16 ms·
Australian coal plant in 'extraordinary' survival experiment
- joe_the_user 2y agoIt would be a good thing if you could trust utilities and energy companies to use this new-found flexibility as a way to minimize coal use on the way to carbon neural energy generation. But I think we've seen there can be no trust there and so this is a bad thing that will help the coal industry survive. I'm not saying other industries are "good" but this industry is definitely evil.
- h0l0cube 2y agoIt's a matter of necessity. Until grid storage catches up shortfalls in renewable output need to be mitigated somehow. The other option is to just keep all the gas and coal baseload and switch off the renewables, which would be much worse for emissions
- worik 2y ago> The other option is to just keep all the gas and coal baseload and switch off the renewables The other option is to shut down the coal plants that are destroying the climate. And put up with the consequences. But, money.
- adrianN 2y agoThe consequences of "just shutting of coal" right now would be blackouts. People would riot and people would die. It would kill any support for climate action.
- hackable_sand 2y agoU so right Let's just do nothing now and leave it for later :)
- adrianN 2y agoNo, what we need to do now is not "just shut off electricity lol". It's building carbon free alternatives as quickly as we can.
- hackable_sand 2y agoHomie You flinched. But you came through.
- immibis 2y agoExactly. We have to choose between everyone dying and everyone rioting.
- adrianN 2y agoNo, there are more options. In fact it’s rather impossible to choose „everybody is rioting“ in democratic countries, and very difficult in dictatorships.
- usefulcat 2y agoThat's a transparently gross oversimplification, and I find it very hard to believe that you're not aware of that fact.
- h0l0cube 2y agoBut.. health services. But.. utilities. But.. transport. But.. basic goods. But.. writing comments on hacker news. Sure, big business will suffer, but so will everyone else. It's fairly understandable why rolling blackouts are not politically sensible.
- radiowave 2y agoMy dad worked on something similar, when during the 1980s the coal-fired station he worked at had to convert to two-shift operation, from the three-shift operation that it's 1950s design had intended. He described this process as, "bashing hell out the machines to make them do things they weren't designed to." One interesting detail was that the more rapid startup and cooldown of turbines meant that blade spacing couldn't be as tight as before, reducing efficiency during operation. (The turbine casing has less thermal mass than the rotor, and hence contracts faster during cooldown. The spacing of the blades needs to account for this.)
- dehugger 2y agoWould it not be more efficient to increase the mass of the casing so that the blades can remain as they were? or was that a non option for other reasons?
- defrost 2y agoNo matter the mass of the casing it will absorb and lose heat over some timescale and will expand and contract, changing dimensions. The design is optimised so that the blade dimensions and the interior casing diameter closely match to a very high tolerance at the optimal operating tempreture. The challenge is that the casing material and the blades are made of different materials and these materials will have different coefficients of expansion (although there is some room to 'dope' materials to change the CoE at the xpense of other material properties that can be more desirable). The CoE means that the two expand at different rates as the tempreture changes - if they are "close" at optimal temp then they will drift away as the temp changes due to not expanding in lock step. It's a tricky thing to get right. ( Also a challenge in multicoloured glass works as the differing colours must be batched to have similiar properties including matching CoE's so they don't pull away when anealing from hot glass work temps to room temp. )
- jojobas 2y agoSurely this kind of experiments must be first done in controlled conditions and not on a live plant. The article doesn't mention any sort of fatigue study. Remember how a Russian hydro plant blew up because one of its turbines was throttled back and forth?
- Panzer04 2y agoIt's presumably not practical to find a multi-GW load to test with aside from the grid. The plant probably had arrangements in place if things didn't work out.
- whatshisface 2y agoWhy isn't this transition happening in the United States - or is it?
- worik 2y agoMoney.
- adrianN 2y agoThere is a lot of gas in the US.
- jamincan 2y agoThe Navajo Power Plant near Page, AZ closed a few years ago largely due to economic reasons.
- throw234234234 2y agoAustralia, despite being often equal largest gas exporter and massive coal importer (an energy super power) has the highest gas and electricity prices charged to its citizens compared to the US/UK/etc. IMO a lot of it is due to local corruption of politicians. As an example there is a nice trade for Asian gas importers at the moment where they buy Australian gas and Australian's import it by from them (the surplus they don't use) and they take an arbitrage profit. The stuff they do use powers a lot of manufacturing from what I understand. Australia is even building gas import terminals right now to take pressure of local energy prices because the global market has better pricing than locally (despite being one of the cheapest places to produce and/or mine energy). A massive government policy failure; unlike Norway and other energy sovereigns. This high price has the silver lining of making a renewable transition viable as gas power in particular becomes extremely expensive despite Australia having one of the most lowest cost gas and coal production globally. Of course its people are paying for that in their cost of living, and decline in manufacturing due to high energy prices. I wouldn't look to Australia for anything w.r.t energy policy and what you should do. With the energy abundance they have (rivaling some oil states) - a lot of commentary locally there stating that if Australia just had its energy policy adjusted a little bit before now they could of been one of the richest countries per capita globally. They've royally screwed things there IMO.
