There are three broad responses to the Letter:
1. Assumptions & Omissions
2. Incorrect or should've known
3. Examining Claims. [ Summary Response ]
Letter to the Editor to a regional newspaper, published in 2009.
Included as a submission to 2012 Senate Inquiry "The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms".
Text at:
https://stevej-on-misc.blogspot.com/2022/06/climate-change-denier-letter-to-editor.html
Assumptions
There are assumption in the letter that've been shown to be badly wrong as of 16-Jun-2022 with the AEMO declaration of "no market":
- the price of fossil fuel is relatively non-volatile, in fact, very volatile, as was known in 1973 Oil Shock
- Price of Natual Gas sets the Electricity Price because it's the "on-demand" fuel supplier for when the cheapest power is used
- the Privatised Electricity Market, absent decent regulation, will be gamed by generators, will be unreliable, will be very high priced.
- vs "when wind doesn't blow" buy storage, like we do when it doesn't rain. (Chris Bowen, 16-Jun-2022)
- Price of Renewables, especially Domestic PV, is _solely_ the finance - fixed interest cost for term of funding
- at end of financing, renewables are fully paid and their power source is still free. v. low variable costs and near zero fixed cost
There's a massive Blind Side in the letter.
Two related assumption that large, centralised Power Stations are The Natural Order.
- Large 'must be kept running' power plants are assumed to be The Best Solution,
built with a few, maximise sized generation Units, which are prone to breakdowns after 50yrs, and v. expensive to upgrade.
This is 1950's thinking, driven by the technology of the time.
It forces two things:
- Massive Single Points of Failure, demonstrated in June 2022 with multiple failures and Callide unit explosion
- Large Star-and-Spoke Distribution & reticulation systems, which cannot handle widely decentralised local renewables.
Which are very expensive to build (the 'gold plating' problem with AEMO in 2010's) and carve big swathes through wild country, often sensitive environments.
- GE multi-fuel Gas Turbines are 5-minute start and come in 'useful' sizes, 2MW-30MW, and attain efficiencies unobtainable by Steam.
They're lower pollution and lower CO2 emissions. And don't rely on massive amounts of cooling water or evaporative cooling.
It's very easy to match demand to load, perfectly and be able to respond to load variations in seconds, not hours and days.
Maintenance is easier - don't need a week to cool down & another to warm up.
Capacity can be bought, upgraded, swapped out and maintained in small, affordable increments without impacting production output.
This is the reason Space-X is bolting 30+ Merlin rocket engines under its Super Heavy Booset.
They didn't designed a Bigger, Better "F-1", five of which powered the Saturn V booster that lifted Apollo into orbit.
Gas Turbines don't have to be clustered into one Big Plant, small groups can be spread around the country, matched to local demand.
This minimises the investment in transmission and distribution networks, points of failure and terrorist targets, and reduces the need for land clearing for HV lines.
Ommissions
One of the Big Omissions (is it a lie?) in his work:
There's absolutely nothing about transmission, distribution and network losses.
One of the more tricky issues to talk about is "Power Factor" and Reactive power losses in the Network due to complex Impedance, not just line, switching and transformer losses.
This is a benefit of 1MV DC transmission lines:
NO "power factor", no frequency control problems, no synchronisation problems and no dynamic instability due to feedback effects of asymmetric loads & generators.
Each new high-power inverter has a much smaller region it supplies - eliminates a swathe of problem with large Grids.
We absolutely do not want, or need, the World's Largest Single Grid.
The USA would be doing this if it were a Good Idea. The US has had multiple wide-scale blackouts due to Grid Instability & control issues.
https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/grid
45,000 km of transmission grid
https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/electricity-grid-how-electricity-gets-to-you/
The Australian electricity grid spans over 5,000 kilometres,
It's one of the largest interconnected power systems in the world.
Another of the Big Lies not discussed is Annual Energy demand.
For all energy sources, it's measured / reported in Terra-Joules, TJ, or 1,000 GJ
The letter discusses Peak Demand, average generation and Nameplate capacity,
but doesn't mention about 'Capacity Factor' utilisation and Total energy.
A large contributory factor to the June 2022 East Coast Power Shortage is the unreliability of Coal generators.
25% of the Coal 'fleet' is off-line - tech-speak for "broken down".
The Coal Power Plants left are old and tired - they break down frequently now.
"Heat Rate" that is used without explanation (Heat Energy IN per Electrical Energy OUT).
There are different measures of Heat Input: with or without the heat thrown away in the cooling water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_plant_efficiency
The figure used, with different units on either side, is the most confusing way to state the measure.
If same units were used IN & OUT, the "10.000 BTU per 1 kW-hr" would be:
11.72 MJ per 4 MJ - obviously not "96% efficient"
Heat Rate is what it says:
how much _heat energy_ is input,
to generate 1kW-hr of electricity
10,000 BTU is 10.5506 MJ, converting BTU to Mega Joules.
