Load Shedding in Victoria - 25/01/2019

 
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Don't think I've ever heard/seen the word schema before, so I had to look it up,...... nice one
Because its above your pay grade!
RTT_Rules
How bloody elitist. Sad

Sponsored advertisement

  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

If you haven't worked it out yet, both coal and gas turbines suffer from physics, yes I know the RE idealists don't understand the word physics having studied Art at school, but physics defines what can and cannot happen. And the biggest issue with both these is that the turn down efficiency is really really really poor. I'll give you an example. At work we had a gas turbine running at 50% output, efficiency = 18% that along with a steam turbine running at reduced efficiency to match demand, which basically meant that at full load it was burning almost the same about of CO2. Remember RE is all about reducing CO2.
RTT_Rules

Sorry RTT, but making imputations about the intelligence and/or education of people who disagree with you is evidence of an emotional attachment to a position. I didn't use the word "agenda", which would connote a lack of disclosure; I said "hobby horse", by which I meant an irrational obsession with criticising RE.

So lets go with the brainless RE at all cost ideology that is currently been pushed. Currently there is about 4GW of wind in Australia, easily a 4GW or more proposed, planning or in some sort of development. Lets say it was 10GW all up. So when the wind is blowing and the load is 25GW with 4-5GW of solar during the day, you have 60% of the grid on wind./solar. What is coal supposed to do? Do this enough and eventually it will close. Meanwhile when the wind doesn't blow, then what? You think having 15GW of stand-by Open cycle gas is going to be feasible. What will be the price to have that level of infrastructure sitting there waiting, plus the gas supply, who will pay for the large gas mains?
RTT_Rules


This is a good article from the lefty-warmist-greenie-Marxist ABC about the myth of "base load" as a justification for ongoing coal plant operation. The essence of it is that the need for "base load" is a symptom of a grid designed around constant generation, rather than the other way around.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336

The following people are quoted:

Anthony Vassallo: PhD Chemistry
Glenn Platt: CSIRO Energy Research Director
Andrew Blakers: I'll let his engineering research speak for itself
Mark Diesendorf: Honours in Physics and PhD Applied Maths

Dr Diesendorf also has a more in-depth explanation of his feasibility modelling:

http://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210

Our latest peer-reviewed paper, currently in press in Energy Policy journal, compares the economics of two new alternative hypothetical generation systems for 2030: 100% renewable electricity versus an “efficient” fossil-fuelled system. Both systems have commercially available technologies and both satisfy the NEM reliability criterion. However, the renewable energy system has zero greenhouse gas emissions while the efficient fossil scenario has high emissions and water use and so would be unacceptable in environmental terms.
Mark Diesendorf


I will happily send the paper in question as a PDF to you or anyone else if you do not have a library susbscription to access it. PM me.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that 100% RE/gas is not an ideal solution, simply because of the difficulty of making a stable transition. It was a physicist who convinced me that fission thermal generation offers an acceptable compromise between emissions reduction and grid design, but I am also pragmatic enough to realise that it's not a political reality in Australia in the near further. (There's also the silent issue of industrial heat - 45% of global energy use, all of it fossil-powered, and no RE alternative, but modular nuclear may be a sustainable solution.)
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

A follow up article regarding yesterday's load shedding quoted AEMO as saying that distributors chose areas where demand was highest. This should send a message to us all that if you want to be a pig with your consumption, you can expect to miss out in extreme circumstances.
DirtyBallast

I'd love it if grid management developed to a point where household consumption could be remotely controlled. Very unlikely due to cost of course, but I'd be more than happy to sign up to a register declaring myself prepared to be load shed under a predefined set of circumstances, given that I'm not elderly, infirm, or otherwise particularly in need of airconditioning or refrigeration.

I'm sure there are plenty like me; I think most rational people grasp that planning a system of any sort that can cope with peak demand maybe twice year is very difficult.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Don't think I've ever heard/seen the word schema before, so I had to look it up,...... nice one
Because its above your pay grade!
How bloody elitist. Sad
DirtyBallast
So after a series of posts that are all 100% personal attack and never OT, what else do you propose?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Sorry RTT, but making imputations about the intelligence and/or education of people who disagree with you is evidence of an emotional attachment to a position. I didn't use the word "agenda", which would connote a lack of disclosure; I said "hobby horse", by which I meant an irrational obsession with criticising RE.



This is a good article from the lefty-warmist-greenie-Marxist ABC about the myth of "base load" as a justification for ongoing coal plant operation. The essence of it is that the need for "base load" is a symptom of a grid designed around constant generation, rather than the other way around.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336

The following people are quoted:

Anthony Vassallo: PhD Chemistry
Glenn Platt: CSIRO Energy Research Director
Andrew Blakers: I'll let his engineering research speak for itself
Mark Diesendorf: Honours in Physics and PhD Applied Maths

Dr Diesendorf also has a more in-depth explanation of his feasibility modelling:

http://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210

Our latest peer-reviewed paper, currently in press in Energy Policy journal, compares the economics of two new alternative hypothetical generation systems for 2030: 100% renewable electricity versus an “efficient” fossil-fuelled system. Both systems have commercially available technologies and both satisfy the NEM reliability criterion. However, the renewable energy system has zero greenhouse gas emissions while the efficient fossil scenario has high emissions and water use and so would be unacceptable in environmental terms.


