Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

50 TWh / yr from 15 GW implies a 38% CF overall, and looking at their wind/solar performance plot, they seem to be expecting 70+% CF from wind alone ! :lol:
BUT.. i notice they are not making the ( $22 Bn ) finance commitment, until 2025 !

 

[jonescg]

Even I think it's a bit too big.

But the idea of exporting abundant renewable electricity to a growing nation with limited options via undersea cable is a good one. Plus if Indonesia ever build nuclear reactors we can import it to power our nation's industrial estate (the Pilbara) :wink:

The winds in that part of the world are consistent, but consistently low. Managing demand at times of a cyclone will be interesting.

 

[Hillhater]

Its hard to think of anywhere more remote from a high consumption consumer ?
Even Perth would not want another 10GW pushed at it.
Indonesia sure has the population, but the nearest landfall must be approx 2000km from their site..and Jakarta much further again.
Is HVDC really that economical to justify this plan ?
So much that does not stack up from a power generation viewpoint.
I guess the answer is in the financials , and the subsidies/rebates/ tax advantages ?
$22 bn is a big financial sink hole !

 

[jonescg]

Well it would no doubt be staged, so it won't be pushing 15 GW anywhere for at least a decade, but 5 GW within 18 months is likely. Assuming the undersea cable is the first thing they install. HVDC is great for sending power to a worthy load a long way away. The best thing would be for Indonesia to have their own generating capability, but they simply don't have the sites.

The hydrogen generation really amuses me. We still can't say with any certainty there's a market for it, let alone thousands of tons of the stuff. But the gas industry is our de facto government in WA, so we do what they want :/

 

[Hillhater]

The scale, scope, and objectives for that project seem to change annually, with cost increases and delays in start up.
Presumably, the subsea interconnectors are included in their $22bn costing, but it is not specifically mentioned ?
I have seen 2 different recent costings for HVDC transmission..
US $3.0m per km for the recent NZ North/south island sub sea, 700MW connector,..
and Au$2-3 Bn for a proposed 2nd Basslink 1.2GW , 370km,HVDC connector..($5-$8 m/km)
From that it would seem that a single 1.2 Gw , 2000km link to Indonesia would cost in excess of Au$10.0Bn .(.or half their entire budget proposal ) and a 5 GW link would be near double their proposed budget ?

 

[Hillhater]

An interesting proposal document for a HVDC interconnector across across Australia.
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4de2711f-2482-4d58-b72d-c1668c633260&subId=667142
In some ways, this is either complimentary , or in competition with the AsianREhub project ?
Of particular note is the quoted cost of transmission losses for a 500kv, 2600km system...quoted at over $500m pa, based on a 12% energy loss. !

 

[sendler2112]

"Summating the capital costs, operation and maintenance and transmission loss estimates gives total
estimated life-cycle costs of $2,170m for the Eastern interconnection and $3,690m for the East-West
Interconnection."

 

[jonescg]

The Australian transcontinental transmission line would only serve the east coast with West Australian sunshine and wind satisfying the needs of the east coast of an evening. Similarly, we have the option of mid-morning sunshine powering the west coast at daybreak. But the problem remains at the other end of the day.

I think export dollars are the goal here.

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh !. Correction , that $500 m+ In losses is a “lifecycle” total.. (14 year life ?)
So, more like $35 -$50m pa.?

...The capitalized cost of losses over the asset lifecycle of the interconnector has been estimated to be $460m and $750million respectively for the two interconnectors....

... And from this comment .. It would seem they have calculated using a 14 yr lifecycle ?..

Operation and maintenance costs over the asset life-cycle of the interconnectors have been estimated to be $15mpa and $26mpa respectively (ie 1% of the capital cost) capitalized at $210m and $360m respectively over their asset lives.

...which seems a bit pessimistic for a well maintained transmission line?
But elseware , they mention a 50 year period ?

And on page 17 they quote annual line losses for a 500 MW line at 180,000 MWh over a 100km line..
suggesting a much greater loss factor ?

