BNC community analysis of the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Report

ps :
see my comments upthread for further links on solar power tower

LikeLike

Gregory

do the problems around mining that lower eroei for nuclear do the same for wind/solar?

Well they would if the supply of silica for processing into silicon for PV substrate was getting low. Whatever is in shortest supply for the process will be the limiting factor – Indium for GaInAs for doping the silicon has been suggested as a bottleneck.

I suspect that it will be a shortage of oil to drive the entire transport network that hits first. That will have repercussions for every industry, including mining, the electricity generating industry and servicing the national grid and the road system.

US oil production rate peaked in 1970 and is now 40% off the peak, despite them still having 30 billion barrels still left underground, and being addicted to oil. Australia’s oil production rate peaked in 2000 and is now 31% off (BP2010).

LikeLike

PUCN is the Public Utility Commission of Nevada. Check out these links on the approal of the solar projects. http://www.google.com/search?q=public+utility+commission+nevada+solar&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBR

LikeLike

John Newman…. don’t buy a copy of M$ Office, download the open source Open Office for free at http://www.download.openoffice.org/

LikeLike

Mike S I just remembered myself that Open Office has xml capability . Even the student edition of MS Excel is around $US200. Copying software is like not paying fuel excise on biodiesel, only something you hear about.

Re which the Olympic Dam mine expansion will supposedly use 19 billion litres of diesel. The announcement on the expansion was due last month but silence. They not only need the diesel but 690 MWe of power and a 200 megalitre a day desal. BHP’s preferred site for the desal is on a narrow gulf and will draw ~40MW from the grid. If they had a NPP on the exposed coastline they could solve 3 problems
1) no drain on the State gas and coal fired grid
2) electric mining machinery not diesel
3) cheaper less controversial desalination.

LikeLike

John, OpenOffice Calc doesn’t always reproduce charts done in Excel properly. You can get the free Excel Viewer (no saving of amendments) at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048dc840-14e1-467d-8dca-19d2a8fd7485&displaylang=en

LikeLike

I have the latest version and it shows charts just fine under Ubuntu…

LikeLike

Hi Tony,

We are sounding / researching through all the issues of the ZCA report. A document is being put together based on the discussion on the thread. We hope to have it completed fairly soon, most likely over the next week or so. Please also feel free to get involved in the discussion.

Good suggestion re wiki, you’ll have to take up the format with Barry, but for now this is it I’m afraid.

Hope you will find the critique useful and of course we welcome any input on it too.

LikeLike

ZCA report p27 :

When comparing the solar power tower with ANU paraboidal dish :

Dish ->

“Energy storage is not yet demonstrated commercially, though it is compatible with molten salt storage, and others such as the ammonia thermochemical storage system at ANU.”

Power Tower ->

“Molten salt thermal storage has been demonstrated with power towers.”

Yes, at Solar 2, but NOT commercially. That’s one of the things that Gemasolar 17MW will be doing, when its finished.

LikeLike

German power tower research at the German Aerospace Centre ->

http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1/86_read-19289/

“On 20 August 2009, the solar thermal experimental and demonstration power plant in Jülich (Solarthermisches Versuchs- und Demonstrationskraftwerk Jülich; STJ) was officially handed over to its future operator, the Jülich Department of Works, by the general contractor, Kraftanlagen München. The technology for the core of the facility, the receiver, was developed and patented by the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt; DLR).”

“The power plant will supply 1.5 megawatts when operated at its rated capacity. A heat storage module that extends across two stories of the tower is integrated into the plant. This heat storage module contains ceramic filling material through which hot air flows and which can thus be heated. When discharging, the process works in reverse: the heat storage module releases its energy so that power can also be produced when clouds pass overhead.”

“The project will be supported by a research programme spanning several years which, as well as providing scientific support for the operation of the power plant, will in particular develop methods for optimising operation, assuring quality and developing the technology in order to further improve the competitiveness of the facilities. “

LikeLike

David Kimble that spreadsheet reads fine with Open Office 3.2. Now I have to make sense of it.

LikeLike

This page gives a brief overview of the CSIRO’s 500kw power tower demo plant in Newcastle ->

http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/hightemp/index.html

http://www.csiro.au/news/ps1i8.html

http://www.csiro.au/places/Solar-Energy-Centre.html

“Solar towers

The high concentration array is used to provide the high temperatures needed to produce SolarGas, a syngas mixture that contains 25 per cent more energy than the natural gas feeding into the process.
Solar hydrogen can potentially be extracted from this SolarGas. SolarGas and solar hydrogen provide all the benefits of solar energy with the convenience of gas, and in this way enable solar energy to be stored and transported.
The technology also serves as a transitional route toward higher levels of solar penetration into the energy mix.”

Information on this power tower is practically none existent. No storage or costs etc are mentioned. Obviously it runs as natural gas/solar system.

Can anyone point me at something?

LikeLike

Peter,

You seem to support the ISA’s figure of 57.8kg CO2-e/MWh for nuclear.

I’m not an expert in the technology, so for me to criticise ISA would be a bit rude. Their report contains an extensive meta-analysis and then justifications for the numbers they use for their Low-Medium-High scenarios. It is certainly transparent.

I think the ore grade sounds high at 0.15% for the next 40 years, and I think the Load Factor at 85% is high for a country’s first commercial reactor. I recall reading that the entire history of commercial reactors has a Load Factor of ~70% and for recent times ~75% worldwide. Experienced nations are getting 90% and I don’t know if there is anything further to be gained.

ISA used a 70-30 split between centrifuge and diffusion enrichment, reflecting the current state of play, so there is scope for that to improve.

It would be interesting to plug the numbers from other sources into the ISA spreadsheet so that we could be comparing using the same methodology.

If you can demonstrate a better methodology, I would be open to persuasion, but its not really me that needs to be persuaded, its the Australian Government.

I should just mention that the report and the spreadsheets are owned by Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and they should be approached for rights to publish them. Use here is Fair Use in my humble opinion.

