An article regarding the solar and pumped storage hydro scheme at the old Kidston goldmine.
It seems strange why Powerlink doen not simply want to use the corridor which was used for the Townsville to Kidston 132 KV line constructed in the 1980’s unless it is more economical to connect to the more recent 275 KV Townsville to Cairns line near Ingham rather than go all the way to Townsville.
It is also strange as to why the powerline appears to no longer exist as when it was being developed. it was proposed that it would be extended to Weipa, and FNQEB, now Ergon, had plans to extend it to Georgetown.
Finally, it is extremely disappointing to see the old Kidston battery has collapsed into a pile of rubbish as I am sure that it was a condition of their mining lease that Kidston Gold Mining Ltd would restore and preserve it.
It was in very good condition prior to KGM commencing operations and was either still in working order or close to it.
It appears as you note they have chosen a much shorter route to Mt Fox which provides a more direct connection to Cairns, while still able to support loads to the south. Doubtless Powerlink has a network design recommendation, commercial in confidence.
It’s disappointing heritage appears to have been neglected, although for ore processing there are now much more effective and efficient ways to recover metals.
It is possibly due to capacity. A 132kV line has around 1/4 capacity of a 275kV.
I also suspect that the pumped hydro is about reinforcing supply on the main grid (275kV) rather than a regional line (132kV). Placing the reinforcement on the 132kV may be like trying to push water uphill as the network is likely not designed for 132kV to 275kV at the upstream substation.
The State of WA is facing some big decisions due to it’s isolated grid. It’s approaching a tipping point where more solar PV generation on the grid may cause the grid to fail. The following ABC article covers numerous items of points for consumers.
Notably WA’s electricity assets are still state owned. IE no sensitivities to commercial vested interests.
Another is a solution with the state taking control of all rooftop solar generation, to reduce peak solar output where the grid cannot remain stable.
The discussion of a smart grid as opposed to the dumb grid now in place is part of the way forward.
Not canvassed though, is an East West long distance interconnect, to allow WA to export power to places less fortunate with Sunshine, and take advantage of the 2+ hour solar time difference. Those familiar with the colour of state and commonwealth governments might be able to answer that one.
P.S.
The Eastern States may soon face the same realities in a much more complex environment. Grid design and politically.
If the WA Government is serious about doing something other than boasting that they still own their electricity network, then they should introduce a solar battery scheme as other states have already done.
The thrust is what ever WA does next needs to be a Smart grid. That might also need the WA power authorities to be able to take control of residential batteries.
There are some better options canvassed in the news article. Mass battery storage is approximately half the cost of an installed residential package per kWh. Community batteries possibly part or fully owned by local residents is another way forward. A possible death knell for the retail industry and big generators if they were to loose control of their revenue stream?
As I have mentioned Micro and Mini grids do present potential. They can reduce the load on the traditional generation & grid transmission infrastructure by creating a more local pool that only infrequently needs the support of the larger grid. A further benefit is that it is a single point of draw when the larger infrastructure requires support.
Which is why producing electricity near to where it is used makes economic sense.
Solar panels on the roofs of factories, schools, office buildings, hospitals, homes, etc. All the lines are in place.
But network management systems do need to be upgraded for the 21st century.
The Virtual Power Plant in South Australia is already making a difference, and it is a long way from completion.
A new proposal to affect new installations and replacement inverters. It will allow remote control to cut off solar exports if the grid gets overwhelmed and unstable. On one hand it seems necessary, on the other it is damning on planners who have not.
I wouldn’t say the planners. The challenge with small scale solar is generation. Is highly variable and can change rapidly. An example is rapid change in cloud conditions through thermal warming. Clouds in some areas can form very quickly and the resulting solar PV generation falls by 80-90%. The reverse also applies where cloud can clear quickly as a fast moving trough moves through, with solar PV generation increasing by ~5 fold very quickly.
This is possibly okay when small scale solar is only a very minor generator in the pool, but as more households connect and the generation becomes a significant contributer, the impacts can be great.
What the high variability means is there needs to be excess generation into the grid through other sources to cover can rapid loss in generation through change in solar PV generation. This poses additional cost as additional redundancy is needed. There is no instantaneous generation sources which can cater for say 80% loss of PV generation. While network batteries could be used, they woukd be expensive as their utilisation would not overide the costs of their installation and operation.
When there is a rapid increase in solar PV generation, this creates havoc as well through overloads, voltage overruns etc.
I can see why AER/AEMO would want to control solar PV supply to the grid as it allows them to better manage supply and the network assets…reducing potential outages through ‘brown outs’ or protection being triggered to protect supply and network in cases of oversupply.
While individual solar PV may complain that there generation is cut from network, in reality it is no different to other generators on the network where generation is turned on or off by AEMO. Those who have an issue with this could experiment with a battery system (which currently are not overly reliable or cost effective) or even go off grid to maximise capture of their own solar PV generation for their own use at other times.