 

[Hillhater]

The Australian transcontinental transmission line would only serve the east coast with West Australian sunshine and wind satisfying the needs of the east coast of an evening. Similarly, we have the option of mid-morning sunshine powering the west coast at daybreak. But the problem remains at the other end of the day.

..that would be around 9 -10pm Eastern,.. just in time to pick up the slack from those big eastern coal plants !
That was part of the justification, to keep those big thermal plants running at max efficiency for longer.
But the main benefit is to enable WA sell its surplus RE power to the east , and avoid the need to install large storage capacity to buffer demand.

 

[jonescg]

I can see an Australia-wide and a South East Asia-wide electricity grid happening in the next 50 years. As you mention, it reduces the need for storage because it's always sunny or windy somewhere in the world.

A big misconception about storage is that we need enough storage to service the needs of the network for 12 or 24 hours, but there will always be some generation somewhere meeting the needs of part of the grid. Storage will still be essential, but nowhere near as much as we think. Snowy 2.0 would easily satisfy the needs of South Eastern Australia (transmission lines pending).

At least in late winter and early spring, the hydro reserves are fuller than usual, so there is some seasonal storage to speak of.

 

[Hillhater]

...Snowy 2.0 would easily satisfy the needs of South Eastern Australia (transmission lines pending).

The problem with Snowy 2, ( and with most battery storage?), is not capacity but peak/continuous output which is limited to the 2Gw turbine capacity.
It easy to quickly drop 5 Gw when the wind drops or the sun goes down, but it needs a lot of turbine capacity (or battery power), to come on stream fast enough to replace that level of supply

 

[Hillhater]

Part of the plan for the Asia reHub ?..
Sunlight to ammonia via hydrogen
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-plans-to-export-pilbara-sunlight-to-japan/6935906
And
Ammonia to Hydrogen..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916
But meanwhile back in la la land . some fools are spending $100m to produce 3.0 T of Hydrogen from coal. .
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-14/latrobe-valley-coal-to-hydrogen-project-approved/10812464

 

[Hillhater]

It seems Europe are considering a new approach to meeting their fossil fuel reduction targets...

Date: 03/05/20Financial Times
As Europe faces economic catastrophe due to the shutdown of most of its businesses and industries, EU officials have decided to protect cheap oil and gas from green campaigners who are trying to shut down all industries that continue to use fossil fuels (Net Zero).
Under draft proposals for the EU’s sustainable disclosure regime, the European authorities responsible for banking, insurance and securities markets define fossil fuels as only applying to “solid” energy sources such as coal and lignite.

 

[sendler2112]

Part of the plan for the Asia reHub ?..
Sunlight to ammonia via hydrogen
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-plans-to-export-pilbara-sunlight-to-japan/6935906
And
Ammonia to Hydrogen..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916

They are quoting 2 TWh of electricity per annum from a theoretical 1 GW solar PV field. 23% capacity sounds plausible. Which they say could produce 1.3 TWh worth of Hydrogen. Which is an optimistic 66% efficiency. And then maybe we can someday achieve the 60% efficient fuel cell. Now you are down to 40% round trip efficiency. Not to mention conversion losses to ammonia and back, or storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen. It would be much better and less wasteful for a country that still burns coal to build continental transmission lines to just use the electricity when it is hot off the panels. What price per MWh would they have to charge for the ammonia in order to repay all of the expendable hardware and who would buy it with another 50% loos in the fuel cell?

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Part of the plan for the Asia reHub ?..
Sunlight to ammonia via hydrogen
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-plans-to-export-pilbara-sunlight-to-japan/6935906
And
Ammonia to Hydrogen..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916

They are quoting 2 TWh of electricity per annum from a theoretical 1 GW solar PV field. 23% capacity sounds plausible. Which they say could produce 1.3 TWh worth of Hydrogen. Which is an optimistic 66% efficiency. And then maybe we can someday achieve the 60% efficient fuel cell. Now you are down to 40% round trip efficiency. Not to mention conversion losses to ammonia and back, or storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen. It would be much better and less wasteful for a country that still burns coal to build continental transmission lines to just use the electricity when it is hot off the panels. What price per MWh would they have to charge for the ammonia in order to repay all of the expendable hardware and who would buy it with another 50% loos in the fuel cell?