1 kW-hr = 1kJ/sec x 3600 sec = 3.6 MJ
So 10,000 BTU or 10.5506 MJ to create 3.6 MJ of electricity - which is around 1/3 of the heat input coming out as electricy
10.5506 / 3.6 = 34.12% conversion rate from Heat to Electricity.
A very far cry from "96% efficiency".
Behind the tirade is the question:
is the increase in atmospheric CO2 human caused?
The problem with that proposition is,
If not human activity, just what is the cause of the largest, fastest spike in CO2 levels in not just millenia, but millions of years?
Another implied, but unaddressed issue, is the agreement of international political leaders that increased CO2 is a problem,
and that global action is required, backed by signed & ratified agreements. Countries can't opt out, there is just one atmosphere, everyone has to work towards the same goal.
This degree of agreement & co-operation between countries is exceedingly rare.
Arguing that it's "ridiculous" and snide remarks about 'believers', in quotes, ignores the political & economic facts:
If Australia refuses to reduce CO2 emissions, then the global community will levy our exports, including aviation,
with a 'carbon tax'. We will pay for our carbon emissions one way or another.
It's far better for us if the money stays in Australia and we control how its spent.
Since 2019, Australian news has been filled with "unprecedented" and "record" events with fires, floods, droughts and the pandemic.
The northern hemisphere has seen record heatwaves, bushfires in the Siberian tundra, the break-up of the Polar Vortex pushing super-cold air into large cities,
the melting of the Arctic ice-cap in summer and the "North West passage" becoming ice-free and the "North East" passage China to Russia, becoming naviagable,
and record heatwaves of 30C-45C at both poles.
Of particular note in 2022 for us are the recent floods in Lismore - they weren't flooded just once while the long-standing flood height record was absolutely smashed.
Australia has seen the price of bananas over $10/kg from a cyclone, but never paid $10 per lettuce before, caused by these flooding events.
This is not "business as usual" - something fundamental has changed and is causing significant impact on lives and the economy.
Something this former power station worker should understand well and be more acutely aware than anyone is "Thermal Inertia".
Big Things take a long time to heat up and cool down. It takes a week to start or stop a coal fired power station and to heat or cool all the heavy equipment & furnaces.
For the Earth, that delay is estimated to be 30 years. The recent "records" only reflect 1990 C02 levels, there's a lot more change coming that's "baked in" and cannot be avoided.
Finally, the letter argues that because we contribute so little to global CO2 levels:
"why bother? whatever we do is infinitesimal, we won't see a benefit, but have to wear the costs".
There's two problems with this argument:
Its advocating we bludge off the hard work of others, technically taking a "Free Ride", which won't fly well with other countries,
and if we do nothing, then others will follow, using the same logic, and globally, we can never reduce emission.
There's 195 countries that all breathe the same air: nobody can shirk their share.
https://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world
The consequences of a runaway Greenhouse effect are catastrophic for human survival, not just an economic inconvenience.
We know what this looks like on Venus.
Arguing that we should gamble the future of the humans & our society on hunches & assertions is wildly irresponsible and reckless with other people's lives.
This is the importance of the 2°C upper limit - it's a "Tipping Point", after which we, literally, fall off a cliff and there's no way back.
Individuals suggesting we gamble the whole of human existence on the off-chance the science is slightly wrong, so they can enjoy "more of the same",
seem to not understand the problem or its consequences.
There aren't enough fossil fuels to power us for the next 500 years and most likely not even 100 years at current rates.
It's not a question of "if" we find other energy sources, but "when". Fossil Fuels are finite, they won't power our economy forever, even if the CO2 doesn't get us.
Advocating for a delay of the inevitable - for very slim benefits - seems naive and foolish.
Sources
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/thermodynamics/laws-of-thermodynamics/second-law-of-thermodynamics/carnot-efficiency-efficiency-of-carnot-heat-engine/
Carnot Efficiency - Efficiency of Carnot Heat Engine
Example: Carnot efficiency for coal-fired power plant
In a modern coal-fired power plant,
the temperature of high pressure steam (T-hot) would be about 400°C (673K)
and T-cold, the cooling tower water temperature, would be about 20°C (293K).
For this type of power plant the maximum (ideal) efficiency will be:
= 1 - T-cold/T-hot = 1 - 293/673 = 56%
It must be added, and this is an idealized efficiency.
The Carnot efficiency is valid for reversible processes.
These processes cannot be achieved in real cycles of power plants.
The Carnot efficiency dictates that higher efficiencies can be attained by increasing the temperature of the steam.
This feature is also valid for real thermodynamic cycles.
But this requires an increase in pressures inside boilers or steam generators.
However, metallurgical considerations place upper limits on such pressures.