… the Emissions Intensity of wind energy (when backup is included which it must be for a fair comparison with baseload generators) is around …

I think we need to know what the Emissions Intensity of wind is, and for all the other technologies. We also need to know about their variability and their dispatchability, and hence their mixability, but that is really a separate issue, no less important though. I agree that the ZCA mix won’t work in adverse circumstances. Burning biomass would be a disaster.

Given the additional constraints of a reducing fossil fuel cap or going into run-away Global Warming, I don’t think there is a solution. We can certainly make a start on a Grand Plan, but at some stage we will run out of energy to complete it. We should have started fixing the problem 20 years ago when there was some spare capacity. As it is, understanding at the government level of what could work and what couldn’t is appallingly low, so we will end up wasting a lot of precious energy, making things worse.

LikeLike

Basin and Range Watch also have a page on Crescent Dunes / Tonopah power tower ->

http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/CrescentDune.html

LikeLike

You’ll also find these links on David’s site (sorry, had to split this into two comments to get past the link-averse filter):

http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_ols_060523_confronting_a_false_.htm

Does anyone remember the warning DV82XL gave shortly before he ceased posting here?

LikeLike

James hutchison, an author of the ZCA Plan, asked John Morgan:

James asked:

Ok I will spell it out again. My question is why do you continue to support Peter [Lang]’s costing of Solar thermal when he uses a report (NEEDs) that dosen’t back up what he says?”

I replied:

I believe I am interpreting NEEDS (2008) correctly. NEEDS starts by looking at the four main solar thermal technologies. It then looks in more detail at trough and tower technologies. It gives the current expected cost (2007 figures) for trough and tower (Table 2.3). The tower costs are mainly based on the ‘Solar Tres’ (Spain) now called’Gemasolar’. NEEDS derives a figures of EUR10,140/kW in 2007 Euros for their best guess of the current (2007 cost of solar thermal tower with 15 h energy storage at full power). If we convert that to Australian dolars at the rate of A$1 = EUR0.6 and escalate to 2010 A$ we get a figure of A$22.5/W. However, An updated cost were released in April 2009 soon after the start of construction. These convert to A$24.8/W for Gemasolar. I gave a rounded figure of $20/W in my previous discussions. The cost of ‘Gemasolar’/’Solar Tres’ has increased by a factor of 160% from 2005 to 2009, and more increase is likely before it is completed.

The figures you referred to on pages 31, 32 and 6x of NNEDS are not relevant because they apply to the trough technology not the tower. Also, you cannot read the cost from the projected learning curves for 2010 because the learning curve has not applied. In fact, the cost of solar have escalated at over 15% pa.

I uderstand ZCA is basing its costs on the forecast cost for Tonopah, USA. I understand the estimated cost is $700 to $800 million in 2009 US$. This converts to A$10.4/W. That figures agrees with the ZCA plan. However, Tonpah has not started. It is still a concept It doesn’t have approval yet. There is no final design or final cost exstimate, let alone the final cost from construction It will be years before it is completed. The costs can be expected to escalate by at least 50% during that time and probably more (in constant 2010 dollars).

Furthermore, I understand Tonopah is intended to have only 10h storage at full power compared with 15h at Gemasolar. So Gemasoiar needs a solar field roughly 30% more than Tonopah and energy storage 50% more. To compare the costs on an equivalent basis, Tonopah’s costs need to be increased by say 40%, to say A$15/W.

Then escalate this because the project has not begun yet and the csts will escalat until the project is completed.

I understand that Tonopah is expectd to have a capacity factor around 55% (100MW, 480,000 MWh/y) (http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=60

This, of course is nowhere near the 72% capacity factor assumed as the basis for the ZCA 2020 Plan.

If you have better information than I have, could you please post the links to the sources here.

Follow and contribute to the dialogue here:
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/2020-vision#comment-774

LikeLike

Tom, both Peter and I had numerous difficulties with the Climate Spectator comment system. I can only suggest reregistering, possibly with an alternate email address.

LikeLike

Peter,

None of the solar thermal power tower plants listed in ZCA 2020 report Table 3.5 are commercially operational. Those figures are estimates of outputs AFTER construction has taken place. In addition, I am not aware that Solar Tres was EVER built. That design ended up being Gemasolar.
 
These fact needs to be clearly labelled on the ZCA 2020 report Table 3.5, page 53. 

Also, the Solar 220 salt storage specified by S & L 2003 is 12.7h, see SunLabs capital costings page 5-21 Table 5-13.
+
S&L (2003) – Page 5-26 Table 5-19, Solar 220 thermal storage specified as 13.1h.
+
S&L (2003) – Page 5-38 Table 5-27 Solar 220 thermal storage specified as 16h.
 
So thats three different storage time figures, none of which are the 17h which ZCA 2020 report claims.

Regarding Gemasolar ->

S&L (2003) Section 5.8.1 Deployment, page 5-50 ->

“The earliest a plant would be operational in the United States is 2009 based on the first commercial plant going in service in 2006 in Spain or South Africa, operational experience of at least one year, and two years for design enhancements, manufacturing, and construction.”

So S&L are saying here that after Gemasolar goes online, the earliest they’d be prepared to build one in USA is 3 years later. Assuming that Gemasolar goes online early 2011, that would mean the USA’s first “gas / solar” power tower 17MW with 15h storage would go online in 2014 (according to S&L 2003).

LikeLike

Page 21:

A concentrated effort to flatten the Victorian winter gas usage peak would yield major gains in flattening the Australian energy demand profile over the year. The flattening would be achieved primarily by thermal insulation of Victorian commercial buildings and households. This can reduce heating loads by a factor of 2-4. A program of replacing gas furnace heating with heat pumps would further reduce space heating energy demand by a factor of 4, given an 80% efficiency for gas furnaces and 320% seasonal average efficiency for heat pumps. It is therefore reasonable to assume that given widespread implementation of heat pump and building efficiency improvement in Victoria, “winter peak”, space heating requirements could be reduced by around a factor of 10.

