October 13th, 2024

Australian coal plant in 'extraordinary' survival experiment

Australia's coal-fired power industry is struggling with financial challenges and adapting to renewable energy, with analysts predicting a significant decline in coal generation over the next decade.

Read original articleLink Icon
ConcernOptimismSkepticism
Australian coal plant in 'extraordinary' survival experiment

Australia's coal-fired power industry is facing significant challenges as it adapts to the increasing dominance of renewable energy sources, particularly solar power. AGL's Bayswater power station recently achieved a notable milestone by successfully implementing a "two-shifting" operation, allowing it to turn off and on within a single day. This flexibility is crucial as coal plants traditionally operated continuously at full capacity. However, the industry is also grappling with financial difficulties, as exemplified by Delta's Vales Point coal plant, which has struggled to secure necessary bank financing due to environmental concerns. Delta's inability to obtain financial backing could lead to operational challenges, as it may not meet the Australian Energy Market Operator's requirements without a bank guarantee. Analysts suggest that while innovations like two-shifting may prolong the life of some coal plants, the overall outlook for coal-fired generation in Australia remains bleak, with expectations that it will decline significantly over the next decade. The financial pressures from banks and the push for decarbonization are likely to accelerate this transition away from coal.

- AGL's Bayswater power station successfully implemented a flexible operation model, allowing for on-and-off cycling within a day.

- Delta's Vales Point coal plant faces financial challenges due to a lack of bank support, impacting its operational viability.

- The rise of renewable energy is forcing coal plants to adapt or risk obsolescence.

- Analysts predict a significant decline in coal-fired generation in Australia over the next ten years.

- Financial institutions are increasingly reluctant to support fossil fuel projects without credible decarbonization plans.

AI: What people are saying
The comments reflect a range of opinions on the transition from coal-fired power to renewable energy in Australia.
  • Many commenters view the decline of coal as a positive step towards reducing carbon emissions, despite potential job losses.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of renewable energy sources and the need for effective energy storage solutions.
  • Some express skepticism about the trustworthiness of energy companies in managing the transition responsibly.
  • There are discussions about the technical challenges of operating aging coal plants under new conditions.
  • A few commenters advocate for nuclear power as a viable alternative to coal and a solution for baseload energy needs.
Link Icon 13 comments
By @alex_duf - about 4 hours
The 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.

By @radiowave - about 14 hours
My 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.)

By @mikewarot - 2 days
I 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.

By @passwordoops - 30 minutes
Every 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-...

2.https://www.worldometers.info/coal/australia-coal/

By @asdefghyk - about 1 hour
The 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."
By @joe_the_user - about 17 hours
It 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.

By @nothercastle - about 10 hours
It 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
By @bastawhiz - 3 days
I 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?
By @whatshisface - about 10 hours
Why isn't this transition happening in the United States - or is it?
By @worik - about 8 hours
> 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.

By @jojobas - about 11 hours
Surely 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?
By @rdevsrex - about 10 hours
I 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.