Sub-critical fossil fuel power plants which operate under critical pressure (i.e., lower than 22.1 MPa)
can achieve 36% - 40% efficiency.
Supercritical designs operated at supercritical pressure (i.e., greater than 22.1 MPa)
have efficiencies of around 43%.
Most efficient and complex coal-fired power plants operated at "ultra critical" pressures (i.e., around 30 MPa)
and used multiple-stage reheat reach about 48% efficiency.
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-cycles/diesel-cycle-diesel-engine/thermal-efficiency-for-diesel-cycle/
Thermal Efficiency for Diesel Cycle
Efficiency of Engines in Transportation
* In the middle of the twentieth century, a typical steam locomotive had a thermal efficiency of about 6%.
That means for every 100 MJ of coal burned, 6 MJ of mechanical power were produced.
* A typical gasoline automotive engine operates at around 25% to 30% of thermal efficiency.
About 70-75% is rejected as waste heat without being converted into useful work, i.e., work delivered to wheels.
* A typical diesel automotive engine operates at around 30% to 35%.
In general, engines using the Diesel cycle are usually more efficient.
* In 2014, new regulations were introduced for Formula 1 cars.
These motorsport regulations have pushed teams to develop highly efficient power units.
According to Mercedes, their power unit is now achieving more than 45% and close to 50% thermal efficiency,
i.e., 45 - 50% of the potential energy in the fuel is delivered to wheels.
* The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency of any practical combustion engine.
Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships) can have a thermal efficiency that exceeds 50%.
The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/50768/which-jet-engines-have-the-highest-thermal-efficiency
Which jet engines have the highest thermal efficiency?
Land based gas turbines are more efficient than avaition gas turbines, for a number of reasons.
According to this article, the most efficient land based gas turbines, where just under 60%, in 2010.
[ http://www.decentralized-energy.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/gas-turbines-breaking.html ]
The most efficient installation was a Japanese company,
with 59.1% verified on an M701G2 gas turbine at the 1500 MW Tokyo Electric Kawasaki power station in Japan.
Since then GE claimed on the 28th of April 2016, a world record for thermal efficiency, with 62.22%, for a combined cycle plant, in France.
[ https://www.gepower.com/about/insights/articles/2016/04/power-plant-efficiency-record ]
GE state that it normally takes about a decade to gain 1% in efficiency.
The high thermal efficiency is significantly due to operating at a very high temperature.
GE state this plant runs at 2,800 deg. F [ 1,535 deg. C ],
but the real number is probably proprietary.
https://www.ge.com/gas-power/products/gas-turbines/lm6000
LM6000 aeroderivative gas turbine [Open Cycle Gas Turbine]
over 40 million operating hours and more than 1,300 units shipped.
53 MW net output
Up to 41.4% net efficiency
Over 99/98% reliability/availability
5 min. start time
50 MW/min. ramp rate
Universal and modular packaging gives the LM6000 a smaller footprint and allows for faster installation and commissioning.
in as little as 3 months for simple cycle and
12 months for combined cycle configurations - the fastest installation time in our history.
The LM6000 allows you to operate on a wide variety of fuels - including
natural gas,
LPG (propane and butane),
isopentane,
ethanol,
diesel, and
Coke Oven gas.
This means you can quickly switch between fuels to save money, all without stopping, and without a reduction in power.
LM6000 PC LM6000 PG LM6000 PF LM6000 PF+
Net output (MW) 46.6/51.1* 56/57.2* 44.7/50* 53.9/57.1*
Net heat rate (Btu/kWh, LHV) 8533 8728 8248 8357
Net heat rate (kJ/kWh, LHV) 9002 9208 8702 8817
Net efficiency (%, LHV) 40% 39.1% 41.4% 40.8%
Ramp rate (MW/minute) 50+ 50+ 50+ 50+
Hot Section (hrs) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Overhaul (hrs) 50,000 50,000 50,000 5,0000
*MW output without SPRINT/with SPRINT (water injection to increase mass flow & cool compressor air)
https://www.ge.com/gas-power/products/gas-turbines/tm2500
TM2500 aeroderivative gas turbine
one of the world's most modular, reliable, and experienced mobile gas turbines.
over 6 million hours of operating experience.
32 MW performance at 30 °C
Up to 37% efficiency
11 days installation and commissioning time
5 min. start time
300+ units installed worldwide
With more than 20 years of experience and over 300 units installed around the world,
the TM2500 is a proven solution for providing a baseload bridge to permanent power installations
or for generating backup power in the wake of
natural disasters,
plant shutdowns,
grid instability or
isolated locations.