The concept of shifting Victorian gas heating to electric heat pump may have a greenhouse advantage in the context of low emission generation, such as renewables or nuclear, but most greenhouse reduction strategies to date have focused on maintaining Victorian gas heating in preference to electric heat pump. While peak demand for electricity supply is a major challenge, natural gas supply only needs to meet demand on a day by day basis, rather than a second by second basis. Natural gas pipelines provide both a short term storage facility and transmission medium. The main pipeline from Longford to Dandenong is 750mm diameter and 174 km long. The linepack is a measure of the quantity of gas in the pipeline, and typically varies by 50% according to the daily difference between the regular supply, and demand which peaks around breakfast and dinner during winter.

In Victoria, there are approximately 780,000 gas ducted heating systems with an average 20 kW furnace consuming an average 58 GJ/annum, and 650,000 non-ducted gas heaters with an average 10 kW furnace consuming an average 29 GJ/annum. If there was a wholesale change-over to electric heat pumps, assuming a COP which is 3 times better than a gas furnace, would translate to 780,000 units at 6.7 kW(e) and 650,000 units at 3.3 kW(e). If all units were running at the same time, the total load would be 7.3 GW, which would likely lead to brown-outs based on current supply constraints. In practice, not all units would be on, and under normal circumstances, the units would be cycling. However, unlike commercial HVAC systems which are designed professionally and costed accordingly, domestic systems are sized according to budget and often aggressive quoted, and usually struggle in extreme conditions, so the assumption of cycling can lead to unpredicted outcomes. Peak demand is related to nameplate power and not “average” power, where extreme climatic conditions can result in the compressor running 100% of the time. Although the MEPS scheme for air conditioners is generally a step forward, budgetry constraints prevent a comprehensive audit process, leading to ongoing non-compliance with minimum standards

The report failed to observe that most heat pumps cut-out or perform poorly below around 5 degrees due to evaporator freezing and some utilize an electric element to provide back-up. In cool climates, such as North America, ground source heat pumps have been utilized for a number of years to overcome this problem, but costs are typically an additional $5,000 to $10,000 on top of the basic system cost. In the event of a wholesale conversion to heat pumps, there is likely to be significant problems with peak demand during the handful of near-freezing conditions that Melbourne experiences some years. It is also likely that a large number of households would need conversion to 3 phase power to provide the required power. Also note for reference that many Victorian households will typically consume twice as much gas as electricity, therefore probably doubling household electricity consumption with a switch from gas heating to electric. Of interest is that there is a substantial Australian manufacturing content in gas furnaces, but negligible manufacturing of domestic heat pumps.

The blase assumptions of reducing demand through insulation requires heroic assumptions regarding the existing stock of homes. Regrettably, we carry the legacy of poor efficiency standards with most homes generally rated from 0 to 2 stars. To bring a pre-90’s home to something remotely like current BCA 6 star building standards (first order anecdotal cost estimates) would require ceiling insulation (mostly already done now but $1,600 otherwise), wall insulation (blown in fibretex at $3,000 to $5,000), double glazing ($5,000 to $10,000), under floor insulation ($1,000 to $2,000), roof sarking ($1,000), sealing and draught prevention ($1,000 to $2,000). If we conservatively allowed $10,000 per home for 1 million homes comes out at $10 B. Some classes of homes, such as the post-war pre-fab concrete homes built for returned servicemen, will remain inefficient for the life of the home. Note that new homes make up an additional around 2% to 3% per annum of total homes so the legacy of existing stock is long lived. The report doesn’t appear to make recommendations as to who should pay for this. Despite a number of energy efficiency measures, some of which have significant scope for expansion, a combination of increasing house size, “comfort creep”, expanding population and Jevon’s Paradox suggest that space heating consumption will continue growing for the foreseeable future.

Of interest is that the Victorian VEET energy efficiency scheme already provides a rebate for the upgrade of a high efficiency gas furnace or the retrofit of new high efficiency ductwork, and the Victorian Government recently doubled the energy efficiency target.

In summary, given a conversion of generation to low emission sources, a long term strategy to space heating through electric heat pump may be sensible, but a prudent approach would be to put the low emission (renewables or nuclear) generation in place first with a planned conversion over years. Interestingly, there was a consumer led conversion from oil heating to gas heating in Melbourne in response to high oil prices in the 1970’s, leading to a 88% decline in oil consumption for domestic heating from 1977 to 1982. The issue of peak electrical demand would remain regardless, and in this sense, natural gas is a far better option. As a general principle, solar and winter are not good matches, particular in a context where solar has not reached viability in a summer context yet. The premature advocacy of the replacement of reliable, effective and relatively greenhouse friendly space heating with electric heat pumps is misguided and naive, and likely to lead to perverse outcomes.

LikeLike

Further comments regarding heating:

The adoption of reverse cycle heat pumps for winter would lead to increased penetration of refrigerated air conditioning during summer in preference to evaporative cooling, which has traditionally been widely used in Victoria. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (2003) estimated that each additional 1 kW of load due to air conditioners costs an additional $3,300 in network and generation investment, translating to $10,000+ for an average home.

Click to access sub134.pdf

The encouragement of refrigerated cooling for Victorians is perverse in the context of the challenge of meeting the cost of network upgrades as well as the difficulty in meeting demand from non-schedulable generation assets.

LikeLike

bryen and Graham Palmer,

We need to get the Critique finished quickly. Each of you has gathered a lot of information and have much of it in your head now. Could you contribute a critique on ZCA2020 ‘Appendix 7 – Implementation timeline’? We need comments today.

Start by defining and quoting the ZCA2020 assumptions then provide a revision supported by virtually irrefutable arguments and authoritative references.

Short and succinct and to the point is what we need. Maximum one page (plus a revised version of the ZCA table page 162 if that is possible but I doubt it is at this late stage)

LikeLike

Peter

Will try for tonight – busy at work.

LikeLike

The main CEC planning page is ->

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/index.html

Solar listings ->

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

detailed planning docs for RSEP in two folders ->

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ricesolar/documents/applicant/afc/

LikeLike

RESP (150MW)->

forgot to add

no fossil fuel gas back up in planning app.
10 miles to nearest powerline

LikeLike

Something that jumped out at me on the RSEP: it will use up to 222 ML of water per year “for heliostat washing, steam cycle makeup and other process uses” (p.ES-3). Is > 1 ML of water per MW of nominal capacity a reasonable rule of thumb for solar thermal?