- rdevsrex 2y agoI don't know why, from the start, we haven't used nuclear power more for baseload. China is already building between 6 to 8 nuclear power plants a year and plans to expand that number to 10 a year. It's nothing compared to all the other sources of power they are creating, but it seems to me that rather than investing in mass battery storage, a few dozen modern nuclear power plants would be a good idea. Assuming, of course, you can actually get costs down and cut through red tape like China can.
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoChina finished 1 reactor in 2023 and are in track for a massive 3 finished reactors in 2024. On the other hand they are building enough renewables to cover their entire electricity growth. Even China has figured out that nuclear power is not economically viable. https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t...
- threeseed 2y agoYou're basically just talking to yourself. Because no one cares about nuclear whilst the costs are so high, return on investment questionable and there aren't simple solutions for dealing with the waste. Plus for better or worse the politics of it are terrible. Meanwhile every year solar and batteries are getting cheaper. And we may see a future with lots of EVs capable of being used as grid batteries.
- Panzer04 2y agoAgreed. Nuclear is cool but beaten in so many ways by the current renewable revolution. Distributed, low risk, cheap energy generation backed by batteries seems strictly superior to nuclear generation.
- jabpattern7 2y agoBacked by batteries is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Batteries required to make them viable are never included in the LCOEs for renewable, because it'd make them ridiculously more expensive than nuclear. The problem is we need power now, all the time. It's much easier to develop new technologies when the lights are still on.
- nothercastle 2y agoIt makes sense to run coal for another 5-10 years if you can to transition to batteries. This will likely put more stress on the parts and the plant will become unserviceable sooner but that’s better then retiring it now
- worik 2y ago> It makes sense to run coal for another 5-10 years No, it does not. It is a bad idea. We are better to do without the electricity. Inconvenience, or climate meltdown. Take your pick
- ars 2y agoDo that and all support for the environment goes completely out the window. Do this and that's pretty much the end for any kind of green transition.
- immibis 2y agoIs this a valid generic political argument? Do the bad thing or the bad people will support your bad opposition and do the bad thing anyway? No wonder there's so much bad.
- 7952 2y agoThe problem is that there is no agreement on what bad actually is. An individual may consider that a loss of their job is worse than global climate change. The environmental sphere is full of arguments that would ideally be a false dichotomy but are not. Politics is the mechanism we have for deciding what is bad. It isn't very good but it is the best we have.
- nothercastle 2y agoAbsolutely extreme environmental policy alienates most moderates. Shut it down and have poor people freeze or die from heat isn’t going to win a lot of moderate support
- worik 2y ago> Delta, the Czech firm that owns the aging Vales Point coal plant near Lake Macquarie, reported that it had been unable to get the financial backing of any major bank in Australia It is very good news that the banks are refusing to finance the fossil fuel greed heads and vandals.
- alex_duf 2y agoThe section of the article that says "Now comes the bad news" actually sounds like a good news. More pressure from banks, insurances and legislation to limit the development and usage of coal to produce electricity? I can understand there's going to be job losses, and that's never good, but for the benefit of the rest of the world it's a pretty good news. Finally a change in attitude towards carbon intensive energy production.
- AxelLuktarGott 2y agoLots of good news in the article > But, more and more, base-load coal plants have been squeezed out of the market as ever more renewable energy – particularly solar power – flooded the system. And so the coal power plants needed more money to stay afloat, but: > But Delta, in a letter written to the body that makes the rules in the market, said none of the 15 banks it had met had been willing to provide it the necessary coverage because of environmental concerns. And so > "The coal-fired generation is going to go out of business in Australia over the next 10 years," he said.
- thedrbrian 2y ago> And so the coal power plants needed more money to stay afloat, Green energy is great. Going really well in the uk. Super cheap with all those subsidies……………… I mean contracts for difference we pay for it.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoIt's an investment in the future, just like the coal power plants and grid received for as long as electricity has been a thing.