And to add onto a great point, why go for hydrogen at all? All these hydrogen fuel cells require more energy to be used converting things into ship/storage-capable states; why not go for Methanol fuel cells instead, which already has an industry and only needs a plastic jug to be moved around? I know sometimes this is a pot/kettle thing, but tons of the pro-cell arguments I've seen don't talk AT ALL about fuels other than hydrogen, and skirt around their issue of total lifespan- cell stacks seem to have hard 15-year limits that have not yet been fixed.

 

[sendler2112]

You mean like the Ethanol we are wasting our time on?

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

You mean like the Ethanol we are wasting our time on?

Irregardless of your personal view of the ethanol industry, we have no idea and no way of knowing it's impact on the environment- and both fuels can be used in fuel cells, since they have an easily broken Oxy+hydrogen "chain". Here's an old paper on the direct methanol fuel cell:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/direct-methanol-fuel-cell

Methanol and Ethanol are far easier to store and just as "easy" to produce as hydrogen, in that we already make hundreds of millions of tons annually of all 3. Also, I know of no consumer car that properly makes use of Ethanol's high octane; it allows for compression up to 14:1 in some cases without pinging on E85, naturally depending on what type of delivery you choose.

 

[sendler2112]

the ethanol industry

Creating Ethanol in the USA from corn is nearly no better than 1:1 Energy Returned on Energy Invested of fossil Carbon and NPK fertilizer (Phosphorous reserves are reaching depleted states and are essential to growing human food), roundup, and pesticides. Brazil can do a little better with sugar cane but even at 6:1 it will be an act of desperation and is still nowhere near the historical trend average of the energy source it is trying to replace. The energy the current (outdated) economy was built on.
.
Hydrogen and Ammonia can be made with solar panels, water, and air. But even this should be considered folly to think we will ever have so much extra rebuildable energy that we will want to squander 60% of it round trip in complex, short lived systems, rather than just using it when it is there.
.
We currently blow through 17.8 TeraWatts continuous average. Still 85% fossil Carbon. We get 4 times the energy from burning wood as poor people cook their food over open flames among other things, as from solar and wind put together.
.
In replacing fossil Carbon, we are going to come up way short. We will need a whole new way. And should start realizing this and using our current energy wealth as seed corn to build out the things we really need to be happy.
.
It does no good to deny our receding energy and resource horizons. Wishful thinking of a techno salvation only serves to cloud the reality of it all and waste precious time that we need in order to change everything. We must all chip in and pull together. Those that have had the good fortune to do well for themselves in the previous system must feel compelled to chip in more. To make sure everyone has at least enough. Enough water, food, shelter, health care, education. To use our current energy wealth to build out 1,000 year communal dwellings that can remain livable, if not always comfortable, without all of this fossil energy. To prepare and restore land and practices that can grow enough food on compost and muscle power. To build out 200 year solar panels to maintain communications and provide some cooking and light. As human civilization steadily coasts back down over the next hundred years from the rat race of keep up with the Jones's jobs and gets back to work. And simple play. Like the dogs in the park that Umair starts out with in his latest essay.
.
https://eand.co/think-life-will-go-back-to-normal-after-coronavirus-think-again-2639fe9265ac
.

 

[Hillhater]

And to add onto a great point, why go for hydrogen at all? .....

The main reason for Hydrogen is its ability to be produced using “clean” RE power , and when consumed to produce energy it has “clean” byproducts (water) .
Ethanol has a whole ton of “environmental baggage” working against it , mostly around its production.

But neither of them are realistic solutions for a world energy supply, or even any significant sector of it.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Creating Ethanol in the USA from corn is nearly no better than 1:1 Energy Returned on Energy Invested of fossil Carbon and NPK fertilizer (Phosphorous reserves are reaching depleted states and are essential to growing human food), roundup, and pesticides. Brazil can do a little better with sugar cane but even at 6:1 it will be an act of desperation and is still nowhere near the historical trend average of the energy source it is trying to replace. The energy the current (outdated) economy was built on.