N.B. 222 ML is my translation of ‘180 acre-feet’; damn the Americans and their failure to go metric.

This seems to roughly equate with the ZCA2020 estimates (341 Litres/MWh), though only if you accept the RSEP apparent ~36% capacity factor assumption.

LikeLike

RESP quotes ->

Click to access RSEP_2.0_Proj_Description.pdf

“The project will be capable of producing approximately 450,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of renewable energy annually, with a nominal net generating capacity of 150 megawatts (MW). ”

Capacity factor = Wh/a / (W * 8760h/a)

I make that CF 50.5%

Conclusive proof that RSEP does NOT have 17 hours storage, or even close. Wonder what that equates to in hours?

Tonopah 100MW is CF 55% @ 10h storage

LikeLike

NOT RESP – RSEP (sorry I keep getting that the wrong way round.. :)

LikeLike

Peter,

I think your timeline for solar rollout is fair / optimistic.

The other issues with that timeline are when Gemasolar 17MW is ironed out, expected as 2014 based on S&L 3 year post construction testing etc. Alcazar 50MW (Solar 50), is a total unknown at the moment, I haven;t looked very hard though. According to

http://www.ntgr8.com/Utility-Solar-Thermal-Projects.html

its “status” is 2011, whatever they mean by status. Alcazar does not appear on NREL’s list either. So until someone can find info on Solar 50 FOAK that is unknown. Would estimate 2014 earliest.

Solar 100 Tonopah is estimated 2014 – still needs planning approval to start.
Solar 150 RSEP Rice is estimated 2014 – still needs planning approval to start.

I’ll be interested to see how long construction actually takes with those two, given how things have gone so far. 2.5 years is prob optimistic, but you never know.

This would put ZCA stage 1 (2010 – 2015) pretty much out the game. Earliest optimism is they could start solar by 2014, using 17MW towers.

More later

LikeLike

Gram Palmer, I believe that air source heat pumps sold in the United States and Canada, are capable of operating in a much lower temperature than – 5 C, with -30 °C being quoted as the lowest practical figure. In areas where demand for summer air conditioning is in high demand, air source heat pumps make a great deal of sense. Winter demand for heating is balanced by summer demand for cooling. Although heat pumps will increase overall demand for electricity and hence required added electrical generation capacity, the net effect of a switch to heat pumps is a reduction in overall energy demand, and a reduction of carbon emissions.

So why do Greens prefer natural gas heating? The answer is simple, the greater the demand for electricity, the greater the pressure to go nuclear. My own view is that the cost of Molten Salt Reactors can be reduced to the point that peak load nuclear will be cost effective, and thus the demand for AC and heating electricity can be meet by from nuclear generation sources. This would be unacceptable to anti-nuclear Greens.

LikeLike

RSEP 150MW @ 450,000MWh CF – correction, I make it 34.2%

can someone confirm that?

LikeLike

Alcazar would be 50MW @ 300,000MWh = CF 68.5%

LikeLike

The ZCA plan aims to reduce total energy demand and variability, using a smart grid to smooth electricity demand. Although specific parameters are not provided, the program appears to rely on demand management as a key plank in the program. For example:

page 20

The energy demand profile will be further smoothed using smart-grids in combination with an electric vehicle fleet and demand-negating, small scale PV.

page 22

Under the ZCA2020 Plan, improved insulation and the use of ‘smart meters’ assists in levelling short term spikes in electricity demand.

page 93

The ZCA2020 Plan combats this variation in demand both through system design and active load management, using Smart Grid technologies.

There is substantial activity both in Australia and worldwide on researching and developing “smart grid” components. The future of smart grids is arousing a significant amount of interest and research funding, and offers some exciting possibilities, particular with remote appliance control and electric vehicle recharging. For example, the Federal Government has the “Smart Cities Smart Grid” program

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/programs-and-rebates/smartgrid.aspx

and there are a number of initiatives including, for example, the development of Australian Standard AS4755.3.1 for smart meter interfaces.

Click to access 09%20BRWG%20Workshop%2007%20-%20NSMP%20and%20the%20AS4755%20Appliance%20Interface%20version%203%20-%2016-17%20Sep%202009.pdf

However, smart grids are in an early stage of development, and while there may be some rewarding payoffs at some stage, future outcomes remain uncertain. The inertia inherent in energy systems, the existing stock of consumer appliances and large penetration of air conditioners, the requirement for evidenced based analysis of developments, and bureaucratic processes mean that smart grid technology is inevitably a long term venture. The report appears to accept the most optimistic potential outcomes of smart metering as an article of faith, and appears to assume fast-track implementation, although no detail is provided.

One of the main planks of the report appears to be the ability to readily implement air conditioner demand management strategies, through smart metering, with, presumably, differential pricing. There is no a priori reason to believe that socially palatable differential pricing is going to drive substantial reductions in air conditioner demand on the hottest days. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that even householders that use their cooling systems sparingly will nonetheless use them on the few 40 degree plus days.

In a submission to the Australian Energy Regulator, Origin Energy notes

“There is little evidence in the Australia context of significant reductions in energy consumption resulting from the move to interval meters. It is uncertain whether the meters will lead to a sustained reduction in consumption and, if so, over what period.”

Click to access item.phtml

Contrary to the ZCA report, the (now suspended) Victorian smart meter rollout does not expect the meters to provide demand management in the early stages, but rather, the meters will assist customers to get real-time information, and allow retailers to implement differential pricing. For example a recent Essential Services Commission report notes

“Customer bills are most impacted by the costs associated with growing network peak demands and generation, which suggests that it would be beneficial for customers to see and be charged directly for these distribution and generation costs.”

Click to access DDPDraftDecisionSmartMetersRegulatoryReview20100721.pdf

In summary, the report assumes a best-case scenario for smart grids despite the available evidence suggesting a marginal role for the foreseeable future.

LikeLike

Two of the key platforms of the ‘smart grid’ are smart meters and electric cars. Both are now found wanting. I suspect the real intent behind smart meters is getting people used to paying the same power bill for 20% fewer kwh i.e. pay the same get less. Now some are querying whether EVs and PHEVs will be affordable, sufficiently versatile and able to save much oil.

Way upthread it was pointed out ZCA2020 implies a 70% energy use cut across all sectors. The ‘smart grid’ won’t achieve that on current evidence. The system needs as much grunt as it has now, only with lower emissions.

LikeLike

Mark,

Didn’t spot that.

Good sanity check on that RSEP CF then, thanks.

Any other info on RSEP would be very useful e.g. cost, storage time (I dont think it has much, probably just enough for intermittent cloud cover).

LikeLike

If there was an industrial scale electrical load that could be switched on or off without causing problems, then this could help in demand matching.

I wonder if desalination is such a task – there is always a big buffer of fresh water (in terms of hours of supply) between the desalination plant and the consumer’s tap; the plant are distributed around the country, focused around urban centres; and they are controlled by government agencies.

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/_files/Desalination_windpower.pdf – Water Corp WA:
“To produce the 45 gigalitres of water each year that the desalination plant is designed for, the power requirement will be 24 megawatts. This represents 185 gigawatt hours of energy per year …” [88% load factor]

That doesn’t sound like much in terms of the total generating capacity, but if it is 100% dispatchable then it must help.

LikeLike

Dave Kimble

Industrial scale load switching already occurs. One of the reasons the Portland smelter was able to negotiate such a good deal was an agreement to power down under certain predicted peak demand conditions. This is not a minute by minute proposition however, but a “whole day” exercise (I forget the specific details)

There are many barriers to demand management – would you want to power down your factory so that you can reduce your electricity bill? Here’s are good starting point:

http://www.energyaustralia.com.au/Common/Network-Supply-and-Services/Demand-Management/Related-projects/Demand-Management-and-Planning-Project.aspx

LikeLike

I understand supply interrupt clauses are quite severe for aluminium smelting as Wikipedia points out Power must be constantly available, since the pots have to be repaired at significant cost if the liquid metal solidifies. That is the electricity supplier may face penalties if it curtails supply beyond a few hours per year. That’s for molten salt refining but aqueous solutions are less vulnerable eg zinc plate electrolysis.

I believe both types of electro refiners, molten salt and aqueous, pay just a fraction of what households pay, perhaps 2-4c per kwh. The price differential could be seen as a blatant and unmerited subsidy. Moreover they operate at steady output around the clock. ZCA would have us believe that once fossil energy has built all the wind towers, mirrors and boilers then these sources will supply all the energy needed for their replacement. Presumably cement will no longer be made with coal or gas. I have trouble envisaging an aluminium smelter drawing 200 MWe at 2 a.m. on a calm night being powered by wind and solar.

LikeLike

Mark,

Thanks, that Rice Solar site displays a key point under RSEP project location ->

———

Previously disturbed site – former Rice Army Airfield and private airfield, which has been abandoned since 1958

Remote location – 10-mile new transmission line will interconnect with Western’s existing transmission system

Not located in any Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or critical habitat areas for listed species

Central receiver tower is located one mile from State Route 62

———-

This is a classic problem with ZCA report, they are saying these aren’t pilot plants when they clearly are! You dont stick the Solar 150 pilot plant somewhere too remote, you need decent access. That is why it will ONLY cost US$750-850 million (capital) plus US$5-7 million annually.

Another KEY point, notice construction time is estimated as 30 months (2.5 years). It will be interesting to see what that figure is when its finally online. Pretty handy having an abandoned airfield area too…

The lack of storage info given on the site you linked to is also a bit shoddy.

Don’t forget the CEC planning site is where to get the real info for California projects (well any planning dept site in fact in the county or state where the plant is located).

All California solar ->

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

RSEP ->
Executive summary of the RSEP solar power tower project at CEC ->

Click to access RSEP_0%200_Executive_Summary.pdf

Keep your eye out on those CEC web pages, all the links to the planning docs for whatever project you have selected are in the left vertical frame column.

Planning docs are a long haul. the Environmental Impact Assess / Statements are usually the key docs to get stuck into. For each planning app there are thousands of pages, most of which is usually utter garbage anyway / copy & paste from previous apps then change the details. I kid you not I have seen the names of previous project titles in wind farm planning docs, some of these environmental assessment firms dont have a very high quality control level.

Detailed(ish) planning docs for RSEP are in these two folders ->

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ricesolar/documents/applicant/afc/

Public exhibition period here in NSW is still under fast track, so we only get 30 days to :

a) find out its on exhibition if the developer “forgets” to tell you or tells you late
b) do the research / find & pay an expert or experts
c) write up a submission
d) attempt to continue living your normal day to life at the same time, so you really have only the odd night a week and maybe a day at the weekend, to do the above, over 4 weeks! maybe 8 weeks if the developer feels generous (have a guess ? :)

Charles,

Good comment about the average annual output & costs.

LikeLike

Re: portland Smelter

Hal Turton from the Australia Institute did a good report on the Australian smelter industry in 2002:

Click to access DP44.pdf

My understanding of the cost structure is that it came about because of the oversupply after the construction of Loy Lang B, which left the SECV in debt. Alcoa negotiated a price based on the marginal cost of electricity (very low in the case of brown coal) and varied according to the world price of aluminium. I always believe these things give cause for reflection – most of us thought that bringing this type of heavy industry to Victoria was a great idea at the time, just as many think it would be a great idea to end the subsidies now – what will we think in another 10 years?

LikeLike

John Newlands
Neil with the SUV families can travel interstate, tow a trailer, go bush and take kids to soccer. Battlers can afford such vehicles 2nd hand.
Most families have 2 vehicles, and there is no reason why a PHEV’s cannot go interstate and take kids to soccer. Not sure how many SUV’s ever go bush at present(definitely no SUV drivers I know).
Battlers will be able to afford PHEV’s second hand just like they can buy a Prius second hand or a Jazz or Mazda 2, cars that use one third two one half as much fuel as most SUVs. I mean be realistic, families in the 1950’s and 1960’s were larger and didn’t have SUVs, as kids we walked to sports, its a bit like people now-days going to gym and waiting for a lift so they don’t have to walk up 2 floors!
In any case there will not be enough oil for everyone to drive ICE powered SUV’s so it will be PHEV or EV or walk and public transport.

Efficiency aside the PHEV all-electric range won’t suit many eg the fringe suburb commuter with a night shift job in the city. I live 65km out of Hobart but I’m driving on modified chip oil so I hope to be OK. I’d say the take-up of EVs is unpredictable as this stage.
PHEV’s are ideal for fringe suburb commuters, they can save 65km -130km( depending upon work charging) of ICE driving every day. The 10km/day commuter will only save 10km of ICE travel.
Of course EV uptake is unpredictable, we don’t know if petrol is going to be $1.50/l or $15/l in 10 or 20 years. The critical issue is to have manufacturing capacity in place to respond to demand if be have $15/l petrol.

ZCA want Australia to power down from 3900 PJ all up to 1100 PJ a year. That’s cutting demand, not shifting it.
Thats cutting use of PJ present in FF, in fact electricity consumption is projected to increase by 50%, but because 98% of each kWh( 3.4MJ) is generated by renewable energy, we are saving about 10MJ of FF energy that is presently used to generate one kWh and replacing 35MJ /l of petrol with 2kWh( 7.2MJ) of electricity. The ZCA also projects less VMT and better insulation but the big savings are replacing FF (PJ’s) with 35% as many electric (PJ’s) and doing the same work.

LikeLike

John,

“Strangely I agree that we shouldn’t burn too much gas in power stations…”

Funnily enough implementation of CST in the form of gas / solar hybrid & Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) requires doing exactly just that.

Further funnily enough, this is extensively discussed in Sargent & Lundy 2003, which is ZCA’s favourite reference of all time. The bible… eeer except the bit about fossil fuels in Section 2.3, a couple of short excerpts ->

“Many solar-fossil hybrid options are possible with natural gas combined-cycle and coal-fired or oil-fired Rankine plants, and may accelerate near-term deployment of projects due to improved economics and reduced overall project risk. One opportunity for hybrid integration is with a power tower hybridized with a combined-cycle plant. In this power boost hybrid plant, a solar-only plant has, in effect, been “piggybacked” on top of a base-loaded fossil-fueled plant. ”

“When hybridizing a solar power tower with a base-load fossil-fired plant, solar contributes about 25% of the peak power output from the plant and between 10% and 25% of the annual electricity. (The higher annual solar fraction can be achieved with 13 hours of thermal storage and the lower solar fraction with just a few hours of storage.)”

“The Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) was initially proposed as a way of integrating a parabolic trough solar plant with modern combined-cycle power plants. The approach reduces the effective cost of the conventional power plant equipment, leveraging O&M and project development costs over a much larger plant and potentially increasing the solar-to-electric conversion efficiency. The initial concept was simply to increase the size of the steam turbine, use solar energy to generate steam, and use the waste heat from the gas turbine to preheat and superheat the steam. The general concept called for doubling the size of the steam turbine
in the bottoming cycle. The ISCCS plant would operate at the combined-cycle output during non-solar periods, and then output would increase by up to one third when solar energy was available (referred to as the solar increment). However if the combined-cycle plant is operated in a baseload operating profile, the annual solar fraction (percent of electric generation from solar) will only be about 10%. In addition, detailed design integration issues must be considered to make sure the solar integration does not have a significant impact on the combined-cycle fossil operation. A number of recent studies have looked at the best approaches for this integration. ISCCS plants are being considered for all four of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grant
projects (India, Egypt, Morocco, and Mexico).”

——

Take special note of the power tower storage time, 13h, which I think is looking to be the more financially preferred number of hours for storage.

Also take note that this solar thermal tower & trough hybridisation / ISCCS will be vital for keeping costs down, but again ZCA report deems this not worthy of a mention. One wonders how all these plants are going to be rolled out without gas.

And also I wonder how this removal of gas from the ZCA solar thermal equation may interact with cost calculations compared to S&L 2003 figures. As cost is not my area, someone else should look at that.

However, ZCA report & BZE have an amazing ability to ignore these basic gas/solar facts, whether in the brief discussion(?) as we found out on Climate Spectator or in their report.

This is possibly why they do not want to discuss the transition in detail, because as S&L 2003 point out, hybrid & ISCCS is really the initial route to getting CSP rolled out. Just look at those CST plants doing this already as I mentioned up thread.

Perhaps then, BZE didn’t closely read the comments by Andrew Dyer, Director, BrightSource Energy Australia that they themselves have quoted at the front of their ZCA report. 3rd page at front of the pdf ->

“With far greater efficiencies, higher capacity factors, lower capital costs and the ability to operate the plant in hybrid mode and/or with storage, the BrightSource Luz Power Tower is the proven technology of today and well into the future for delivering firm, renewable power”

Notice also the careful none use of the word “commercial” before the word “proven”.

Also notice at the beginning of Dyer’s comments in the same quote in ZCA report he refers to SEGS ->

“At BrightSource’s predecessor, Luz, they designed, developed, built and operated the nine SEGS parabolic trough plants in California that still operate today. Built in the 1980’s, these plants were the best that could be built with the available technology at the time and certainly proved beyond any doubt that one could capture the sun’s energy and convert it into steam for large scale electricity generation on a scale never before contemplated.”

Eeer, ahem, etc… SEGS plant is a classic example of solar combined with gas… i.e. none standalone, funny (not) again the none-mentioning of this crucial piece of info.

Take a look at the NREL pages for SEGS systems which are between 14MW to 80MW ->

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/by_project.cfm

e.g. SEGS IX (the last one they made) :

Power Block
Turbine Capacity (Gross): 89.0 MW
Turbine Capacity (Net): 80.0 MW
Output Type: MHI regenerative steam turbine, solar preheat and steam generation, natural-gas-fired superheater
Power Cycle Pressure: 40.0 bar
Turbine Efficiency: 37.6% @ full load
Fossil Backup Type: Natural gas

**Even Wikipedia know they run on gas too ->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

LikeLike

John N,

Only $98million for 44MW, I wonder what Kogan Creek will do for storage when ZCA ban fossil fuels next year.