I will happily send the paper in question as a PDF to you or anyone else if you do not have a library susbscription to access it. PM me.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that 100% RE/gas is not an ideal solution, simply because of the difficulty of making a stable transition. It was a physicist who convinced me that fission thermal generation offers an acceptable compromise between emissions reduction and grid design, but I am also pragmatic enough to realise that it's not a political reality in Australia in the near further. (There's also the silent issue of industrial heat - 45% of global energy use, all of it fossil-powered, and no RE alternative, but modular nuclear may be a sustainable solution.)
potatoinmymouth
PIMM,
I'm not making assumptions about peoples intelligence, what I've been trying to say on this post and previous is lets talk facts, yet all I get from too many is motherhood statements about why RE is gods greatest gift and similar. Show me the facts, thats all I ask and when I do that, oh I have agenda or riding a horse or what ever crap.

You want to talk RE, lets talk RE and leave the BS and personal attacks out of it. I've said that many times now, but know, more comments about hobby horses.

Regarding that link to the ABC
I totally agree, there are other ways. Have I ever said there isn't? However what I have said is what is the cost and in some cases ignore the cost what about practicality of such a solution?

"No single one does all the job... You probably need a mix of hydro, which may include off-river pumped hydro, and possibly open-cycle-gas turbines," he says.

"For those of us who work in the field, this is very straightforward now. But the barriers aren't primarily technological."

Professor Blakers agrees. He says that Australia's energy future lies in solar and wind, with pumped hydro as a balancing source.

"Pumped hydro is 100-year-old technology, completely off the shelf, and importantly you can get these pumped-hydro sites built before 2022," he says.


Lets look at the national resource options in the SE corner.
- Wind, mostly in the SW Vic and SA, intermittent, predictable but not when you need it
- Solar, available during the day, mostly alines with peak, but not for the rest of the 15-18h.
- So to make a reliable grid you need large scale battery (hydro or chemical) AND Open Cycle Gas which has a lower efficency than black coal and nearly double the price.

Chemical Battery, I think most people agree chemical battery technology is a decade or more away from being taken seriously for large scale grid supply.

Pumped Hydro, if its so practical and feasible in the SE corner, why is it still pending?

The economics for Snowy 2.0 rely coal power stations being closed and limited similar competition to ensure a large differential price between pumping and generation and even then over 50 years it fails to pay for itself. Don't take my word for it, read the reports!

Basically to achieve much of what was said in the ABC article the following need to be "gifted" to the NEM
- SNOWY 2.0
- 2nd Bass Link
- Upgrading of some of Tassie hydro systems to pump back
- HV link connecting SA and NSW
- and a number of other pumped hydro projects
- Large scale Open Cycle power station roll out.

and even then, you still need 50% of the coal power stations or similar.

Snowy 2.0 is 2000MW, the SE corner needs 7-8 of them to replace the coal fired power stations.

Basically we continue to need Bass Load generation (doesn't equal coal, but is the cheapest and most practical for Australia) for decades to come because the alternative technology simply does not exist!

I've also always said nothing wrong with wind, but it needs to be paired with hydro or similar, especially as the wind farm generation capacity grows beyond 10-20% of the grid. Look it up, 20-25% is considered max (depending on existing mix) before it starts to add significant cost to grid operation. By forcing the wind farms to align themselves with despatchable power ie hydro and/or open cycle gas, you won't have repeats of last few days as Wind output continues to grow.

You say you support nuclear, so do I. But considering the current focus on wind and solar and the mindset that these will do the job, the country has no chance in hell in allowing any nuclear project to go.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
A follow up article regarding yesterday's load shedding quoted AEMO as saying that distributors chose areas where demand was highest. This should send a message to us all that if you want to be a pig with your consumption, you can expect to miss out in extreme circumstances.

I'd love it if grid management developed to a point where household consumption could be remotely controlled. Very unlikely due to cost of course, but I'd be more than happy to sign up to a register declaring myself prepared to be load shed under a predefined set of circumstances, given that I'm not elderly, infirm, or otherwise particularly in need of airconditioning or refrigeration.

I'm sure there are plenty like me; I think most rational people grasp that planning a system of any sort that can cope with peak demand maybe twice year is very difficult.
potatoinmymouth
Its not expensive and mostly exists now. Modern meters should have the smarts already installed to load shed when the supplier sends a signal. Currently its called off-peak, could be expanded to other loads if desired, just needs a minor change in circuit breaker board. However, what do you propose to switch off? AC, maybe fridge, not much else on offer. The problem is going this far just highlites that our grid is 3rd world standard. Better still to expose houses to the cost of actual generation real time, people will make their own decisions.