engineers australia - northern rivers group - ballina - 8 sep 12 "australian power - where to...

Engineers Australia - Northern Rivers Group - Ballina - 8 Sep 12 "Australian power - where to by 2050?"

Engineers Australia Northern Rivers Group

Ballina

“Australian power - where to by 2050?”

Martin Thomas AM FTSE HonFIEAust HonFAIE

8 September 2012

Infrastructure on the cliff edge

Australia is facing a potential monumental infrastructure disaster as the politicians dither with long-term carbon questions and undertake speculative research on coal technologies.

Unless someone starts actually making hard decisions now, fasten your safety belts for a very large rise in power prices in the eastern states, which will flow into inflation and interest rates.

COMMENTARY ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN 15 Jul 2009


G8 leaders tighten carbon targets

Leaders of the G8 have agreed to a goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction in global

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with developed countries achieving an 80%

reduction by then.



Australian candidate generation technologies to

2050

• Coal

• Oil and gas

• Nuclear

• Geothermal

• Hydro

• Solar

• Wind

• Other renewables

• Distributed

energy

and energy

storage


Coal the bad news

• Mines can sterilise huge arable land areas• Substantial carbon and other emissions (viz

particulates, NOx and SOx)• CCS technically promising but costly, huge

efficiency penalty, and yet to be proven at scale • Heavy carbon footprint without CCS• Significant ash disposal & retention problems • Significant water demand for cooling (but can

use dry cooling – ie fan cooled radiators)


Coal the good news

• Black and brown resources vast and easily won• LCOE (Black coal, no CCS) ~ 100-110$/MWh • Technologies (mining, materials handling,

preparation, combustion, gas cleanup, ash disposal) proven strong Australian skills

• Good for base load generation - capacity factors typically >90%

• Generation technology conventional well proven• Huge RD&D program promises further gains

(IGCC, oxy-firing, CCS, etc)• Strong Australian engineering capability


Coal power station


Coal mines for power


Oil, natural gas, shale gas and coal seam gas - the bad news

• High and rising fuel costs (both oil and

gas) – as Oz LNG rises to world parity

• Noisy

• High maintenance costs


Oil, natural gas, shale gas and coal seam gas - the good news

• Diesel and gas turbine plant - well proven, reliable, numerous suppliers, good service back up

• Diesel specific capex ~ 250-750$/kW• OC gas turbine capex ~ 900-1200$/kW • LCOE (CCGT, no CCS) ~ 80-110$/MWh • Short construction times• Carbon footprint < coal• Fast load following


Nuclear the bad news

• Technology still very costly ~ 5,000-6,000$/kW• Australian regulatory environment inadequate• Shortage of suitably qualified Australian engineers and

scientists• Significant water demand for cooling (but can use dry

cooling – ie fan cooled radiators)• Risks with older reactors (eg TMI 1979, Chernobyl 1986,

and Fukushima 2011)• Australian public has valid concerns on:

– Safety of spent fuel disposal,– Weapons proliferation, and – NIMBY siting issues


Nuclear the good news (1)

• Vast Australian uranium resources (~40% world’s low cost supplies and growing)

• ANSTO Lucas Heights research reactor and nuclear medicine experience

• Technologies (mining, enrichment, reactors, spent fuel management and permanent disposal) internationally proven

• Australia strong in hard rock mining and minerals processing

• Australia geologically stable with vast regions of minimal population for safe waste disposal


Nuclear the good news (2)

• Nuclear well suited to base load generation - capacity factors typically >90% - used for ~14% of world’s electricity generation

• LCOE ~ 95-105$/MWh - includes waste disposal and decommissioning costs

• Generation III and III+ reactors improved, safer• Generation IV reactors inherently safe - 60 times

energy recovery from uranium fuel • Worldwide RD&D program promises further gains• Strong Australian engineering capability• Small specific power footprint• Strong safety record cf alternatives• Emerging potential for thorium fuel


Cruas Meysse Nuclear Power Station, Montelimar, France – 4 X 900MW


Nuclear power – Generation III+


Nuclear fuel pellet energy equivalent to:

1t coal = 3bbls oil = 481m3 natural gas


Nuclear – spent fuel repository


Nuclear – is fusion the future?ITER - Cadarache, France


Geothermal the bad news

• Hot fractured rock (HFR) technology not yet fully proven

• Technology still very costly ~ 6,000-8,000$/kW - and yet to be commercialised

• Geothermal resources generally remote from grid and load centres, requiring substantial new transmission lines and hence transmission losses


Geothermal the good news

• Huge resource at 200-270°C (>1,000 years for Australia) at 3-5km depth in Central Australia

• Drilling technology well proven in oil industry• Generation technology (conversion of heat to

electricity) well proven• LCOE ~ 100-120$/MWh at plant site• Negligible carbon or other emissions• Very low water demand• Good use of real estate


Geothermal technologies


Hydrothe bad news

• High to very high capex depending on scheme ~ 3,000-10,000$/kW

• Can pose significant environmental issues• Dependent on reliable rainfall• Limited remaining Australian resource• Safety can be questionable (Siberia 2009 –

76 dead - huge losses)


Hydrothe good news

• Primary energy free

• Easy load following and meeting system peaks

• Can provide pumped storage for load levelling

• Can combine with irrigation and flood control

• Environmental and recreational benefits good

• Micro-hydro well suited to developing countries


Hydro power


Solar photovoltaics (PV)the bad news

• Technology still costly ~ 5,000-6,500$/kWp• LCOE high but falling ~ 210-135$/MWh • Capacity factor limited ~ 15-20% so unsuited to base

load demand (ie industry)• Power conditioning expensive and complex• Energy storage expensive, alternatively needs standby