Kogan Creek cola fired power station is 750MW, I’d hardly call 44MW(nameplate!) a boost. S & L 2003 rightly describe this as ->

“…“piggybacked” on top of a base-loaded fossil-fueled plant. ”

i.e. it provides a tiny wafer thin feel good green veneer, but not much else.

So after the ZCA fossil fuel removal, Kogan Creek will need to do a fair bit of solar boosting…

———————————–

But regarding gas / solar that leaves a few questions hanging in the air about ZCA report ->

Are any of the ZCA assumptions for solar based on figures that were originally calculated with gas in the mix?

If so, given that there is absolutely no mention of solar / gas in the ZCA report, was gas removed from the ZCA equation and how?

———————————–

Oh and before I forget regarding the solar trough SEGS that is proudly mentioned by Dyer in the start of ZCA report.

Well SEGS II had a bit of bother back in 99. “Since the accident” it still uses gas I assume. I did read somewhere that they never bothered replacing the storage, but I can’t rem the source offhand. ->

Wikipedia :
In February 1999, a 900,000-US-gallon (3,400 m3) therminol storage tank exploded at the SEGS II (Daggett) solar power plant, sending flames and smoke into the sky. Authorities were trying to keep flames away from two adjacent containers that held sulfuric acid and caustic soda. The immediate area of 0.5 square miles (1.3 km2) was evacuated.[9]

& the ref [9] points to this news story

–>

[9] http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/27/news/mn-12205 ->

Storage Tank at Solar Power Plant in Desert Explodes; Immediate Area Is Evacuated –

“DAGGETT, Calif. — A storage tank exploded at a solar power plant Friday, sending flames and billows of smoke into the sky for hours and forcing authorities to evacuate the immediate area.

The fire, which broke out about 6 p.m., was still burning four hours later at the SEGS II power plant near Interstate 40 about seven miles east of Barstow, said San Bernardino County Fire Battalion Chief David McLees.

Firefighters “tried to put water on it and said it was like putting out a house fire with a garden hose,” he said.

The 900,000-gallon tank was holding a heat-transfer fluid called therminol, McLees said. Therminol is a hydraulic fluid that is heated to about 850 degrees and run through pipes to solar panels to help generate electricity, McLees said.

The fluid can be mildly toxic. Authorities were also trying to keep flames from leaping to two adjacent containers that held sulfuric acid and caustic soda, both toxic substances, he said.

An unspecified number of employees at the plant were evacuated. All known employees were accounted for, he said.

The cause of the blast was not known, McLees said.

Police and fire officials evacuated a half-square-mile area around the facility, said sheriff’s spokeswoman Sue Santana.”

LikeLike

Does anyone know what the “molten salt” is ? ZCA2020 page 6 says the salt is still molten at 290°C, so they are not talking about Sodium chloride (m.p. 801°C).

LikeLike

An Evaluation of Molten-Salt Power Towers Including Results of the Solar Two Project

Hugh E. Reilly and Gregory J. Kolb
Solar Thermal Technology Department
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0703

SAND2001-3674

2001 Nov 01

———

Pretty good report on the tech, also discusses the next one which will be Solar Tres / Gemasolar in Spain estimated 2011. (which will also have 15% nat gas)

“This report utilizes the results of the Solar Two project, as well as continuing technology development, to update the technical and economic status of molten-salt power towers. The report starts with an overview of power tower technology, including the progression from Solar One to the Solar Two project. This discussion is followed by a review of the Solar Two project–what was planned, what actually occurred, what was learned, and what was accomplished. The third section presents preliminary information regarding the likely configuration of the next molten-salt power tower plant. This section draws on Solar Two experience as well as results of continuing power tower development efforts conducted jointly by industry and Sandia National Laboratories. The fourth section details the expected performance and cost goals for the first commercial molten-salt power tower plant and includes a comparison of the commercial performance goals to the actual performance at Solar One and Solar Two. The final section summarizes the successes of Solar Two and the current technology development activities. The data collected from the Solar Two project suggest that the electricity cost goals established for power towers are reasonable and can be achieved with some simple design improvements.”

A great quote ->

“Dispatchability using storage was successfully demonstrated during the Solar Two project. Operation into the evening hours was routinely done, and on one occasion, the plant ran 24 hrs/day for nearly one week.”

Also has a good description of “Solar Two during the operational phase from February 1998 until plant shutdown in April 1999.”

On operational phase, note that planned operation start was Jan 96 & actual start was Feb 98.

***Power production started March 98 until shutdown April 99.

See Table 2.3 page 2-7.

The report is available here ->

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=2&page=0&osti_id=791898

LikeLike

Neil Howes,

What do you think of the build rate for CST and wind power proposed in the ZCA2020 plan?

The reason I asked is because I recall you pointing out some time ago, following the posting of the “Emissions Cuts Realities” paper, that Australia could not build nuclear at the rate assumed in the paper (0.5GW per 2020 to 2025, 1GW per year to 2030, 1.5GW per year to 2035 then 2GW per year thereafter). You said that to do so would require a bigger effort than the NW Shelf and Australia could not affford it, or words to that effect.

However, the ZCA2020 plan is calling for 6 to 7GW per year of CST from 2015 to 2020. CST requres about 10 times as much material as nuclear per GW so the ZCA plan is calling for the equivalent in materials (and therefore workforce) of about 60 to 70 1GW nuclear power stations per year.

What do you think of this? Have you looked critically at the ZCA2020 plan?

LikeLike

I note Crikey links to an article arguing the case for subsidising electric cars, the grounds being they could be the Next Big Thing. However subsidies for EVs pose the same problem as rebates for solar panels; why should the poor help pay for a middle class fashion statement?

An equal case could be made for petrol/CNG dual fuel vehicles of which several models exist. If the service station on the highway doesn’t have a CNG bowser top up with expensive petrol until you find somewhere else. Users of PHEVs like the GM Volt are told to make sure the battery is topped up before long hill climbs as the 3 cylinder engine struggles with a heavy car. Thus even short distance commuters on Adelaide’s Hills Freeway or Hobart’s Southern Outlet might not suit PHEVs.

Note Australia uses about a million barrels of oil a day, increasingly imported. To replace that as a fuel and plastics feedstock could take 50 Mt of gas a year. Not a peep out of the Federal govt on how to replace oil. Quick approvals however if anybody wants to export gas or burn it in power stations.

LikeLike

Peter Lang,
I think the ZCA2020 plan for building 42GW of CSP by 2020 is totally unrealsitic, and probably only need 21GW of CSP with balance wind.
I recall from memory that Canada built about 1GW per year of nuclear after a time lag. We have to consider how many reactors could be under construction in Australia with limited work-force, evern if many modules are imported as in done with CNG.
Wind instillation is starting from 0.5GW/year base, and many components are imported. If instillation continues to double every 3 years could have 70GW by 2030 built in higher capacity factor regions.
Anyway building nuclear, solar and wind at same time would seem a better option and use of various skilled work-forces and will get us to phasing out all coal faster than any one technology. Keepign present NG fired power would be a better option than new biomass.

LikeLike

This is an interesting article + couple of snippets, and video of bat & wind turbine interaction :

http://pixelspring.com/synapse/?p=304

Moreover, organisms that use the aerosphere are influenced by an increasing number of anthropogenic factors such as skyscrapers, air pollution, aircraft, radio and television towers, lighted towns and cities, and more recently from the proliferation of communication towers and wind turbines that now dot the Earth’s landscape. Human alteration of landscapes by forest fragmentation, intensive agriculture, and urbanization and assorted industrial activities are all rapidly and irreversibly transforming the quantity and quality of available habitats that airborne organisms rely upon for navigational cues, sources of food, water, nesting and roosting habitats: conditions that in turn are influencing the structure and function of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the assemblages of organisms therein. Climate change and its expected increase in global temperatures, altered circulation of air masses, and its effects on local, regional, and weather patterns have had and continue to exert profound influences on the dispersal, foraging and migratory behavior of insects, birds and bats. Ultimately, understanding ecosystem services provided by arthropods, birds, and bats that use the aerosphere will be important for maintaining biodiversity, human health, and ecosystem health of planet Earth.

The Effect of Wind Energy Development on Bats

“While this may seem like a step in the right direction, there are environmental consequences. Bats, which play an enormous and often underappreciated role in our ecosystems, are being killed by wind turbines in alarming numbers. Researchers predict that up to 111,000 bats will die due to wind turbines in 2020 in just the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region of the US.2 These deaths would not only pose an ecological problem, but would also prove to be an economic loss. In light of the economic and ecological value of bats and the growing popularity of wind energy, identifying ways to minimize bat fatalities on wind farms is essential.”

“Farmers rely on these bats to help increase crop yields. Researchers in Texas estimated the economic value of the pest-control service that bats provide to these farmers. According to their study, a lactating female bat can consume up to two-thirds of her body weight in insects in a single night.3 Considering that more than 100 million Brazilian free-tailed bats forage every night in Texas, the implications are enormous. Bats provide an economic service to farmers in two ways: first, they increase crop yield by reducing the number of pests, and second, they decrease the number of pesticide applications needed. Without these services, Texan farmers in the eight-county Winter Garden area would lose 13.5% of their annual income from the lost cotton production (worth an estimated $5.5 million/year).4 Moreover, pesticide use not only costs money, but also has its own environmental impacts. Increased crop pests make the possibility of organic farming less attainable. This analysis only accounts for the losses to part of Texas. On a national level, the economic losses due to decreases in bat populations would be devastating.”

“In a major Federal court decision in December 2009, a judge in Maryland ruled to stop the expansion of a $300 million wind farm on the basis that it would kill endangered Indiana bats.10 This ruling would require the wind energy company to obtain a permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service before constructing additional turbines. The permit would restrict the operation of wind turbines during peak periods of migration. Rulings like this serve as a reminder that renewable energy is not always synonymous with environmental sustainability.”

——-

+ also Aeroecology research on this issue snippets :

http://www.bu.edu/cecb/bats/aeroecology/

“The aerosphere represents one of three major components of the biosphere. From ecological and evolutionary perspectives it is one of the least understood substrata of the troposphere with respect to how organisms interact with and are influenced by this highly variable, fluid environment. ”

“Moreover, organisms that use the aerosphere are influenced by an increasing number of anthropogenic factors such as skyscrapers, air pollution, aircraft, radio and television towers, lighted towns and cities, and more recently from the proliferation of communication towers and wind turbines that now dot the Earth’s landscape. Human alteration of landscapes by forest fragmentation, intensive agriculture, and urbanization and assorted industrial activities are all rapidly and irreversibly transforming the quantity and quality of available habitats that airborne organisms rely upon for navigational cues, sources of food, water, nesting and roosting habitats: conditions that in turn are influencing the structure and function of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the assemblages of organisms therein. Climate change and its expected increase in global temperatures, altered circulation of air masses, and its effects on local, regional, and weather patterns have had and continue to exert profound influences on the dispersal, foraging and migratory behavior of insects, birds and bats. Ultimately, understanding ecosystem services provided by arthropods, birds, and bats that use the aerosphere will be important for maintaining biodiversity, human health, and ecosystem health of planet Earth.”

LikeLike

Neil
10A x 220V x 4 hours = 8.8 KW.h
less the energy lost in charging and discharging.
The Miev is only small and its battery is 16 KW.h http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/imiev/electric-vehicle-centre/technical-spec.aspx

If electric cars were to catch on, the load on the street-level/sub-station grid infrastructure will be severely overloaded unless smart meters are used, and who wants to wait for the meter to say you can charge now and start driving in 8 hours’ time ?

Changing from incandescent to compact fluoro would save you (60 – 11) = 49 W.h per standard bulb per hour, so you would need to be burning 45 bulbs for 4 hours/day/car for that to work out.

No doubt knowing the real figures wouldn’t actually stop the wasteful Australian car driver from buying an EV, but we are up against limits here and governments have to “keep the lights on”, and the air-con, and the cars. They will end up not retiring the coal-fired power stations because they can’t let people sit in the dark.

LikeLike

Graham Palmer,

@https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/14/zca2020/#comment-89209

I hope you will post this excellent, informative, educational post on the ClimateSpectator web site.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/2020-vision#comment-915

LikeLike