- pjc50 2y agoCFDs are a "collar trade". They pay the difference between the market price and a "strike price". If the market price is above the strike price, the CFD is a refund. So the CFDs have been returning money to the taxpayer lately. https://www.current-news.co.uk/cfds-set-to-pay-back-10-5bn-a-year-to-consumers-by-2027/ https://www.current-news.co.uk/cfds-set-to-pay-back-10-5bn-a... Unlike natural gas, which has been made much more expensive by the war.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- asdefghyk 2y agoThe base problem I see is how energy is provided when extended periods of no renewables ( no solar or wind ) . batteries are not suitable for extended periods. The abc article e even admits this problem ... ie ..." opened up the possibility of coal plants being left on care-and-maintenance after they retired from full-time service – of using them as back-up generators when the system needed the help."
- h0l0cube 2y ago> batteries are not suitable for extended periods Yet. It's just a matter of capacity. Yearly growth in grid storage is increasing at a rate even greater than solar. Crucially grid storage isn't limited by energy density, which leaves room for cheaper options – like sodium ion – which don't have the scaling bottlenecks of li-ion.
- pjc50 2y agoSomething like 35% of Australia is desert. There's no good reason for solar to not work on almost every day, so all you need is overnight coverage not a full seasonal battery.
- fghorow 2y agoAustralia is HUGE and mostly empty. You need some mechanism for getting that energy from source to sink. Transmission lines are relatively few and far between. The eastern states have an interconnected grid. Western Australia is not only isolated, but its internal grid doesn't even reach the northern part of the state. There was a ~GW scale geothermal development in the Cooper Basin in the late '10s. The (pilot) plant was in and operating demonstrating the feasibility of (so-called) Engineered Geothermal Systems. The entire operation died on the vine because the geothermal site was 600 line-km from the nearest transmission line, and the company that developed the geothermal field was counting on the government to fund that connection. It didn't.
- rswail 2y agoOn the other hand, there is active development of the grid now in the Eastern states. Plans for extensions of the transmission network in Victoria to support offshore wind as well as to a renewables zone, plus new interconnectors to NSW.
- passwordoops 2y agoEvery news article that touts a nation phasing out coal should be forced to mention China increased its coal mining capacity by 1 billion tons to 3.4 billion tons (1), not even counting imports. Then go on to express the peak consumption of the nation everyone is celebrating as a fraction of total Chinese output (e.g., Australia consumes 3.4% equivalent of China's total coal output of 3.4 billion tons (2)). Congratulations on phasing out your margin of error... Now are your trade and foreign policy divisions going to get serious, or we content patting ourselves on the back here? 1. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-has-more-than-1-bln-tonsyear-new-coal-mines-pipeline-report-says-2024-09-10/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-has-more-than-... 2.https://www.worldometers.info/coal/australia-coal/ https://www.worldometers.info/coal/australia-coal/
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoSome would consider just saving money and not poisoning their children to be reward enough in itself.
- pjc50 2y agoThe relative populations are 26,639,000 and 1,410,710,000, so Australia has 1.8% of the population of China. Which compared to that 3.4% of coal output implies that per capita coal consumption of Australia is twice that of China. (or you conclude that it's Australia itself which is the rounding error?)
- Ghaenergyyy 2y agoSoooooo you think we should stop doing anything just because someone else still outperforms us in this aspect? This is a very cheap excuse and i can't hear it anymore after hearing this stuipid argument for so long. Look at all the graphs we have, from ocean temperature graph going up, to co2 going up, to amazonas tree coverage going down etc. etc. Btw. China does the same thing as every other country: They install more and more solar. "China continues to lead the world in wind and solar, with twice as much capacity under construction as the rest of the world combined" China will have the same pressure or problem as australia has it. Yes we are patting our backs here because its good news. Should we continue pushing for more? Yes. Do we need to spin everything good into anything negative? No.
- otikik 2y agoWords that the author uses to associate with coal: "extraordinary", "celebrate", "quintessential", "a feat", "flexibility", "savings" Words used in the article in association with cleaner energy production: "squeezed", "flood", "forcing", "waste", "pressure", "plight". An the fact that banks are no longer financing coal is "bad news". > "It's exacerbated in Delta's case because they are very unashamedly totally pro-coal" Yeah, well, so is the article's author.
- akdor1154 2y agoThe author is a regular on the ABC, and I have never noticed or suspected any bias from him. He covers energy matters well, particularly for a mainstream media outlet.
- otikik 2y agoWell what can I say. Perhaps he wanted a bigger house.
- grecy 2y agoIn general the narrative in Australia is extremely pro coal and anti renewable. Going back after 20 years away felt like almost nothing had progressed. Kind of sad really.
- asdefghyk 2y agoReasons for "...the narrative in Australia is extremely pro coal and anti renewable...." Its said that the cause of this, is the big increases in electricity prices due to lots expensive renewable projects
- jiggawatts 2y agoIf you look at the numbers, it’s government policy that pushed prices up. E.g.: misplaced incentives that resulted in excess infrastructure construction. Source: the horse's mouth, having worked at an energy company and asking pointed questions from the people involved. PS: Because of these policies I was installing network equipment with capacity to switch an entire city of Internet traffic… for five people.