(diesel, hydro or mains)• Materials (silicon, lead, etc) difficult to dispose of

sustainably• Poor use of real estate (unless rooftop) – although

under some ‘sheep may safely graze’


Solar photovoltaics (PV)the good news

• Free primary energy – the sun• Technology cost falling with advancing RD&D –

target ~ 1,000-2,000$/kWp• “Feed-in” tariffs helpful, but declining• Emerging technologies include thin film,

SLIVER, concentrating PV, tracking PV• Power conditioning and storage costs falling,

lives extending, efficiencies improving (world record 43%!), materials increasingly benign

• Negligible carbon or other emissions• Zero water demand


Photovoltaics (PV)technology options

• Flat plate crystalline Si modules (local and imported cells)– Conventional – efficiency 12-18%, reliable, expensive

• Thin film Si modules (UNSW Green cells)– State of the art – very expensive, efficiencies to 25%

• SLIVER cells (ANU Blakers cells)– State of the art – expensive, efficiencies >19% quoted

• Concentrating PV (Solar Systems cells)– 400+ suns concentration – well suited to tracking,

hence higher capacity factors (~25%)


PV application Wilpena Pound


PV ANU SLIVER technology


Solar thermal (STG)the bad news

• Technology still costly ~ 4,500-6,000$kWp)• Capacity factor limited ~ 20-25% so unsuited

to base load demand (ie industry) without heat or gas storage

• Energy storage expensive, alternatively needs standby (diesel, hydro or mains)


Solar thermal (STG)the good news

• Free primary energy – the sun• Technology costs falling with advancing RD&D

target ~ 1,500-2,500$kWp• SolarGas technology (CSIRO) promises storage

and improved capacity factors• Compact Linear Fresnel Reflectors show

promise for power station supplement• Materials well understood – disposal easy• Negligible carbon or other emissions• Zero water demand


Solar thermal (STG)CSIRO Newcastle ~ 1MWe module


Windthe bad news

• Technology still costly ~ 2,000- 4,000$/kWp• Capacity factor limited ~ 15-40% • Generation unrelated to system demand• Wind farms often remote from grid• Power conditioning expensive and complex• Energy storage expensive, alternatively needs standby

(pumped hydro, thermal spinning reserve or mains)• Not suited to base loads (ie industry)• Regarded by many as noisy and intrusive • Poor use of real estate – prime agricultural sites - cows

and sheep may safely graze, but not all birds!


Windthe good news

• Free primary energy – wind > 6m/s• Technology cost falling with advanced RD&D• Manufacturers established – target ($k2-4/kWp)• Feed-in tariffs increasingly accepted• Emerging technologies include larger units,

improved blades and composite materials give lower economic wind harvesting speeds

• Power conditioning and energy storage costs falling, lives extending, unit sizes growing

• Negligible carbon or other emissions• Zero water demand


Wind farms


Distributed generationthe good news

• Can be installed close to load (eg rooftop or basement)

• Uses locally available energy resources (sun, wind, biogas, biomass, micro hydro)

• Offers local natural gas cogeneration/trigeneration (ie power, heating and cooling) at high efficiency

• Minimises or avoids use of T&D assets and associated losses

• Least cost option for remote area power supplies• Very strong Australian capability!


Distributed generationthe bad news

• Specific energy costs ($/MWh) can be high• Complex (but not impossible) to connect

to main grid system• Raises ownership issues, although may

attract new ownership structures• Can create local distribution system

congestion, especially rooftop PV


Distributed generationcommon technologies

• Solar PV rooftop systems• Small wind turbines• Gas fired cogeneration/trigeneration• Micro hydro (developing countries)• Biogas (developing countries)• Etc, etc



• Pictures add


Energy storage

• Pumped storage already widely deployed• Future will be flow batteries and PHEVs• Provides for economic matching of

supply and demand through peak shaving and valley filling

• Critical for support of low capacity factor technologies (eg solar and wind)

• Adds to system energy security• Costs falling through focussed RD&D


500MWh energy storage system in USA


Let me conclude with some comparisons


Relative levelised costs ($/MWh) (Source: EPRI for UMPNER 2006)


Real estate km²/GWa(excluding transmission)

• Nuclear

• Coal• Gas• Solar

PV• Wind

• <1 (+ mine + repository)• <1 (+ mine + ash dam +

CCS) • <1 (+ gas field + pipeline +

CCS)• 400 (15-20% capacity factor)• 600 (20-40% capacity factor)


Fatality rates(Source UMPNER report - 2006)

Energy source

Accidents1969-2000

Direct fatalities

Fatalities rate/GW/a

Coal 1,221 25,107 0.876

Oil 397 20,283 0.436

Coal (excl China)

177 7,090 0.690

Natural gas 125 1978 0.093

Hydro 11 29,938 3.536

Hydro (excl Banquaio)

10 3,938 0.561

Nuclear 1 31 0.006


My generation portfolio guesses for Australia?

By 2020 (60GW)

Coal 65%

Gas 23%

Nuclear 0%

Geothermal 2%

Hydro 4%

Wind 4%

Solar <2%

By 2050 (100GW)

Coal 30%

Gas 25%

Nuclear 20%

Geothermal 10%

Hydro 3%

Wind 7%

Solar 5%

At 2010 (54GW)

Coal 76%

Gas 16%

Nuclear 0%

Geothermal 0%

Hydro 5%

Wind 2%

Solar <1%


What’s yours?

Thank-you for your kind attention!

engineers australia - northern rivers group - ballina - 8 sep 12 "australian power - where to...

Documents

coal power station

power prices

coal seam gas

shale gas

natural gas

gas cleanup

coal technologies

strong australian skillsgood