Net output (MW) 34.6
Net heat rate (Btu/kWh, LHV) 9,783
Net heat rate (kJ/kWh, LHV) 10,321
Net efficiency (%, LHV) 34.9%
Ramp rate (MW/minute) 20
Startup time (cold iron) (min.) 5
Reliability 99.5%
Availability 98.7%
Start reliability 98.35%
Fleet operation hours 77.9M
Hot section hours 25,000
Overhaul hours 50,000
https://reneweconomy.com.au/ge-wins-south-australia-tender-for-back-up-generators-19258/
GE wins South Australia tender for back-up generators
1 August 2017
US energy giant GE has won a South Australia tender for more than 250MW of back-up generation,
and says the trailer-mounted diesel-gas turbines will be in place in time for the demand peaks expected in the summer heatwave.
GE is combining with US mobile energy specialist APR,
which will install the technology and associated infrastructure,
to deliver 9 of its aero-derivative TM2500 units,
which it says are quick to install,
can ramp up within minutes and together will provide 275MW of power.
Koutsantonis said while the plants would operate on diesel,
they would emit 25 per cent less emissions than the now closed Northern power station,
and once operating on gas would be more efficient than the ageing Torrens Island power station.
The gas units will only be switched on when needed.
The government says it will not be a new player in the market,
apart from when potential shortfalls emerge.
GE said the TM2500 units offered significant flexibility compared with other base-load generation options currently available.
Each TM2500 unit can generate more than 30MW of electricity and can be started progressively as demand increases,
ensuring generation capacity can be efficiently delivered when required.
TM2500 units also have the capability of generating electricity using gas and/or distillate liquid fuel,
thereby maximising fuel availability and supply options.
https://www.fossilconsulting.com/2020/03/30/power-industry-economics/
Economics of the Power Industry
Nicolette Villanueva
March 30, 2020
Columbia, Maryland 21046, U.S.A.
Variable Costs
Variable costs are the costs of day-to-day operations.
Characteristics of costs that affect variable costs are:
Fuel costs
Labor Costs
Maintenance Costs
Start-up and Shutdown Costs
No-Load Cost - the cost of the plant to operate before electricity hits the grid
Ramp Rate - the rate of increase or decrease of power output
Ramp Time - the time it takes for power to hit the grid after the generator is fired up
Capacity - the power output
Lower Operating Limit - the minimum amount of power produced once the generator is fired up
Min Run Time - the minimum amount of time a plant can operate once it is turned on
While fixed costs are lower for coal and higher for solar/wind,
the reverse is typically true for operating costs. (5)
Waste-to-Energy Biomass (50 MW) $105.50 per megawatt-hour
Geothermal (50 MW) $93.91 per megawatt-hour
Nuclear (2,236 MW) $90.79 per megawatt-hour
Thermal Solar (100 MW) $64.00 per megawatt-hour
Offshore Wind (400 MW) $53.33 per megawatt-hour
Coal-Fired Rankine Cycle (650 MW) $40.22 per megawatt-hour
Onshore Wind (100 MW) $28.07 per megawatt-hour
Natural Gas CTG (85 MW) $21.68 per megawatt-hour
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (540 MW) $17.82 per megawatt-hour
Photovoltaic Solar (150 MW) $16.70 per megawatt-hour
Hydro-electric (500 MW) $13.44 per megawatt-hour
Fixed Costs
Fixed costs come from capital and land costs.
These will likely be different depending on location, as permits, approvals, and laws influence them.
Different rules based on power production and region will create different timelines for construction. (1)
The Capital Costs vary among the power resources.
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine Generator (CTG) plants have the lowest capital cost
at around $974 per Kilowatt,
followed by Coal-Fired,
Biomass,
and Photovoltaic Solar.
The most expensive Capital Cost for a power plant is Offshore Wind. (5)
Natural Gas CTG (85 MW) $83 million $974 $/kW
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (540 MW) $542 million $1,003 $/kW
Onshore Wind (100 MW) $244 million $2,438 $/kW
Hydro-electric (500 MW) $1.5 billion $3,076 $/kW
Coal-Fired Rankine Cycle (650 MW) $2 billion $3,167 $/kW
Waste-to-Energy Biomass (50 MW) $193 million $3,860 $/kW
Thermal Solar (100 MW) $470 million $4,692 $/kW
Photovoltaic Solar (150 MW) $716 million $4,775 $/kW
Nuclear (2,236 MW) $12 billion $5,335 $/kW
Geothermal (50 MW) $279 million $5,578 $/kW
Offshore Wind (400 MW) $2.4 billion $5,975 $/kW
Profits
Similar to fixed and variable costs, profits are also affecting by multiple factors.
The most significant profit factors are typically the sale price of electricity and the price of fuel.
The weather, season, and time of day affect these factors.
Moreover, people might use their heat or air conditioning more or less often based on the time of year and the time of day,
which has a significant effect on the price of natural gas and electricity rates.
In addition, although unaffected by fuel costs,
wind turbines and solar panels might produce less power if the sun is down or the wind is slow.