- btbuildem 2y agoAm I reading this right? "Yay, we've found a way to keep burning coal for a little while longer despite it being economically prohibitive and ecologically destructive" is the good news? Hopefully soon their profits will dip low enough they won't be able to buy (excuse me, "lobby") politicians, and the whole industry will just collapse. Kids can go urban exploring in the behemoth ruins in a couple of decades, it'll be great.
- h0l0cube 2y ago> Am I reading this right? No. Energy storage would need to reach a capacity of several days to completely obviate the need for existing plants to keep running. Until now there's only been two options to deal with this, building new gas peaker plants – bad outcome, right? – or to just keep baseload coal/gas/nuclear online and throttle renewables – bad outcome, right? Now we can limp coal infrastructure for a little longer before they retire in lieu of building new gas peaking plants, which are neither financially viable nor environmentally desirable.
- _kulang 2y agoAustralia has a base load problem that causes energy prices to become negative during the day when solar production is at it’s peak. Part of this is that the coal plants cannot readily be switched off during the day, and end up producing energy when it isn’t needed. Because we do not yet have the ability to store the amount of energy we use in the evening, we still need the coal plants at night. Hence why this is good news to us, this can actually reduce emissions and energy prices at the same time. We can basically rely on renewables during the day if the coal plants can be turned off during peak solar generation. Otherwise we might have relied on natural gas as that can ramp up and down faster. Keep in mind that this is one operator of some plants that is doing this while shifting to a renewable focus because of exactly the economic reasons outlined in the article. The ability to run plants to zero helps them save money and incidentally reduces emissions while they shift focus to the new energy market. Australia is in the process of shutting down coal fired plants but increasing energy use has meant that the aging plants need to be run longer while we transition technologies. Many are already shut down, and we do not have a short road to nuclear power plants, so the trajectory is looking renewable heavy along with storage. It is not surprise that new plants do not find investors. These companies are ultimately accountable to us if we make it happen and the economic incentive is already there for a transition to low or no emission grids. Partial transitions and operational changes like this are a sign that those changes are being taken seriously and that operation of coal plants is already seen as a financial risk, largely due to the increasing purchase of solar and batteries by Australians looking to reduce their energy bill
- bastawhiz 2y agoI can't tell if this is a good thing. It seems like maybe a good thing that you can shut off plants that historically couldn't be shut off. But it seems like a bad thing since it means these plants will likely stay in service longer. Is there a tipping point in the foreseeable future where these plants are unprofitable regardless of whether they run only part time?
- strken 2y agoIt sounds like it's a mixed bag. It'll be quite difficult to transition to renewables before storage projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0 are complete, and an increased service life really just means an increased service life before we need to pay for an expensive infrastructure project the cost of which companies will try to recoup, so a longer lifespan might actually cause the plants to shut down sooner.
- pabs3 2y agoProbably once there enough batteries in service to soak up enough negative-priced rooftop solar power produced during the day to meet the overnight demand, baseload coal/gas will be less needed or no longer needed.
- h0l0cube 2y agoCorrect. It will take around 10-20 years for this happen at current scaling of grid storage. In the meantime it doesn't make sense to scale up new gas, coal, or nuclear, as they won't have a decent ROI over their lifespan.
- mikewarot 2y agoI wonder what kind of arrangements they had to make to keep things hot while not producing power. I'm assuming that you could keep the shaft spinning at near operating speed, and hold the temperature of the turbines, etc... the big question for me is the boiler tubes themselves you'd have to essentially turn the whole firebox into a superheater, pulling just enough steam out to keep the turbine supplied, and the make-up water flowing. This stuff really isn't designed to be throttled up and down like a yo-yo. I'm amazed they were able to do it at all, and seem confident they can keep it up.
- think_build 2y agoWell said, but as the article goes on, it seems even with no technical hurdles this innovation seems dead in the water with policy. At least they're not doing what the Germans have done, shutting down coal power plants and buying Polish electrical generation... made with coal power plants.
- Symbiote 2y agoGermany is a net exporter of power to Poland.
- mahkeiro 2y agoExactly, Germany in 2024 mainly import electricity from France, Denmark, Switzerland and Norway, which are all low carbon producers.
- jabpattern7 2y agoIt's strange to see Germany so against nuclear, but happily buying all that clean nuclear energy from it's neighbour. Nuclear accidents don't care about borders, you'd think if they really meant what they preached they'd boycott their closest nuclear plants aswell
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago