where is our electricity to come from?

[jimmyh1555]

So, now we are told that by 2050 no more petrol driven cars will be produced. So by, say 2060, all our trucks will be electric powered.
My question is "Where do our beloved leaders think all that extra required power to drive our vehicles will come from?"
Wind farms are pathetic.
Solar power much too expensive and as bad as wind.
Coal is banned

There is only ONE realistic power supply we can use.........NUCLEAR
France's main source of power is nuclear. UK, USA and many others have perfectly good nuclear power plants.
Australia? playing high and mighty and pretending not to worry. The only nuke power we have in Australia is in X ray machines!
Wake up Australia and get with it:P

[raymo]

I am totally confident that first diesel vehicles, and then petrol ones, will
in fact become redundant even sooner than you expect. Both electric and
fuel cell technology are going full steam[pun unintended] ahead, battery
life for vehicles is improving in leaps and bounds. The same goes for alternative power sources. I am not anti nuclear, but Australia has always
been one of the most conservative and head in the sand western
countries, and will most probably continue that way to the bitter end.
Wind farms are not pathetic, although they do have their downside, that being the rainshadow downwind of them, and the noise. There are a number of windfarms around the world that put out power comparable to our largest coal stations. I wouldn't call that pathetic.
New designs of solar power systems are being developed also. Because so many homes have solar panels some states now have surplus generating
capacity.raymo

[Steffen]

Well said.

It seems to me that the holy grail right now is efficient energy storage, i.e storing large amounts of electrical energy into small volumes of matter, to rival the energy density of fossil fuels. If we can figure this out (without quickly depleting some other limited resource in the process) we'll have virtually free energy forever.

I'm very excited about the improving viability of home electricity storage using batteries. We still need a technological breakthrough or three, then every home will be able to generate its own electricity, and enough for the family cars as well.

[Tropo-Bob]

We can all see this coming, and it would be an ideal result. However, the journey to this will be difficult. Which investors (including Governments) will want to build major power stations to last 30 to 50 years, when home- based technologies could make such power stations redundant within 10 years?

[el_draco]

The simple answer to this argument is:

We have been burning fossil fuels for a long time and the waste product is destroying our planet.
If we switch to nuclear, we largely eliminate the carbon emissions and replace them with nuclear waste.
Carbon can be sucked from the atmosphere over the short term, high level nuclear waste will be around for millenia

The long term solution for power is three fold.
1/ Stop bloody wasting it by treating it as a something you can piss away without consequence
2/ Only develop power sources that have no waste product
3/ Get innovative. The national grid system is obsolete. Most power can, and should, come from local, small scale, grids based on renewable mix with storage. The options for renewable energy are constantly growing, as are the storage choices. Base load can be supplied by renewable sources; one just has to look at the huge thermal systems being built NOW that melt sodium as examples.

IMHO opinion, nuclear may have a role if processes can be developed that do not generate wastes with half lives of millennia but, until then, we'ed just be contributing to the stockpile of hell that already exists around the world.

[xelasnave]

Is there a problem?

Alex

[gary]

Hi James,

If you are not trolling and really genuinely do want to know why
nuclear power is not looking like a good option at this point in time,
I would be happy to share what I know. :)

Your question is also unfortunately loaded with a couple of false
premises regarding solar being "much too expensive" and wind generation
being "pathetic", which again if you are not trolling and really are
genuinely interested, I can provide you with some recent power industry
figures which may come as a pleasant surprise.

In the last couple of days, I posted here (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=1342956)on IceInSpace on the state of
the nuclear power industry, but I will reproduce it here to save having
to click on the link.



As a further footnote to the above original post, as at this year
the French state-owned Électricité de France (EDF), which is the biggest
operator of nuclear power plants in Europe, is also in debt.

Meantime Areva, which is a French nuclear reactor design company,
has been making multi-billion Euro losses just about every year since 2011.

EDF are in the process of bailing them out by buying their reactor business.

And in Japan, Toshiba, which also has a giant nuclear engineering division
and who is also the parent company of Westinghouse Electric, is also
in financial trouble (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/14/editorials/toshibas-bid-survival/#.Wf5mkGcUlas)and there are concerns that it may not be able to
continue as a going concern.

As at March, Toshiba were looking at posting losses of around 1 Trillion
Yen owing to the losses in its nuclear power business and sadly were
going to have to sell their profitable core semiconductor business in order
to erase the debt and to help its financial standing.

On a personal note, I would be very sad to see Toshiba ever go under.


With regards wind and solar prices, you might be interested in reading
this post I also made in the last couple of days where I am quoting
Dr Alex Wonhas, Managing Director, Energy, Resources and Manufacturing
at Aureco here in Australia :-

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=1342890&postcount=28

Or if you prefer, you might like to read the original article from which
I took the quotes which appeared in last month's edition of "Energy
Source & Distribution" magazine :-
http://en.calameo.com/read/000373495bf3aeb336dc6/12



So in summary - this year has not been a good one for the nuclear power
industry to the point that many of those within it are themselves speculating
whether the industry has reached a turning point.

The good news however is that the cost of renewables has plummeted
globally make them some of the cheapest electricity sources available.

In your original post, you were citing the years 2050 and 2060.
That is still 32 and 42 years in the future which is a lot or time in terms
of the likely technological advancements that may take place between
now and then.

To remind ourselves how long 42 years is, in 1933 you have
King Kong holding onto Fay Wray and fighting off biplanes.
42 years later the jumbo jet has already been operational
for six years and the last men to walk on the Moon had lifted off from
it two years earlier.

So despite the urgency of reducing CO2 emissions now, a lot of
technological development can take place in that period of time
that we can only speculate about today.

By way of example, if you had a crystal ball and told me that in
the coming decades, intercontinental HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current)
submarine cables were connecting power grids across the world,
I wouldn't be surprised.

When you hear HVDC, think half a million or perhaps 1 million volts.

HVDC is already being deployed in places such as China and
Europe and provides the potential for grid stability and energy trading on
a global scale. Though the development of HVDC is nearly 50 years old,
advances in building large semiconductors make it possible
to transit power over very large distances with very little resistive
losses.

See for example ABB (ASEA Brown Boveri) document here for some light background (https://www02.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf/0/de0cf0a395732cdfc12575ee0048b3de/$file/HVDC+-+European+grid.pdf)

Using technology such as HVDC, if you look at the burgeoning market
for electricity in South East Asia and the sub-continent alone, there might
be an opportunity for Australia to become a net electricity
exporter. Perhaps wind turbines generating power in Bass Strait may
be earning income for the state of Tasmania by providing electricity
directly to Singapore, Bangkok and Taipei.

HVDC links also allow current flow in either direction, so if the
wind isn't blowing in some part of the country, then over continental
and intercontinental distances, chances are it will be blowing there
or a utility some vast distance away will have power to trade.

* Footnote. Westinghouse Electric built the first hydro-electric power plant in 1895 in Niagara Falls

* Footnote. One of the reasons solar cell power generation
has become so efficient and affordable is in part owing to major
contributions to the technology made starting in the early 1970's to
the present by an Australian who has been dubbed ""the father of photovoltaics" (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3228140.htm).


Best Regards

Gary Kopff
Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 39 years

[Visionary]

At this time, saying that you want to run a Grid, you know, an industrial Grid.... off renewables is similar to saying you want to run an industrial Grid off Fission Power renewables cannot of this time economically run an industrial sized power Grid without conventional power holding up the system. Renewables are dependent upon conventional power generation, conventional power generation isn't dependant upon alternative power generation. Without access to the National, Grid Adelaide would plunge into immediate darkness and lives would be lost. At some time in the future, this will change, at some time in the future renewables won't be dependant on Gov subsidies or handouts that cost the wider community dearly, renewables may even be able to power an industrial Grid without the support of more conventional power sources. Possibly, the key to sustainable Fission power generation will be developed, that, of course, will be the dawning of a new age, but that time is not with us yet.
Neither Fission (a long, long way off) nor renewables are economically viable. Renewables are viable only in isolated communities where less expensive alternatives are prohibitively expensive or Gov subsidies enable renewables.
If the Green's hadn't destroyed the Nuclear industry in the 70's & 80's our Carbon drenched world would be far cleaner. The only advances we have enjoyed in Fusion Power has been in Warships the new Ford Class of Aircraft Carrier develops enough power to light & power Canberra, yes even when the suns not shining (roughly 50% of time) and the winds not blowing completely reliable, transportable power for an entire City!
The energy "debate" continues to be distorted and there is a distinct whiff of "Trump is Hitler" about the "debate". My gripe is that energy is the province of science, energy shouldn't be the province of ideology or distortions occur, nor should energy be a "safe space". A wonderfully clear example of the deleterious effect of ideological distortion... the cheapest, most efficient power storage battery per unit of energy stored? A lead acid bank technology from the 1800's
Truth has been the first victim in the energy debate. Nuclear is in part an answer, a very good answer. If the Green's hadn't destroyed the development of Civilian Fusion Power generation then today would have been a better cleaner and much cooler world. Given that everyone who is an Icer' is interested in science, or even a citizen scientist it's beholden upon us to adhere to higher standards and dare I say, employ the scientific method when discussing power generation rather than attempting to do a preference deal.

[el_draco]

Thought we had been doing this since 1940's .... :question:



Gee... I thought 3 mile island, chernobyl and fukyoushima; a large number of leaks, lack of economic viability, subsidised fossil fuels and the mountain of toxic waste had something to do with it.... :question:



I'll have one of those :eyepop:



...He's probably chanelling that psycho... at the very least!!



... and yet our ideologically driven government has done everything in its power to support fossil fuels whilst destroying the renewables industry in this country... :screwy:




Gotta agree with you there. Ever heard of "Clean coal" Oxymoron if I ever heard of one :lol:



Refer to previous :rofl:




Couldn't agree with you more. Try it...:thumbsup:

[casstony]

There's no need to figure out all the answers before embarking on the path to sustainable power. Simply bring renewables/storage on line as quickly as possible and progressively retire coal fired generators after the new tech is in place and working.

[Visionary]

Yes! Whilst recognizing it an expensive process

[raymo]

Regarding Gary's references to possible international transmission of power,
the U.K. and mainland Europe have their peak demand periods at different times, so Europe exports power to the U.k. to help cover their peak, and
later in the evening it is reversed to help cover Europe's peak.
If solar became huge around the world, places where it is daytime could
export to night time countries, thus avoiding the main drawback to solar.
raymo

[Shiraz]

There's no need to figure out all the answers before embarking on the path to sustainable power. Simply bring renewables/storage on line as quickly as possible and progressively retire coal fired generators after the new tech is in place and working.
__________________
Tony

Waiting only works if the thermal generators will hang together long enough Tony - but many are already nearly stuffed. In fact one of the power crises in SA (widely blamed on renewables of course) was due to a major failure in our major (50 year old) gas fired plant.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/sa-urged-to-conserve-electricity-as-power-units-goes-offline/8323354. AGL has indicated that the Torrens Island system in SA is in danger of "crapping out". http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-07/agl-announces-new-sa-power-station/8596016

Our old power generators are going to go out of business well before renewable technology is fully matured.

As Gary points out, nuclear doesn't make sense for a whole lot of reasons (just the lead time rules it out for the current Australian crisis). New coal generators are not favoured by power companies or banks, because they will become stranded assets in the fairly near future. A rapid ramping up of investment in renewables plus quick reaction gas looks to me to be the only solution that makes any long term sense at all, despite the current shortcomings of some renewables.

[gary]

Hi Raymo,

Thanks for the post.

It is a concept that is being actively studied by engineering professionals
at the moment.

For example, as I recently reported elsewhere in IceInSpace, the U.S.
Department of Energy have been leading an international team in
performing simulations of HVDC links interconnecting North America
and Europe.

We already move power over continents. So just as we went from the
era of the first telegraph line under the Atlantic Ocean to the Internet today,
some of the big power distribution design companies and individual
electrical engineers are proposing a global power grid.

See https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/lets-build-a-global-power-grid

Particularly when you look at interconnecting sites with vastly different
time zones, you could circumvent the day-night cycle for solar.

China and Europe are both moving rapidly with HVDC deployment.

I would like to think most of us engineers are cup half full type of people.

Where many of the lay public view the current crossroads the world
is at with regards power generation with anxiety, engineers tend
to be more stoic and look at it as a potential opportunity.

Whereas it has been self-evident to all that Australia is lucky in that it
is a continent with a vast area lending itself to making solar and wind
generation easier than in some other countries, I don't think most of the
lay public have become aware yet of the potential export opportunities
there could be if you were to combine vast renewable generation with HVDC.

We understand how countries like Saudi Arabia became wealthy exporting
oil out of a place that is essentially just a big desert, yet you could
pull off a similar trick by just pushing electrons through submarine
cables to other parts of the world.

And HVDC might prove to be a win-win technology in that it helps
improve power grid stability when you have a large mix of renewables,
plus it helps contribute to reducing CO2 emissions plus it could
provide an export revenue stream for net producers of power.

HVDC is still a relatively expensive technology but the costs are coming down
and as I noted above with the types of research going on, the learning
curve is going up.

As noted in this Jan 14th 2017 article in "The Economist", entitled
"China’s embrace of a new electricity-transmission technology holds
lessons for others", we could do worse than learn from their experience
as they deploy vast amounts of HVDC/UHVDC.

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21714350-case-high-voltage-direct-current-connectors-chinas-embrace-new

If the financials add up, as a cup half full kind of guy, I'd rather see
Australian solar and wind powering, say, Singapore, rather than China
turning out smarter and beating us to the punch.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Gary

Agreed, but engineers normally get kicked aside once its designed and running, ( ie once the risk is removed ).
Just imagine the "political" bunfight over who will run it and when.
It will make Brussels and the EU look like kindergarten.
You only have to look at the internet now.
It was designed to be an "open" means of communication, but now its up and running, if a pollie cracks the sads, they block it according to their designs, or someone like farcebook corners one section and then imposes their will ( like a gated community )
Its true that engineers just want to make it run, and probably will, but lots of grubs in politics and business will then decide that it needs to be "controlled for national security" and start their own little fiefdoms again.
Human history repeatedly shows this will happen, because as a species, we dont seem to learn.

Andrew

[Visionary]

Good grief, so much of this thread is pie in the sky, wishes were fishes. Powering a city is something that has to be done today, we can't wait until tomorrow to power our cities, in cities people die if there is insufficient power.
I find it interesting that amongst all the talk of lossless transmission of Gigawatts of power yet there was zero discussion on the fact that the cheapest way we have to store electrical power are lead-acid batteries, tech from the 1800's
I could quite as easily talk the virtues of Fusion, but, the technology does not exist. One day Fusion Power may become commonplace but not today. We use power today, we do not power our devices today using tomorrows power. The Power Pixies may believe they can rewrite the laws of thermodynamics & relativity, however, it won't make power flow through the wall socket. It's pointless talking about how good it would be to use lossless or near lossless power transmission if you cant do it!
To merely make the utterance Solar, renewable does not make you a harbinger of the future, it does not position anyone the leading edge of tech, its mere words. Words do not make an energy efficient light bulb glow, electrons flowing down a wire illuminate an energy efficient light bulb.
The overwhelming majority of renewables pundits convey the impression that talking about something aka renewables is somehow virtuous and leading edge, its just talk. We have cities to power, less advantaged to assist, educations to fund etc: washing this all down the drain so that latte-sipping neophytes can feel good about the Middle-Class welfare of Solar Subsidies is enough to make a reasonable person gag.