References:
1: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/530
2: https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2015/17/epjconf_eps-sif_06001.pdf
3: http://www.iaee.org/energyjournal/article/2775
4: https://www.haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/csemwp168.pdf
5: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/long1/docs/updatedplantcosts.pdf
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34746.pdf
Report for Congress
Power Plants: Characteristics and Costs
November 13, 2008
pg 23
66 Coal and gas prices have increased due to
national and global demand growth,
limited excess production capacity,
certain unusual circumstances (such as flooding that reduced Australian coal production and exports),
increases in rail, barge, and ocean-going vessel rates for delivering coal to consumers, and
the run-up in world oil prices.
For a discussion of energy price trends, see EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for long-term projections and the Short-Term Energy Outlook for near-term forecasts.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html
Thermal efficiency of coal-fired power plants: From theoretical to practical assessments
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282824169_Thermal_efficiency_of_coal-fired_power_plants_From_theoretical_to_practical_assessments
Energy consumption
https://www.energy.gov.au/data/energy-consumption
Australia's energy consumption fell by 2.9% in 2019-20 to 6,014 PJ.
This compares with average growth of 0.7% a year in the prior decade (2009-10 to 2018-19).
The drop in consumption in 2019-20 was 182 PJ.
Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) accounted for 93% of Australia's primary energy mix in 2019-20.
Oil accounted for the largest share of Australia's primary energy mix in 2019-20, at 37%,
followed by coal (28%)
and gas (27%).
Renewable energy sources accounted for 7%.
Australian Energy Update 2021
https://www.energy.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-update-2021
The Australian Energy Statistics is the authoritative and official source of energy statistics for Australia to support decision making,
and help understand how our energy supply and use is changing.
It is updated each year and consists of detailed historical energy consumption, production and trade statistics and balances.
This edition contains the latest data for 2019-20.
Total electricity generation in Australia was steady in 2019-20 at 265 terawatt hours (955 petajoules). This figure includes industrial, rooftop solar PV and off-grid generation.
About 16 per cent of Australia's electricity was generated outside the electricity sector by industry and households in 2019-20.
Most of Australia's energy production is exported. Net exports (exports minus imports) were equal to 70 per cent of production in 2019-20.
Energy exports grew by 2 per cent in 2019-20 to 16,290 petajoules.
LNG exports grew by 6 per cent to 4,393 petajoules, as new capacity came online.
Associated with the new capacity, exports of crude oil and condensate grew by 15 per cent and LPG by 48 per cent.
Energy imports fell by 7 per cent to 2,244 petajoules in 2019-20.
The main unit in the AES is the petajoule (PJ).
One petajoule = 1 x 1015 joules. One petajoule, or 278 gigawatt hours,
is the heat energy content of about 43,000 tonnes of black coal
or 29 million litres of petrol.
Coal remained the second largest fuel consumed in 2019-20,
accounting for 28 per cent of energy consumption (Figure 2.2).
Coal consumption fell by 5 per cent in 2019-20, double the average ten year rate of decline.
The electricity supply sector accounted for 26 per cent of energy consumption in 2019-20 (Table 2.4).
For example, if wind generation rises by 1,000 gigawatt hours, then energy consumption would rise by 3.6 petajoules,
because the electricity generated is measured.
If coal-fired generation rises by 1,000 gigawatt hours,
then energy consumption would increase by the amount of coal consumed to generate the electricity,
which would be around 10 petajoules (assuming an efficiency of 35 per cent).
90 per cent of black coal energy production and 74 per cent of natural gas energy production were exported in 2019-20.
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/%E2%80%8Cnem/%E2%80%8Cplanning_and_%E2%80%8Cforecasting/%E2%80%8Cinputs-assumptions-methodologies/%E2%80%8C2021/Aurecon-Cost-and-Technical-Parameters-Review-2020.pdf
2020 Costs and Technical Parameter Review, Consultation Report
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
Reference: 510177
Revision: 3 2020-12-10
1.2 Scope of study
The scope of this study was to prepare an updated set of costs and technical parameters for a concise list of new entrant generation (and storage) technologies, including the following:
* Onshore wind
* Offshore wind
* Large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV)
* Concentrated solar thermal (with 8 hours energy storage)
* Reciprocating engines
* Open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT)
* Combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) (with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS))
* Advanced Ultra Supercritical Pulverised Coal (with and without CCS)
* Biomass
* Electrolysers (PEM & Alkaline)
* Fuel cells
* Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) with 1 to 8 hours storage
The parameters to be updated or developed include the following:
* Performance - such as output, efficiencies, and capacity factors
* Timeframes - such as for development and operational life
* Technical and operational parameters - such as configuration, ramp rates, and minimum generation
* Costs - including for development, capital costs and O&M costs (both fixed and variable)
The updated dataset is provided in the accompanying Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (see Appendix A), the template for which was developed by AEMO.
This report provides supporting information for the dataset and an overview of the scope, methodology, assumptions, and definition of terms used in the dataset and its development.
The intention is for the updated dataset to
form a key input to the long-term capital cost curves in the 2020 GenCost publication
to be prepared by CSIRO in conjunction with AEMO
as well as other various AEMO forecasting publications such as the Integrated System Plan (ISP).
4.2 Onshore wind
4.2.2 Typical options
Currently deployed utility-scale wind turbine sizes range from 1 to 4 MW with hub heights of 50 to 150 m and rotor diameters of 60 m to 140 m.
New models proposed for future projects are approaching 6 MW capacity with rotors over 160 m in diameter.
Onshore wind developments are critically dependent on:
* Access to land
* Planning permissions / development consents
* Nearby grid transmission capacity
Depending on the above, modern onshore wind farms can range from 1 to over 150 turbines.
Different OEMs and turbine models have slightly different power curves,
with some more suited to a particular site wind resource than others.
As such, selection of the optimal and lowest levelised cost of energy (LCOE) option is highly site-specific.
4.2.3 Recent trends
The design wind range for wind turbines has changed over the last few decades.
Early focus was on very windy sites for best economics
e.g. Class I = 8.5m/s to 10m/s.
Class I wind turbines now only represents a small fraction (10%) of total manufacturing worldwide.
Currently large turbines are being used in medium (Class II) and low wind speed sites (Class III)
to achieve net capacity factors that can exceed 40%.
Wind farm sizes throughout Australia have historically been in the 50 to 150 MW capacity range.
However, in recent years new wind farms - planned and under construction -
are expanding to total capacities in the range of 200 to 1,000 MW.
Typical capacity factors at the connection point range from 30% to 50%.
The most recent wind turbine projects on the NEM have reported capacity factors of approximately 40%.
4.3 Offshore wind
4.3.2 Typical options
Existing offshore wind turbines range in nameplate capacity from 3 MW to 9.5 MW,
with correspondingly large rotor diameters but hub-heights in similar or slightly larger ranges than onshore equivalents.
4.3.3 Recent trends
In Europe the cost of offshore wind has been falling dramatically since 2015,
from €4,360 / kW down to €2,450 / kW in 2018.2
This reduction has been attributed to the following factors:
* Increased market efficiency through increased constructor competition and competitive auction processes for new projects
* Development of current generation of large turbines (6 - 10 MW)
* Increases in total installed capacity
Further investment efficiency gains are expected to be realised in the European market with the announcement of even larger turbines
(such as Siemens Gamesa 14 MW, 222 m rotor diameter platform due for serial production in 2024).
4.6 Reciprocating engines
4.6.2 Typical options
For power generation applications, there are two general classifications of reciprocating engine
- medium-speed and high-speed.
Medium-speed engines operate at 500 - 750 rpm and typically range in output from 4 to 18 MW.
High-speed engines operate at 1,000 - 1,500 rpm with a typical output below 4 MW.
Additionally, there are three general fuel classes for reciprocating engines.
These are
gaseous fuel,
liquid fuel, and
dual fuel.
Gaseous fuel engines - also known as spark ignition engines -
operate on the thermodynamic Otto cycle,
and typically use natural gas as the fuel source.
Liquid fuel engines operate based on the thermodynamic Diesel cycle,
and typically use no. 2 diesel (or heavy fuel oil) as the fuel source.
4.6.3 Recent trends
Traditionally multi-unit reciprocating engine installations on the NEM have consisted of
high-speed spark-ignition engines, fuelled from coal seam methane or waste gas where the fuel gas is not suited to gas turbines.
Installed capacities of these power stations are in the < 50 MW range.
Historically, capacity factors have been dependant on fuel gas availability.
Given the high degree of uncertainty around medium to long-term market conditions,
large-scale medium-speed reciprocating engine power stations are increasing in popularity for firming applications.
This is driven by their favourable fuel efficiency merits,
and high degree of flexibility in start times and turn-down.
This provides a strong business case for a wide range of capacity factors.
AGL's Barker Inlet Power Station is
currently the only large-scale medium-speed reciprocating engine power station in operation on the NEM
which commenced commercial operation in 2019.
4.7 Open Cycle Gas Turbine
4.7.1 Overview
Gas turbines are one of the most widely-used power generation technologies today.
The technology is well proven,
and is used in both open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT) and
combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) configurations.
Gas turbines are classified into two main categories
- aero-derivatives and industrial turbines.
Both of these find application in the power generation industry
although for baseload applications, industrial gas turbines are preferred.
Conversely, for peaking applications,
the areo-derivative is more suitable primarily due to its faster start up time.
Within the industrial turbines class, gas turbines are further classified as E - class, F - class and H (G/J) - class turbines.
This classification depends on their development generation and the associated advancement in size and efficiencies.
Gas turbines can operate on both natural gas and liquid fuel.
