 24 hours of a day.This proposal is thought to cost ~ $100 million though the figures are secret.Tesla's current 80Mwh system in California cost ~ $US50 million so it is likely that a 129Mwh unit would cost~$US75 million ie $A100 million.
So to replace the Northern Power station for 3 hours a day would cost $600 million.What would it cost to replace Hazelwood?
Also the more times a LI battery is discharged and if it operates at a temperature over 25C the shorter the life expectancy.The Northern could continue until at least 2030.That date was because that was when the coal reserves at Leigh creek would run out not because of problems with the station itself.

But I do agree the States that have sold their poles and wires by accident have done a good deal.Though South Australians might not agree-
No Cookies | The Advertiser

 

[RAM]

But the article also shows the stupidity of the SA Government and AEMO for closing base load power generation before the grid had made the necessary changes.As well as showing the costs of bringing the total grid up to speed.
The Northern power station at Port Augusta supplied 240MW of base load power.It was only operational in summer since 2012.Blackouts occurred when it was still in operation and major blackouts have occurred since September 2016 without any power lines down.Now if the current battery proposal supplies 40Mwh to the grid that supply will only last 3 hours.The Northern power station would supply 6 times that for the 24 hours of a day.This proposal is thought to cost ~ $100 million though the figures are secret.Tesla's current 80Mwh system in California cost ~ $US50 million so it is likely that a 129Mwh unit would cost~$US75 million ie $A100 million.
So to replace the Northern Power station for 3 hours a day would cost $600 million.What would it cost to replace Hazelwood?
Also the more times a LI battery is discharged and if it operates at a temperature over 25C the shorter the life expectancy.The Northern could continue until at least 2030.That date was because that was when the coal reserves at Leigh creek would run out not because of problems with the station itself.

But I do agree the States that have sold their poles and wires by accident have done a good deal.Though South Australians might not agree-
No Cookies | The Advertiser

No the States selling the poles and wires did a VERY BAD thing and did it deliberately at the behest of a couple of "investment banks".

The sales GUARANTEED a rate of return will be earnt by the purchasers regardless. That rate of return was/is significantly higher than had ever been achieved on the poles and wires previously. This led to the window dressing aka "Gold Plating" of the transmission networks.

Put simply if you spent $1 million in capex then you were guaranteed to earn a return (at one stage) of 12% per annum for a 30 year period. At the time you could raise finance, secured against the assets as a private company for as low as 7%. The State Govts could get it for just over 6%.

So, to earn 12% the only way was to increase the connection fees AND the transmission fees - which is why they more than doubled over a 4 year period and have generally continued to rise in double digits per annum.

This was, allegedly, sold to the two major political parties (both deep with snouts in this trough) as a way for States to effectively introduce a state tax when they are not formally permitted to.

How do I know? I was approached to buy some of the debt that a certain investment bank was arranging as part of this process, and they were very keen for the fund manager I worked for to put in a 9 digit sum.

We didn't.

Don't you wonder why no major political party has used these rising charges in campaigns? Stones and glasshouses.