I don't know if you know, but I absolutely agree with you on ethanol's "place" as a shitty, shady industry propped up on subsidy and poor crop choices (using corn over switchgrass- even wikipedia calls it dumb). As for Brazil, they used sugarcane because it's a major export- but I know little of why they tried to lower their oil imports in the first place, so that's all I'll say.

Hydrogen and Ammonia can be made with solar panels, water, and air. But even this should be considered folly to think we will ever have so much extra rebuildable energy that we will want to squander 60% of it round trip in complex, short lived systems, rather than just using it when it is there.

I remember there was a Canadian whom made an ammonia machine like that the size of a refrigerator whom promoted it as a good "half step" until better batteries could be figured out. Wonder where he is now.

It does no good to deny our receding energy and resource horizons. Wishful thinking of a techno salvation only serves to cloud the reality of it all and waste precious time that we need in order to change everything...Like the dogs in the park that Umair starts out with in his latest essay.
https://eand.co/think-life-will-go-back-to-normal-after-coronavirus-think-again-2639fe9265ac

True. My whole ugly argument was simply against said wishful thinkers- people whom think they'll be some one-size fits all response even down to new gasoline alternatives (which even Koenigsegg is prepared for in the Gemera but there's no details I can find about what octane it is- I've heard it claimed it's Blau Gas, but there's just no real concentrated effort it seems). This goes for fuel cell fans, battery sycophants to thorium theoreticians like myself.

But neither of them are realistic solutions for a world energy supply, or even any significant sector of it.

Agreed. Ethanol has potential to do quite a lot- the fact you can now legally in the US make/buy a still and produce your own fuel and food is an example- but unless every American suddenly decided lawns were for chumps and replaced them for sweet corn like Henry Ford thought it'll never be big enough. Besides, only gearheads like me will make a engine that'll properly use it.

... though I like my cheap pump race gas damnit :lol:

 

[JackFlorey]

Creating Ethanol in the USA from corn is nearly no better than 1:1 Energy Returned on Energy Invested of fossil Carbon and NPK fertilizer (Phosphorous reserves are reaching depleted states and are essential to growing human food), roundup, and pesticides. Brazil can do a little better with sugar cane but even at 6:1 it will be an act of desperation and is still nowhere near the historical trend average of the energy source it is trying to replace. The energy the current (outdated) economy was built on.

Agreed. Corn based ethanol is a bad idea. Rapeseed based diesel and sugarcane based ethanol are much better choices.

Hydrogen and Ammonia can be made with solar panels, water, and air. But even this should be considered folly to think we will ever have so much extra rebuildable energy that we will want to squander 60% of it round trip in complex, short lived systems, rather than just using it when it is there.

Also agreed. Liquid/gaseous fuels have a place in transportation (long haul trucking, aerospace) but it will have to be the exception rather than the rule for most transportation and for all industrial processes.

 

[Hillhater]

As for Brazil, they used sugarcane because it's a major export- but I know little of why they tried to lower their oil imports in the first place, .........
.......... only gearheads like me will make a engine that'll properly use it

Brazil has historically had a Ethanol / fuel industry as a byproduct from the sugarcane production, but ramped up their ethanol fuel program after the oil price spiked in the early 70s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

. The first production car running entirely on ethanol was the Fiat 147, introduced in 1978 in Brazil by Fiat. Wikipedia

 

[jonescg]

This goes for fuel cell fans, battery sycophants to thorium theoreticians like myself.

I got a good smile out of this

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Thanks for the link HH. I know that right now Brazil does a sort of ~E30 blend currently; of course, it all depends on actual climate (Ethanol freezes below 30 degrees F or so, gas doesn't), Political climate, and farmland (which Brazil is trying to annihilate the rain forest for more cattle space currently).

This goes for fuel cell fans, battery sycophants to thorium theoreticians like myself.

I got a good smile out of this

I'm a slut for ace alliteration.