Gas turbines utilise synchronous generators,
which provide relatively high fault current contribution in comparison to other technologies and support the NEM network strength.
Gas turbines currently provide high rotating inertia to the NEM.
The rotating inertia is a valuable feature that increases the NEM frequency stability.
4.7.2 Typical options
An OCGT plant consists of a gas turbine connected to an electrical generator via a shaft
The number of gas turbines deployed in an OCGT plant will depend mainly on the output and redundancy levels required.
OCGT plants are typically used to meet peak demand.
4.7.3 Recent trends
The increased installation of renewables has created opportunities for capacity firming solutions,
that are currently largely met by gas-fired power generation options.
OCGT and reciprocating engines compete in this market.
With the exception of the recent 250 MW emergency power generation plant in South Australia,
which included deployment of nine TM2500 aero-derivative gas turbines last year,
the most recent OCGT installation on the NEM was Mortlake Power Station in 2011.
This included two 283 MW F-Class gas turbines supplied by Siemens.
Overall, demand for gas turbines has been declining globally over the past few years,
with a corresponding drop in prices.
Gas turbine prices (supply only, ex-Works) for utility-scale power generation
are expected to have declined by 20% in 2020-2021 relative to those seen in 2017-2018.
4.8 Combined-Cycle Gas Turbines
4.8.1 Overview
Over time, combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT) have become the technology of choice for gas-fired base load and intermediate load power generation.
Typically, they consist of
1 or more gas turbine generator sets (gas turbines plus the electric generator),
dedicated heat recovery steam generators (HRSG),
and a steam turbine generator set (steam turbine plus the electric generator).
Advancements in gas turbine technology have led to significant increase in CCGT efficiencies,
with some gas CCGT plants, namely those with H-class gas turbines,
offering efficiencies of above 60%.
4.8.3 Recent trends
The focus of all major gas turbine manufactures over the last couple of decades was to improve the thermal efficiency of the gas turbines.
In recent years, OEMs have announced record high efficiencies in CCGT mode (over 60%).
This quest for higher efficiencies, which is founded on the traditional operation of baseload power plants, is expected to continue.
Although higher efficiencies are important,
with the expansion of intermittent renewable energy in all major markets,
the need for CCGT to be flexible and operate on a cyclic pattern is becoming equally important.
As such, OEMs are now focusing on making improvements to
CCGT plant start-up times and
ability to ramp-up/down rapidly.
Globally, the gas turbine market has declined in the last couple of years and is expected to continue that downward trend15.
In addition, there are indications that operators are seeing less value in centralised CCGT plants.
In Australia, there has not been a CCGT plant constructed in the NEM region since the commissioning of Tallawara in 2009.
4.9 Advanced Ultra Supercritical Pulverised Coal
4.9.1 Overview
Coal fired power plants are currently the dominant source of electricity generation in Australia,
providing 68.4% of electricity generation for the NEM in 2019/2019.
In the NEM there are approximately 48 coal fired units installed across 16 power stations in QLD, NSW and VIC.
The unit sizes range from 280 MW to 750 MW
and use a range of coal types
from low grade brown coal
through to export grade black coal.
Coal fired (thermal) power plants operate by burning coal in a large industrial boiler to generate high pressure, high temperature steam.
High pressure steam from the boiler is passed through the steam turbine generator where the steam is expanded to produce electricity.
This process is based on the thermodynamic Rankine cycle.
Coal fired power plants are typically classified as sub critical and super critical
(more recently ultra-super critical and advanced ultra-supercritical)
plants depending on the steam temperature and pressure.
Over time advancements in the construction materials have permitted higher steam pressures and temperatures leading to increased plant efficiencies and overall unit sizes.
4.9.2 Typical options
The coal fired power stations installed on the NEM
utilise either subcritical or supercritical pulverised coal (PC) technology
which is an established, well proven technology used for power generation throughout the world for many decades.
The latest supercritical coal fired units installed in Australia
can produce supercritical steam conditions in the order of 24 MPa and 566°C
and typically used with unit sizes above 400 MW.
Internationally, more recent coal fired units have been installed with ever increasing steam temperature and pressure conditions.
Current OEMs are offering supercritical units in line with the following:
* Ultra-supercritical, with main steam conditions in the order of 27 MPa and 600°C
* Advanced ultra-supercritical, with main steam conditions in the order of 33 MPa and 660°C
Ultra-supercritical coal fired units are typically installed with capacities of 1,000 MW each.
An advanced ultra-supercritical power station with the above main steam conditions
is yet to be constructed however are currently being offered by a number of OEMs.
4.9.3 Recent trends
The latest coal fired power station to be installed in Australia
was Kogan Creek Power Station in Queensland which was commissioned in 2007.
Since then there has been limited focus on further coal fired development in Australia until necessitated by existing coal fired unit retirement.
More recently, alternative technologies have become more prevalent
with a focus on adopting non-coal technologies
for replacing lost capacity due to coal fired plant closures.
Internationally, particularly in Asia,
there has been extensive development of new large coal fired power stations to provide for the growing demand for electricity.
These plants are now commonly being installed utilising ultra-supercritical steam conditions which offer improved plant efficiencies and reduced whole of life costs.
In Australia the only coal fired development in progress is understood to be the Collinsville coal fired power station proposed by Shine Energy.
This project is in the early feasibility stage.
Item Unit AUSC without CCS AUSC with CCS
Thermal Efficiency at MCR %, HHV Net 42.5% 30.28%
Heat rate at minimum operation (GJ/MWh) HHV Net 10.323 14.591
Heat rate at maximum operation (GJ/MWh) HHV Net 8.470 11.887
Effective annual capacity factor % 93% 93%
Start-up time Minutes Cold: 444 Cold: 444
Warm: 264 Warm: 264
Hot: 60 Hot: 60
Summary Tables
Technical parameters and operating costs for new technologies
Fixed Operating Cost ($/MW Net/year)
Variable Op Cost ($/MWh Net)
Advanced Ultra Supercritical PC - Black coal with CCS 77,800 8.0
Advanced Ultra Supercritical PC - Black coal without CCS 53,200 4.2
CCGT - With CCS 16,350 7.2
CCGT - Without CCS 10,900 3.7
OCGT - Without CCS, Large unit size 12,600 4.1
OCGT - Without CCS, Small unit size 10,200 2.4
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 24,100 7.6
Electrolysers - Proton Exchange Membrane 97,500 -
Electrolysers - Alkaline 69,900 -
Fuel cells 350,000 -
Solar PV - Single axis tracking 16,990 -
Solar Thermal Central Receiver with storage (8hr) 142,500 -
Wind - onshore 25,000 -
Wind - offshore 157,680 -
Biomass - Electricity only 131,600 8.4
Battery storage: Charge efficiency 0.9
Battery storage: Discharge efficiency 0.9
Battery Storage: Allowable max State of Charge (%) 0%
Battery Storage: Allowable min State of Charge (%) 100%
Battery Storage: maximum number of Cycles 3,650.0
Battery storage: Depth of Discharge (DoD) 1.0
Large Scale Battery Storage (1hr) 4,833 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (2hr) 9,717 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (4hr) 19,239 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (8hr) 39,314 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (1hr) for hybrid generation 4,833 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (2hr) for hybrid generation 9,717 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (4hr) for hybrid generation 19,239 -
Large Scale Battery Storage (8hr) for hybrid generation 39,314 -
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information
NEM Generation Information - June 2022
Fuel - Technology Category
Capacity in MegaWatt
Summary Status Coal CCGT OCGT Gas other Solar Wind Water Biomass Battery Storage Other Total
Existing 22,701 2,985.066 6,844.993 2,013.501 5,896.5543 9,728.583 7,992.139 612.02 619.56 205.821 59,599.2373
Announced Withdrawal 4,380 180 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,680
Existing less Announced Withdrawal 18,321 2,805.066 6,844.993 1,893.501 5,896.5543 9,728.583 7,992.139 612.02 619.56 205.821 54,919.2373
Upgrade / Expansion 90 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255
Committed 0 0 1,070 0 3,564.175 986.989 2,290 0 139.5 24 8,074.664
Anticipated 0 0 123.2 0 850.4 1,080.9 0 0 1,026.8 0 3081.3
Proposed 990 207 4,417.85 1,957.005 35,966.499 68,703.643 10627 342.2 27,294.31 226.8 150,732.307
Withdrawn 500 0 361.2 153.143 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,014.343
Australian Energy Flows 2019-2020 (PJ)
https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/Australian%20Energy%20Flows%202019-20_0.pdf
Thermal Power Stations
- 1,156 PJ Coal
- 588 PJ natural gas/ethane
- 46 PJ refined product imports
- 17 PJ Wood
- 13 PJ Bagasse
- 15 PJ biogas/biofuel
= 1,835 PJ Total Thermal Power [Input?]
Electricity Output
= 657 PJ Thermal Electricity
-3 PJ to Refinery & Other transformation
654 PJ Net Thermal to Electricity
Electricity Renewables
= 204 PJ
Total Electricity Supply
= 858 PJ
Thermal Power Own Use / Losses
- 1,538 PJ conversion plants own fuel use & losses and transmission losses
= 297 PJ Nett ??
vs 657 PJ generated
Total Own Use / Losses, all sources
= 1,747 PL
Primary Energy + Imports - Exports - Stocks Change & discrep = Primay Energy Supply - Own use & losses = Final energy consumption 20,055 PJ + 2,244 PJ - 16,290 PJ - 4 PJ = 6,014 PJ - 1,747 PJ = 4,267 PJ
No comments:
Post a Comment