Planners csn plan for highly variable environments to ensure all generation can occur, what they can do is adjust the generation mix to maintain a stable network. Managing small PV generation is one effective way to do this, like is done with other connected generators.
Not if the planners recommended micro grids with local storage as part of the solution.
Of course this could lead to local communities having ownership of their local supplies.
If the current model of the AEMO is to support a future that is owned for the benefit of the large retailers/generators, why would you bother spending up to put PV or batteries on you property?
Centralised vs decentralised.
Do we really need to plan for a centralised system for residential usage?
Once this AEMO control becomes entrenched I can see them being influenced by the FF generators in order to maximise their profits, especially given Minister Taylor’s enthusiasm for non-renewable energy.
Large solar farm output is predictable for tens of minutes in advance with weather monitoring (and is currently being practised in some installations), and this can be accommodated in the grid. Small more widely dispersed household PV systems do not have the same rapidly changing outputs that solar farms in a single location do, changes are much more gradual.
AEMO boss Audrey was on TV saying how rapidly small PV systems are being installed, quoting the change over 10 years- which I think is more than enough time to get their act together and plan for the inevitable increase in household solar.
Local voltage issues are due to undersized cables and transformers, designed for centralised power generation and no feed-in.
AEMO needs to get their act together with the network owners and start installing community level storage- either battery or small pumped stored hydroelectricty systems in suitable locations, and there are tens of thousands of these across the country.
The time has long past for them to be complaining that things are changing too quickly!
I can see this leading to more people wanting to go off-grid and take control of their own energy systems.
No, the variation for microgrids would even be worse as the microgrid area would be subject to the same atmospheric conditions. The larger the network area, the lesser the likely variation magnitude as nearby areas with different atmospheric conditions could provide some buffering. Due to lack of support gdneration in a microgrid, they would be highly reliant on battery storage or gensets to buffer any effects…which comes at considerable cost.
The issue is with Australia having a highly urbanised population, large number of PVs are in a small area.
As someone new to domestic PV arrays it has opened my eyes to how variable the output can be and the difficulty it must present to network operators to smooth it out. The key must be in storage solutions and lower capacity fossil fuel or nuclear generation.
The Vanadium batteries look interesting, although the efficiency is not great they look intrinsically safer than other chemical storage means. I haven’t seen it but I expect the tanks could be built into the ground, say under parks and playing fields, in dense areas to create neighborhood storage.
Cutting grid power to the premises would stop the older type of inverter from working completely, effectively stopping all power from the grid to the home and all power from the inverter to the home. We have one of these types of inverter.
For a time there were some inverters that one or two power points built in to them that you could use at times when the grid power was not coming in. Would the remote control “switch off” switch them off too?
Modern hybrid inverters would keep supplying power to the building - unless this proposed “control to cut off” allows remote control of the hybrid’s local functions too!
I can think of all sorts of scenarios which make this desired remote control impractical. For example the inverter is on one leg of a three phase wired building (like ours) if the proposed remote control “switch off measure” would it switch off one or all three legs of the three phase power? Would the remote control to switch off an inverter also switch off the ability for the inverter to send power to the premise’s battery (if there is one) or to the community/suburb battery (if there is one, see posts on this ‘grid stabiliser’ in this topic )
The scenarios depend on what impractical encompasses. As you point out there are potentially extremely poor outcomes for the consumer, who remains captive to the supplier.
If done it would more likely use a demand response switch installed in or as an accessory to the PV inverter. There is an existing system in Qld, (other states?) that has been offered with incentives as part of new air conditioner installations. It causes the aircon to drop into a lower power mode. The same system and component could be configured to selectively reduce or shutdown the PV inverter AC output, or for a hybrid force the zero export mode. Each residence can retain an external power connection. In the instance of a full PV shutdown any household power would be supplied from the grid instead. $$$$
For as long as householders with PV systems are rewarded with a fair and reasonable value for feed in it might find consumer acceptance/tolerance. If the feed in tariff is reduced to a minimal value, how many would accept the supplier shutting down your ability to self consume?
Note:
Most recent PV inverters have optional add ons that enable zero feed in operation, or to restrict feed in to the network.
I have my own transformer which was first installed some 16 years ago and has been replaced altogether several times since, it has also been repaired a few times and needed the network blokes to replace its main fuses onto the high voltage line many times. It is not as though it has not had any inspections or work done during its life. The voltage at my house is usually close to 240v, hardly straying outside 238-242 at any time of day except when there are storms. I can only conclude that the Essential Energy (was Country Energy) policy is to keep it at 240v. The official voltage has been 230v for decades.
So what is the major culprit; too much solar feedin or bad network management that pays no attention to standards?
At least one way to read what they are saying: A network connection agreement must be lodged and approved by your electricity distributor before you have solar installed.
Why would Energex approve a solar PV system if it was going to cause voltage regulation issues, or worse, approve the feedin capacity used in the installers calculation of payback period.
Are one or both misleading, deceptive or worse outright dishonest when selling the product or approving the install?