[gary]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the post.

I know exactly what you mean.

There are a couple of aspects to it.

The first is that engineering, like any profession, likes to try and obey the discipline of remaining professional.

Having said that, it is a bit of a sweeping statement and not always true. :)

But I think we can agree that in order for any profession to advance
itself, there are general unwritten rules of conduct.

By way of anecdote, there was a international IEEE conference
here in Sydney a few years back.

A politician was invited to give the opening address. Many of those
attending reported that the politician described to them one of the engineers
attending the conference, an individual who was a Professor at a major
Australian University and who had published widely in the area and who
had extensive industry experience - as "innumerate".

There was much tongue biting.

Many within the profession have been calling for some time for engineers
to step up to the plate more in helping to educate the public.

The second aspect is with respect the power grid itself.

When engineers designed power grids initially, their primary goal
was reliability.

Then someone figured you could make money out of grids by trading
power. This was sometimes at odds with the initial design goals
and it probably reached a head with the Enron scandal in the US
where Enron orchestrated an energy shortage in California by market
manipulation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

[Visionary]

I don't have to comment on your post, simply reposting it makes my point

Cheers

[OICURMT]

A couple of observations here... (std disclaimer, I'm a Petroleum engineer, but with a “Green-ish” twist)...

1) Petrol will probably be phased out before diesel. The main paradigm for diesel is that most heavy transports rely on a more concentrated energy source (i.e. more “instantaneous” horsepower) and while electric is certainly a viable option; the problem is that the horsepower to torque relationship is not ideal for either the transport industry or for the resource industry. It may argued that a transport vehicle is better served by an electric motor as the torque requirements are not important, but this is only the case where the geography is relatively flat.

I would imagine that in a greener world, heavy prime movers would be powered via LNG, as this is pure methane. Combustion would release only H2O and CO2, with no SoX or NoX. In the US, LNG is starting to take off as a viable alternative to diesel. The greatest advantage of LNG is that is not combustible in its liquid form and if spilled will only ignite as a ground fire.

Petroleum on the other hand has a direct competitor in the new paradigm, electric cars (thank you Elon)… Momentum that is gathering here seems to me to be unstoppable. The only flaw in the design is distance. The Tesla Model S can travel 335 miles on a single charge. GREAT!, but it takes 9 hours to charge it for the next 335 miles. I drive a mid-size pickup, BIG-V8, 22 gallon tank, 440 mile range, tops up in 2 minutes… while I understand that the younger generation would LOVE to have time to cruise the web on their phone, I think even they would start to get annoyed at a 9 hour waiting time versus my two minutes…

2) The demise of petrol… I’ve been in the Petroleum Industry for 37 years and I can tell you that I welcome the transition into an alternative fuel source that is more environmentally friendly. Petroleum has transformed the world, no question, but even though the energy concentrated per mole of hydrocarbon is greater than can be achieve by either batteries or fuel cells, I can envision a day where technology can better utilize mid to heavy hydrocarbons in a better way via reforming or synthesizing materials that can symbiotically be used in everyday life rather than using it to “push” us around the globe. Exotic polymers come to mind...

3) Battery life… this is the main problem. From a safety point of view, ANY hydrocarbon is probably safer than the current generation of fuel cells or batteries. Energy concentration is the name of the game and hydrocarbons have the upper hand. Hydrocarbon powered vehicles rarely explode(as a whole, not talking about the ICE) and while there has been no major incident of a catastrophic failure of a fuel cell or battery, when it happens it will set the industry back.

4) Nuclear… I’m pro-nuclear, fusion that is. I think fission has a good place in an ever evolving world and the French seem to have “mastered” it for the time being… my hope and desires are that fusion is figured out and that petroleum is relegated to the production of plastic, polymers and the like.

5) Alternative energy sources… I’m not a fan of using wind-farms as a viable long-term solution to the energy problems of the world. It is very niche in my opinion (read: peaking shaving if the conditions are right). Combined with batteries (ala Musk and South Australia) I think it’s “almost” viable in the long-term. I am a fan of sea power however and believe that the Moon has given us a gift by her presence. Tides I believe can be a reliable source of energy and we should concentrate our efforts on creating exotic metals that are anticorrosive to build power stations under the ocean.

6) Coal – what a topic… in my opinion, the only future for coal is gasification or synthesis… period. I know that there a lot of climate change deniers out there and I respect your point of view. My view is that the science is over and the only thing left is the debate over how much of the change is anthropogenic. We can disagree forever, so I feel that in the end it is pointless to argue any more… it would better to agree that if we can take coal and make it better by making it more environmentally friendly and creating more value (i.e. profit) for the owners then fine… let’s do it.

7) Solar panels.. My firm belief is that if you are fortunate enough to be in the greatest solar country in the world (Australia) and you don’t have solar installed, then you deserve to be gouged by the electric companies…

With respect to timing of all this… the US is already transitioning diesel to LNG. T. Boone Pickens has started the trend here in the US, but the change has been hard fought because of the shale revolution… I paid $2.25/gal today for gas (petrol), US$0.62/L or A$0.80/L… eliminating such a cheap source of energy is going to be difficult at best. It’s the revolution that is driving this. Natural gas prices are US $3/GJ (AUD $3.90/GJ), shale gas/oil in action (thanks to hydraulic fracturing). It costs me very little to keep my lights on and the house warm. In contrast, my home in Adelaide cost quite a bit (as in several times more). Electricity is AUD $.10/kwh in Wyoming, thanks again to 1) cheap coal and 2) cheap natural gas. If Australia goes the same way, then it’s be a while before hydrocarbons are supplanted, save the green’s push for control.

In Australia, the revolution is nearing. The only difference is that frac’ing (not fracking ffs…) is being challenged much more than it is here in America. If the ability to stimulate wells progresses unhindered, then Australia will see new industries spring up in the NT, where most of the potentially prolific shales exist. This will allow Australia to meet local demand at a much lower unit cost.

The shale oil revolution in America has “fueled” the ability to distill kerosene, jet fuel and diesel rather than import it. Australia imports 25 gigaliters of these products per year… at $1 wholesale, you do the math… if you can’t, it’s $2,500,000,000,000 per year… if Australia follows global trends (the US started it, but others are following) when there will be a significant delay in the uptake of alternative energy source for transportation.

Comments are always welcome; I’d love to hear other points of view. In some ways I hope I’m wrong. Humanity and history have indicated to me that the majority is selfish and evolution is more likely rather than revolution. Media concentrates on the latter, but the former is the “status quo”…

OIC!

[el_draco]

I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between fusion and fission.... :rolleyes:

[AndrewJ]

Gday Gary

As an engineer myself, i absolutely agree, but the current trend is the products of scientific research gets converted to reality by engineers / technicians / tradesmen, but then "others" take it over for whatever gain they can get, and they have no concept of "conduct".
They also dont like to pass any credit down the chain for things that work :confuse3:. ( Most must have read Sun Tzu at some stage )
Just look at the current Chinese push for the "one road", whilst at the same time, effectively buying the allegiances of large chunks of the Pacific and Africa.
When a "democratic vote" on how to use this new world DC network comes around, who do you think will be in control???????

Andrew
( getting more cynical as i age :D )

[Visionary]

[QUOTE=el_draco;1343199]I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between fusion and fission.... :rolleyes:[/QUO

Your extraordinary arrogance in assuming anyone on this forum is unaware of the distinction between fusion and fission is breathtaking placing your hero call, fusion, fission at the bottom of the sandpit.

[raymo]

One of the hidden factors within the energy situation we find ourselves in
is that as the saying goes, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". All forms
of electricity generation currently utilised have a cost, whether it be
pollution of one sort or another, or a physical cost, such as the huge
rainshadows downwind of windfarms. Ocean [wave or tidal] derived power
systems are not exempt from this. The French tidal station that has been operating for many years has caused a minute but measurable slowing of the Earth's rotation, and it is only a modest sized station. I imagine the effect would be far greater if we had myriads of large stations around the globe.
I have to disagree regarding diesel outlasting petrol. Several large cities
around the world have already announced plans to ban all diesels by a
certain date, amongst them, Paris, Athens, and Mexico City. Even the latest hi-tech diesels can often be seen emitting a fine light brown haze of filth
when accelerating. Also ZF now produce modular electric drive systems
that can be made to fit virtually any existing bus [and soon, truck] chassis,
and can be retrofitted to existing diesel or petrol vehicles. I can't remember
it's name. but the biggest selling light truck in Europe is now available in an electric version, and is already outselling the diesel version.
It's all happening.
raymo

[raymo]

Given that this forum serves the mostly amateur participation in a
science that includes nuclear fission and fusion, I would imagine that
most of it's members would know the difference.
raymo

[Visionary]

You have no conception how difficult it is for me to write, though I am legally blind I refuse to use speech to text. Writing even the dross I am penning now isn't easy and if from time to time I make an error I have learned to forgive myself, for the alternative is grim.
Your assumption that anyone on this thread would be unaware of the distinction between fusion and fission does indeed make you look & sound foolish.

[raymo]

I am truly sorry that you are legally blind, and can only guess at how
difficult it must be for you to write, but that makes no difference to my
statement that I imagined that most[not all] members would know the difference. Most[ not all]members[ except perhaps some newbies] are active in, and/or at least reasonably knowledgeable about, one or more of the following, Astronomy/Cosmology/Quantum Physics, all of which involve
knowing about both fission and fusion.
raymo

[Visionary]

Raymo, we are at crossed purpose... in my garbled fashion I was trying to say..... "most Icers' are aware of the distinction between fusion & fission" I was not saying.... "most Icers' are unaware of the distinction between fusion & fission"
I will check and amend my post.
Cheers

[xelasnave]

Solar and wind, indeed any energy not being used pumps water up for hydro.
Replace city cars with electric mobility chairs, supply goods via internet connection and regional 3d printer.
It will be interesting as the world fills with more cars boats planes snowmobiles motor bikes 4wds race cars...

[xelasnave]

I would be working on building massive co2 extractors.

[xelasnave]

I think nuclear folk over look the high cost of their power.
Perhaps they overlook the high cost of accidents...there will always be accidents ... that's why they are called accidents.
The Russians will be in the big shed business for a long time ..
It is unbelievable its is used at all.
Get rid of coal oil and yellow cake get solar panels and a horse.
Alex

[astroron]

If Australian governments could get away from their bloody big hole in the ground mentality (coal,gas etc) and back investment in renewable sources,
instead of fighting against them and withdrawing investment subsidies, Australia would be so much better placed for the future,re cost of power climate change.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[jimmyh1555]

Oh dear, it was I who started this thing off:(
I was not "trolling". I am very concerned that all our cars seem to get bigger and fancier. I used to own an 848cc Mini. It would propel 4 of us at 70mph no problem. Why do we all seem to need gas guzzling monsters to drive around in.
Second point, if the planning authorities made us put solar panels on every new home, then before long we would not need power stations.
If gallon of petrol takes us say 40 miles (sorry, too hard to convert to metric), how many solar panels would we need to charge up the 4 litre 4WD with one driver, to go the same distance.
How many cars are there in the world, and how many solar panels or gallons of petrol would we need to power them?
Your answer, Xelasnave, is correct.......back to horses:P

[acropolite]

Nuclear power is unpalatable, there is no way any nuclear facility can be guaranteed safe and accident free.

The economic costs of the Chernobyl and Fukishima accidents are staggering. The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe exposed some 10 million people to nuclear radiation in the surrounding countries, estimated costs of roughly $235 billion over the past 30 years and ongoing costs per year, the cost of the latest containment building alone is 1.5 Billion Euros. Some reading on costs and ongoing losses from that event.

http://chernobyl.undp.org/russian/docs/belarus_23_anniversary.pdf

It's also been quoted that some areas won't be suitable for habitation for 20,000 years, given that the current "confinement" building has a design life of 100 years costs will continue to accumulate in to the future.

Figures vary on the Fukishima cleanup one source quotes the estimated cost of the Fukishima cleanup at 250 Billion (presumably $US) with a further 60 Billion compensation. Given the Japanese propensity to conceal the reality, I'd be surprised if the final figure isn't many times greater than that.

Equipment failures are inevitable, natural disasters, however slim the chances, are unavoidable, toss in the possibility of terrorist and military conflict and operator error and you have a recipe for disaster.

Google accidents at Lucas Heights, even our own facility has a poor safety record.

We haven't even mentioned waste storage issues.

[Visionary]

Jimmy, the reason why your post has elicited such response is that we live in a wholly secular age. In the place of garden variety religion, renewables, green politics have become the "new opiate". There always is an opiate, its now renewables. Inadvertently you have made a "heretical" statement hence the outpouring of high dudgeon.
The outrage we have seen highlights my reasonable concerns that science is now viewed via a window of belief. As a community of citizen scientists, we really should hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's a nonsense that renewables are cheap, renewables are only cheap when electricity is very, very expensive. Musk has sold a number of his battery packs to Island communities, communities where the alternative to renewables is very expensive, shipped, transhipped, landed diesel, then finally burnt diesel. Obviously, dumping Gov money onto renewables can also make renewables "inexpensive".
Australia is one of the World's largest exporters of energy, yet we have the most expensive electricity in the developed world, the very obvious "elephant in the room" is how can this conjunction hold? Where have we gone wrong? The answer is there if one, you cast aside your own political basis and recognize that we have been without sound governance for generations, culminating in the ineptitude of the Rudd Gillard fiasco, a Gov that' significantly responsible for our atrocious energy position & telecommunications "bewilderment". I can't see any way out of our current political mess, somehow we seem to have found ourselves at sea with Gilligan's Captian at the helm.
In terms of what we can do.... follow the maths, don't quote from sources that seek to distort the math, hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard one step above the political malaise that has created the mess we are in, you know, balance the equation.
Whenever religion intrudes into science the outcome is appalling. Let stay on guard and remember though we may love renewables, simply uttering the word "renewables" does not make for well-founded science.
Until such time that we have the next generation, or indeed the 2nd iteration of the next generation of batteries good luck driving to Melbourne in your brand new Mercedes in 2035!

[casstony]

If needed, current coal fired stations can have their lives extended by re-tubing the boilers, putting new blades in the turbines, etc. Such life extension work was carried out at Hazelwood when I worked there and even Hazelwood was shut down long before it needed to.

[astroron]

I have only one thing to say about this post, and it is this,
Coal has been subsidized in this country for decades and is still being subsidized,AKA Turdbull wanting to give ADANI one billion Australian dollars,
The Queensland government building free ports and railway lines etc.
We should invest in renewable power as in the longer term it will pay for it's self in spades.
One doesn't get anything for nothing,there is always a cost even if the original source is free.

Cheers:thumbsup:

[Visionary]

Ron, you sort of illustrate my point.

[xelasnave]

I dont understand why it is Australians who must give up coal, given others will not.

25 million of us, the population of some cities in the world and yet somehow it is us who must give up coal. AND than to think we can influence others is silly.

We are shamed to feel guilty being told we are the highest per capita energy users in the world...so what ...someone twisting figures to promote their adgendah....

And the nuclear mob how they are always there to promote their clean energy ... of course its not about the money they just want to help.
How can you put coal and yellow cake in the same box... coal aint so good but one only have to look at what nuclear has cost millions of people and even now its poisen still leaks into our world via the ruins of various damaged palnts... and yet the NP mob still front up as an answer...I can understand that if you are heavily invested in something you have to promote it be it good or bad.

And give up cola before we introduct various efficiencies that would reduce our consumption...try solar hot water for everyone and turning off half the lights in the middle of the night...perhaps ban private vehicles in cities unless carrying full capacity of passengers ... only let electric cars into the city... I am sure just by undertaking an efficiency drive our consumption would reduce. Any effort would make the call for getting rid of coal seem meaningful.

And even if Australia could boast nil energy consumption do you think the rest of the world would notice? Folk who cry for rejection of coal in Australia seem to think our influence and contribution is meaningful when in fact we are 25 million in a world of 7 billion.

If you care make sure you have a solar hot water service and address how much energy you use and how much is really needed. You not the rest of the world...

And our cars, and our love of all things racing...its is a joke.

Why does every mother need a four wheel drive?

Ban car racing ... does anyone ever think about the carbon foot print there?
The fuel, the rubber the energy consumed getting from track to track. Oh of course they are conscience of carbon foot print and use ethanol...yes problem solved..er the mob will buy that.

So let the racing and big cars continue and close down coal...

Think about it..Australai gets rid of all its coal power stations, continues to let over powered cars and overkill as to car size remain and will still sell coal to anyone who will buy... folk need to step back and think what it is that they want to achieve...save the planet? forget it....if the use of coal and oil will see us out of the place then that is our future.

And when you get excited and driven to reply and say I am crazy would you please open with an introduction setting out all the things you do personally that reflects concern via personal choices.

It will not change.

Look at the photo I posted above...a 50 lane freeway traffic jam in China.

And to all those who say we must do something I say yes ..yes we should do something and an audit of your persoanl consumption and habits would be a great place to start...

Wring your hands all you like but the world is in a strange place, more and more want well more and more... The system, market economy, will supply more and more.
Do you think for a moment the power company is going to offer consumers tips on how to reduce consumption. WIll the car manufacturer boast that this year they reduced their engine capacities by half.

We wont run out of electricity in a market economy because there is a huge market for energy and someone will always be there to supply it... Whilst money controls the world I doubt if there will be a problem until the whole thing goes down the tube..

alex.





alex

Seriously will any action we take influence the rest of the world.

[N1]

I think that new "opiate" is a perceived "need to improve", or rather its temporary satisfaction. It manifests itself in bigger/fancier housing, bigger/fancier cars, bigger/fancier whatever and a generally more wasteful lifestyle with satisfaction cycles becoming shorter and shorter. It's a disorder that comes in many flavours. Some more damaging, some less. Most forms demand more resources, and renewables promise to deliver those with less weight on one's conscience. That's where they fit in, not a an "opiate" in their own right. Making petrol/diesel engines more efficient falls in the same category. And in both we try to extract benefits from it faster than they can be delivered, and without even considering keeping things as they are but with less strain on resources. 'Cause, you know, we gotta see/feel an improvement personally or it didn't happen, right?



Absolutely, but statements like this ain't it



You are ignoring at least two elements here, time and externalised cost.

On the latter:



Correct. And the same can be done by making someone else (cheap labour) or something else (the environment) pay for the difference between what your cheap fuel/power/clothes etc cost and what they should cost.



Really? (https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/worldwide-electricity-prices-how-does-australia-compare/)

Dunno, those 20 countries with higher rates don't look 3rd world to me.



:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[casstony]

I feel you contradict yourself a little Alex.

If it's good for an individual to limit their impact on the environment, doesn't it follow that it's good for Australia (or any other collection of individuals) to do the same? In any case much of the world is making efforts to move away from fossil fuels. The US has a ning-nong in charge at the moment but it won't always be that way.

I've got solar panels and I shift as much power use as possible to sunny periods. I look forward to installing battery storage when the price drops more and eventually owning an electric car charged from our own panels.

Edit: I also bought a small generator for this summer because Hazelwood was shut down a few years too early.

[lazjen]

I've heard there's these things called "trees" or "plants" that can be deployed on a massive scale to extract CO2... ;)

[AussieTrooper]

We are rapidly heading this way. Melbourne's rail system is the same size as it was in 1920, and we are about to widen the West Gate freeway to 12 lanes. It is madness. We do not learn from the mistakes of other cities.

[AussieTrooper]

This kind of thing is a very real scenario. If we hadn't just thrown our auto industry in the toilet, I'd be a phased in ban on imports of all fossil fuel vehicles, with exceptions only for remote areas.
Our reliance on imported oil is suicidal. We now don't even have the capacity to refine enough oil on shore. A problem with shipping from Singapore and we are screwed.
Electric vehicles however could be built here and powered by electricity made here. It's a national security issue as much as an environmental one.

[Visionary]

N1 Mirco, you need to update your sources

http://www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a

According to the Fin Review, as of 2017 Australians pay the highest power prices in the world

Cheers

[N1]

I don't have a subscription but I'll take your word for it. So, with Australia not the world leader in renewables (yet), this means a number of countries have a higher percentage of power generation from renewables AND cheaper electricity prices than Australia. :question:

[N1]

Nah, they'll never catch on :lol:

[clive milne]

Yep... seeing as we are one of the slowest countries to adopt renewable energy technology and our energy costs are the highest in the world, it then follows that we should build more coal fired power stations... it makes perfect sense.

Incidentally, In 2016, Sweden obtained 57 per cent of its power from renewables. Sweden's power price is about middle of the road compared to the rest of the EU. Built in to that price is a heavy tax component.

Denmark:
Wind energy accounts for more than five per cent of the nation’s exports. In addition, Denmark’s biggest energy company Danish Oil and Natural Gas has just announced it will abandon fossil fuels entirely by 2023 and focus on renewables.

[xelasnave]

Hi Tony
To say that I contradict myself simply can not be correct for it would imply that somehow I am wrong...of course that could not be so:D.

I understand your point and it is wonderful that some folk are keen to do the right thing but I dont see the point whilst the greedy simply do not care...as a nation I hope we could provide the example for others to follow but I can not see anyone in the USA, for example, getting rid of their huge capacity V8 or a certain manufacturere in Italy building 1500 cc v12 sport cars.

And all the while our culture via Hollywood etc tells us that sucess is a garage of cars built to top out at 300 klms per hour.

And at the moment the mugs carry the dream ... sucess is an entitilement to sheer gloutony via huge houses, multiple huge houses, huge cars, multiple huge cars huge boats etc...

Look at our mate Al Gore the guy who offerred to educate folk on a very real problem and yet what do we learn...he lives in a house that is both wasteful and set up to indulge greedy consumption drives a v 12 car, and stands in wait for legislation to go his way so as to personally profit.

Tony I simply suggest that until at a personal level our values adjust to embrace conservative and rational consumption there is not much that can be done.

All I see will happen as the planet warms uncomfortably will be after market suppliers offerring bigger car radiators so you can still run your V8 or V 12 or W16 in a hotter climate.

At a personal level I do all I can to not be a glutton...I drive a 1200 cc car and buy stuff on the basis of need not greed...although astronomy comes down to a little of greed I guess even making scopes takes energy ...still better than spending money on race cars that do nothing other than help dilute the testosterone build up in those who think they will be noticed if they race a car etc....and I have been there, raced bikes and in reflection how silly and unproductive... to be faster than another ...who cares...

We are on such a wonderful planet and yet there are those who dont appreciate that fact and do not care that we stand is a place where we could destroy the place...

And I will not let this post go by with out another dig at nuclear....

The care in looking after the current disasters is costly and all take it for granted that there will always be humans around who are capable of looking after the mess.

I see no reason why we could not be overtaken by another period of dark ages where the high tech folk of the world are no more... what happens then? Can you imagine say if Rome had NP and what would happen when their rule died.

At the moment our culture presents stupid as the goal to achieve...
Our stars (sporting or whatever) show that glutonous consumption is the aspiration that we have to follow.

ANd Tony it is great to hear that you do things that are worthwhile and forward thinking.

All one can do is provide those around you with an example of good and smart and hope that what you do right will be seen as wonderful rather than crazy.


alex

[xelasnave]

I now have 300 acres of trees.

alex

[xelasnave]

And on the subject of trees...even the enterprize of growing trees was horribly corrupted by the global warming thing...plantations put in merely to take advantage of tax benefits which now are being killed off and taken back to pasture... it is sad to see a plane fly over and over a forrest with the only purpose to kill all the trees.

alex

[Visionary]

Clive, DONG (Danish Oil & Natural Gas) is a State-owned company, their utterances regard renewables reflect the desires of Politicians (reelection) rather than anything to do with the business of energy generation, in which they are clearly not interested.
The only reason our bills aren't even higher is that we still have some conventional Power Stations, the ones that produced electricity 24/7 365 days a year and produce power without the need for subsidies, incentives, "schemes" etc:
Danish Oil & Natural Gas acronym DONG tells you much about the company.... they are a bunch of DONG's, with as much business acumen as a hat full of EU Fat Cats on Bussell's bound junket.

[Shiraz]

for interest, this paper provides a really clear picture of what is currently going on. No politics that I can see - just lots of facts.
https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/AER%20State%20of%20the%20energy%20m arket%202017%20-%20A4.pdf

[clive milne]

David, your description of Danish Oil & Natural Gas is pejorative and unsubstantiated. That reduces your argument to ad-hominem.

Your willingness to employ such tactics whilst avoiding facts such as Sweden having 4 times the deployment of renewables compared to Australia, yet has lower energy prices.... is telling.

Why is it that your poor old dear suffers chill blanes in one of the warmest and most heavily fossil fuel dependent countries in the developed world ... you put it down to a few wind turbines in SA and those commie, socialist, lefty grumpkins under the bed... yet arguably one of the most left wing, socially equitable societies living on the edge of arctic circle manages to keep everyone warm... whilst relying on base load renewable energy ... and does it cheaper than we can?

Say it aint so?

[astroron]

There you go again,saying the fossil fuel industry doesn't get Subsidies.
That is just BS as we all know,except you it seems.
The coal companies get Massive tax breaks,with some of them not paying tax for years, and with write downs etc in fact are owed money by the tax payer.

[Allan_L]

Just saying...
I worked as financial accountant for a coal fired power station for 21 years.
Not only did we not get any subsidies or handouts from the government, we annually paid hundreds of millions of dollars to that government in taxes and dividends.
and that was when the prices to the consumer were about a third of what mine are now.
Of course, that all changed when the government decided to sell the industry to private enterprise, so as to increase competition and reduce prices. What a joke.

but still, this does not address the issue of renewables or CO2 emissions.

But I am watching SA solar/battery solution with interest.

[gary]

Hi Allan,

Thanks for the post.

Unlike Swiss-based Glencore it seems, Australia's biggest coal miner,
who is caught up today in the Paradise Papers leak.

ABC's 4-Corners tonight is apparently running an exposé on global tax havens.



Story here :-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-06/ato-investigating-multinationals-amid-paradise-papers-leak/9075642

and here :-


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/glencore-australian-arm-moved-billions-through-bermuda

[Visionary]

In the end, facts have a way of wiggling out and revealing themselves. Cheers!

[xelasnave]

Near 25 billion turn over and our govt could only get their hands on 55 million is shameful.

I hope it is this sort of thing that occupies headlines in the future rather than the dual citizen ship stuff which should be an admin problem deal with by public servnts leaving the polies to address important matters like who may not be paying their fair share.

We get how much..close them down

alex

[raymo]

I'm not so sure about that, David. It's not the end user of the products [coal,
iron ore, nickel, etc:] that get the tax breaks, it's the mining companies.
raymo

[xelasnave]

2% turnover tax should be minimum
alex

[AndrewJ]

I always find it hard to get to the truth in a lot of this.
One item i found today was
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/reports/MCA_electricity_subsidies_3March17. pdf
Which would indicate subsidies for coal "associated with local electricity generation" is rather small. Other documents indicate subsidies associated with exporting are much larger ( a bit like how we gave away our LNG for a pittance )
It will be interesting to see tonights 4 corners where Glencore, a major coal exporter is forensically investigated.
There may be massive back door subsidies ( ie the govt turns a blind eye to whats going on ) but thats very hard to prove.
Either way, when i bought my first PC ( a 4MHz 286 with floating point chip and a 40MB hard drive ) it cost a relative fortune.
Flat screen TVs cost a fortune when first introduced, as did mobile phones. ( I actually had the pleasure of carrying the separate battery unit for a manager with a very early "mobile phone":lol::lol: )
Look at the cost of these items now??
Renewables may cost more up front now, but the costs will come down over time, and at that point, it will be interesting to watch the unholy scramble of the "big businesses" to try and prevent people getting cheap access to it.

Andrew

[Shiraz]

Hi Alan.

the SA solution is a lot more than solar and battery, though you would never know it from the misinformation that is floating around.

As far as I can tell, we need up to about 3.3GW to meet peak demand

current local capability is based on:
Gas 2,668MW generating 50.5% of total power
Wind 1,698MW generating 39.2% of total power
Coal 0
Diesel + SNSG* 289MW generating 1.1% of total power
Rooftop PV** 781MW generating 9.2% of total power


about to come on line:
-100MW/129MWh battery (short term stability, plus cutting the top off extreme high prices)
~200+MW new fast reaction SA Govt owned backup - Diesel/Natural gas
~300MW wind

in the pipeline:
- lots of wind (many projects pending - waiting on policy?)
- lots of solar PV (hundreds of MW announced for the next year or two)
- 150MW solar thermal
- at least two more big batteries
- medium sized pumped hydro
~250MW reciprocating engines to replace part of the aged gas thermal capability

interconnectors:
~870MW with NSW and Vic (these operate both ways)

retired:
we used to have about 750MW of brown coal thermal capacity, but that was closed by the owners (Alinta) last year.("The reality is, the technology we are using here is old, the cost structures are high and there's no longer a place for us in the market," Mr Dimery said.)

Most of the time, it appears that SA has sufficient local capacity to meet demand with adequate security and an ability to export wind power interstate. eg, on this last weekend, wind comfortably provided the bulk of our power. In heavy demand conditions, we can be at risk of load shedding if wind and solar are not working at all and the interconnectors are down (or there is no power available on the other side). With the new generators and the battery, we should be better placed this summer, but the closure of Hazelwood in Victoria has possibly put a bit of a dent in the availability of power over the interconnect.

Our biggest problem is that we are reliant on very expensive gas as a backup through the transition period - successive governments (state and federal) have dropped the ball on ensuring that enough affordable gas is available in Aus, even though we have plenty in the state. As a result of the high price of gas, we have expensive power, even though wind power is very low cost. The other killer is that the market rules allow prices to reach over $10,000/MWh, so in extreme conditions (eg a major plant failure) a few hours of emergency power can add the equivalent of hundreds of hours of normally priced power - not saying it happens, but the power companies have a huge incentive to do an ENRON.

Disclaimer - Have done the best I could, but all of the above is from an armchair expert :lol: EDIT - partially corrected on the basis of Gary's later post.
cheers Ray

[Shiraz]

yeah, I read that paper too. Then I read this one http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-production-subsidies-cost-australians-1-8bn-a-year-77543/

looks like the subsidy to the coal industry is somewhere between nothing and a huge amount, depending on what bits of Government expenditure you count (eg fuel excise exemptions, railways, ports, mining town facilities, site remediation etc).

[astroron]

Hi "visionary":question:
I hope you are watching 4 Corners on the ABC TV now. ?
Cheers

[skysurfer]

It appears that many of these multinationals and rich people behave like criminals when I read the Paradise Papers.

[Retrograde]

South Australia's power now cheaper than coal fired states. From the AFR (no paywall):

http://www.afr.com/news/south-australias-power-now-cheaper-than-coalfired-states--ross-garnaut-20171106-gzfqaf

[xelasnave]

Turn over tax.

Pauline had turnover tax in her platform, I believe but have not read her platform back when, and I suspect that was the main reason she was jumped on... not denying she had many flaws to exploit but I bet the folk who involve themselves in tax havens would have been onto their "man" to voice their disgust of her racial views.

It seems to make sence and no doubt would catch all folk tranfering money I guess...but if its only 2 % I personally would not mind ... I would mind if I had a mine with 30 billion turnover and a tax bill of only 50mill...

I wonder what each party says about turn over tax...I bet they already have a list of reasons why it is no good and experts to confirm that view.

alex

[Visionary]

It's at this juncture I will let you "roam free".... grab as much spurious nonsense as you wish and post it.... , the current Alternative engery position is impoverished becasue it continues to use evidence known to be spurious in a vain attempt support a preferred belief. Clearly, much of the pro Alternatives position remains tied up in quasi Gya type belief, or worse, preference deals.
As alternative sources of power proliferate this century, and they will, the oxygen for the extreme Earth Mother inspired religiosity will diminish and reason will prevail, we are a long way from that Dawn of Reason. Alternative sources of Power will become mainstream in this century and as they gain in efficiency they will no longer need to be subsidized, Alternative power will find its "level" in our Grid, Alternative power may even become the majority of power flowing into our Grid! In saying all this History will show the current day and extreme positions held by the pundits of Alternative energies too share the same basis in fact as the arguments used to support the health-giving properties of Radium in the 19C none.
SA's are paying through the nose for unreliable power. Belief has no place in a National Grid, what you "want" has no place in a National Grid.
A National Grid is about providing stable, inexpensive power to the Nation. It's not about MIddle-Class feel-good welfare aka subsidized Solar Panels or the simply ludicrous idea of using Lithium based mass storage rather than lead-acid based mass storage. The SA Gov has in effected asked a Savile Row Tailor to make an ill-fitting suit, SA's have paid a Savile Row price and ending up with a Hyperloop. Lithium-based mass storage highlights the profligate waste of Gov inspired misplaced "faith" or simple dirty preferencing.
There is no place in the National Grid for Gaia purists or preference deals the National Grid is about the efficient the delivery of power.

[clive milne]

If the King Maker (Rupert Murdoch) wanted to squash her,
her political career would be over in a week.

Her anti-muslim platform makes her a useful lightening rod to keep around.

Not only is Rupert a hard core zionist and close personal friend of Bibi, et al)... he is on the board of directors of Genie energy who's subsidiary (Afek Oil and Gas) was awarded exclusive exploration rights of the Golan heights .... however, we wont let the fact that it is an egregious violation of international law get in the way there...

but that's probably the subject for a different thread.

[pgc hunter]

This thread makes me sick.

We would have NONE of these issues with electricity and its supply and cost if the ideology-driven green cretins in the state parliaments just left the coal-fired stations alone, or invest in modern coal-fired technology. No doubt would've cost less than all the crawl-out-of-the-hole greenie panic projects now going on. :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Nuclear is the real way to go, but not with brain damaged derelicts like Daniel Andrews and Jay Weatherill in power unless you want another Chernobyl.

/thread

[gary]

The AEMO South Australian Electricity Report for November 2017 :-

http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/SA_Advisory/2017/South-Australian-Electricity-Report-2017.pdf

This is advisory information provided to the South Australian Minister
for Mineral Resources and Energy about South Australia’s electricity
supply and demand.

AEMO projects that in the 10 year outlook, 2017-2018 will be the highest
risk period for South Australia for a unserved energy event but that "the risk
is being addressed by the South Australian Government’s Energy Plan
developing additional diesel generation and battery storage, and AEMO
pursuing supply and demand response".

They note, "the risks are forecast (subject to significant uncertainty) to
reduce after 2017–18. From 2018–19, the forecast maximum demand is
expected to be moderated by increasing PV uptake and energy efficiency,
and additional large-scale renewable generation is expected to be developed."

The report notes that 30% of dwellings in South Australia now have
rooftop PV systems installed which contribute 9.2% of the South Australian
power generation mix.

The report also notes that AEMO has acted with industry and government to
implement their own previous recommendations following the September
2016 black system event.

Specifically, to minimize the chance of South Australia becoming islanded
from the national grid, like when the interconnector was disrupted during the
storm, and to increase the likelihood, in the event of islanding, that a
stable electrical island in South Australia can be sustained.



In a post the other day I mentioned a transmission line technology called
HVDC - High Voltage Direct Current :-



There are a small number of HVDC links in Australia already, including the
Murraylink light bipolar interconnector which connects the Riverland
region on South Australia to the Sunraysia region in Victoria. It may
well be the world's longest underground power transmission system. It
allows for electricity to be traded in either direction.

Basslink is a 290km long HVDC submarine cable that connects Victoria
and Tasmania and again allows energy to be traded in either direction.

The Terranora interconnector is a 65km long underground light HVDC link
that allows NSW and Qld to trade power in either direction.

[AndrewJ]

Another way to reduce some of the peak loads that cause grief will be the insidious rollout of DRED ready appliances, esp AirCon.
ie reduce consumption vs ramp up for very short peaks.

Not sure yet if the legislation has got through yet
( Gary would probably know more on that )
but basically any large "consumer level" energy units would be required to be fitted with DRED ready circuitry.
Currently, its an opt in scheme ( and is how the suppliers can pay you for not using an appliance ), but i assume it will become mandatory and they will override as and when reqd.

Andrew

[gary]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the post.

I'm not across the latest but I recollect there was something about it in
the press again recently.

As you are probably aware, the concept of Demand Response
Enabling Devices (DRED) has been around for a while - at least
back to around 2005 - and there is even AS/NZS 4755 which addresses it
at a technical level.

The idea being that if you install a DRED compliant appliance, such
as an air-conditioner, its operational output can be remotely controlled
by your power utility. In return they give you a rebate on the power bill.
I am aware that some of the power utilities are already offering it today.

As was the case in NSW, one of the major reasons
the cost of power had gone so high was because the organizations
responsible for poles and wires were upgrading them ("gold plating")
to withstand worse case peak demands, in particular on hot summer
days when everyone switches their air-conditioning on.

As extreme weather events and annual temperatures increased, the problem
has become worse as even more people install aircon and more people
switch them on.

Which ironically only contributes more to global warming if the energy
source the unit was plugged into was CO2 intensive.

There was the event in NSW in the past 12 months where demand was
forecast to exceed supply and so AEMO requested people limit their power
consumption and they cycled down one of the aluminium smelters.

I recollect there has been some lobbying from some of the power companies
to make AS/NZS 4755 mandatory on some new appliances - particularly
air-conditioning.

It is a concept akin to the energy-star concept for appliances like laser
printers that was mandated in the U.S. at least back to 2001 when
George W Bush signed an executive order. The printer would typically
save power by switching itself into a standby mode when not in use,
drawing, say, less than a watt.

When your building appliances like that (I designed laser printer controllers
in the 80's and 90's), for global markets, the result is that when one
jurisdiction in the world sets a benchmark like that, then the rest of the
world benefits. You don't go designing energy-saving printers just for the
US and less power efficient ones for elsewhere. Economies of scale dictate
you build a single model.

With air-conditioning and AS/NZS 4755 I believe it may offer various
operational modes. On a hot summer day they wouldn't just power it
off so you would be without it, but put it into lower power modes.
Your room temperature would obviously go up but the rationale was
that is a better scenario than everyone creating a blackout and
being without any power or comfort.

I was aware that those power companies lobbying for mandatory DRED
capability were taking a softly-softly approach. They were saying that
they did not want to force their customers to signing up to have their
appliances remotely tuned-down via DRED, only that all new air-conditioners
should come with the capability.

If you know any more, I'd be interested to learn.

[Steffen]

My concern is that this will dirty up the power even more. Right now the decabit signalling is messing with all the LED dimmers in my house, making them practically useless.

It's also a bad acronym from a marketing point of view :P

[gary]

Hi Steffen,

It is a terrible acronym. :lol:

I remember in the mid-80's spending a summer with the engineers at
what was then Sydney County Council - now Energy Australia.

There was a hi-fi buff here on the north shore who had put in a complaint
regarding the noise being induced into his speakers whenever the tones
would come on to switch on the Zellweger off-peak meters.

I was surprised by how much trouble the SCC engineers went to at the
time investigating the problem and trying to resolve it.

They put monitors on power poles and what-not.

We've all heard them. I even have a table lamp that when switched
on will resonate at night with the harmonics when the tone bursts come
through.

Interesting about it playing havoc with the LED dimmers.

I wonder though how much they themselves might be injecting back into
the network? Perhaps every time you dim the lights, you have some
neighbour get upset that his Herbert von Karajan conducted 9th
Symphony gets spoilt by noise right in the middle of his favourite
choral piece. :lol:

[AndrewJ]

Gday Gary
That was the primary push, and i note a lot of DRED enabled A/C units are now being advertised, but the other one i read about at the time was pool pumps/filters, as there is no "life threatening" problem if they just turn all of them off. Cant see any adds for them being DRED'd yet :-)

Dunno there :-)
You have a choice to buy a cheap but energy inefficient device or spend a lot more for a good unit, but its your choice.
If DRED is implemented as per what the retailers "really" want, ie they controll it to suit their needs, not yours, you will have no say.

Be fun to see what eventually evolves.

Andrew
Ed Just found this old paper.
I first heard of DRED when they were pushing "Smart Meters" in Vic, but this goes way earlier.
Interestingly, it includes hot water heaters???? Who needs them mid summer :-)
https://link.aemo.com.au/sites/wcl/smartmetering/Document%20library/Work%20Stream%20documentation/BRWG/Meeting%2007%20-%2016-17%20Sep%2009/BRWG%20Workshop%2007%20-%20Smart%20Meter%20to%20AS4755%20De mand%20-%2016-17%20Sep%202009.pdf

[luka]

1. Lead-acid batteries waste about 15% of power during charging compared to about 2% of Li-Ion batteries. In the long run they will be more expensive than the Li-Ion batteries.

2. They can't handle the Australian heat. Their life degrades quickly as the temperature goes up. The optimum operating temperature is 25C and roughly the lifetime halves with every 8 degrees temperature increase (source (http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/archive/can_the_lead_acid_battery_compete_i n_modern_times)). So if you look at typical Australian summers with over 40C, a typical 10 year life of a lead-acid battery is down to just a few years.

3. Unlike Li-Ions they can't handle deep cycling. There are models that can do that but they cost more of course.

Now the Li-Ion are not the holy grail and have their own disadvantages but I don't believe that there is a great conspiracy against the lead-acid batteries ;)

Lead-acid batteries have their limitations and the long-term economics does not work out for the large-scale power storage applications when compared to the Li-Ion batteries.

[Shiraz]

Really interesting article - thanks Pete.

this is also useful reading https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Media_Centre/2017/Advice-To-Commonwealth-Government-On-Dispatchable-Capability.PDF

[xelasnave]

I was talking about her first run.
Certainly if I held the strings I would keep her around to divert public attention when the need arose.

alex

[skysurfer]

The Guardian : even the Australian coal fired power plants are in the Paradise Papers.
$117 million from taxpayers.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/coal-fired-plant-shifted-1bn-offshore-while-pocketing-117m-from-australian-taxpayers

[xelasnave]

And all are occupied on dual citizenship an important matter which should be sorted by an appropriate dept but not take the time that should be used to address these other more important matters. Govt is a business and cash flow should be front of mind.

Who will come forward with proposals how to tax the bandits.

It is outrageous that the government has not addressed tax bandits years ago.

We did get a TV add to settle the mob but clearly the add does not tell the truth and must be seen as helping the tax bandits by letting the public think the govt has done something.

There can be only one reason why nothing is done and that reason is not incompetence.

I get a news feed on my lappy..each day news..never seen anything about this scandal.. but Sophie and similar hot news is always there to take our minds away from anything that may be classed as a real issue.

Alex

Alex

[xelasnave]

Probably no need to worry about going after tax bandits as it seems by taxing superannuation they will get all the cash they need.

alex

[AussieTrooper]

I've been saying that for years. When you have a massive government regulated savings scheme, it is absolutely inevitable that some politician will work out a way to raid it. They'll try to spin it to sound good, but it is still a raid.

[rrussell1962]

Probably comes down to a lack of resources and / or political will Alex. Australian Tax Law does have reasonably strong provisions to deal with transfer pricing and thin capitalisation but enforcing them comes down to being willing to chuck money at a speculative legal action.

[xelasnave]

I have not read the act for years but I recall a section which basically would enable the tax office to get what they want if there is even a hint of evasion and with all these tax bandits evasion is what they are doing.

It comes down to will no doubt and it seems there is no one ready to engage this issue. Says something I suspect.

Anyways its a great world and even with all the nonsence we all seem to be doing ok.

Sorry for derailing this thread.

Storage of electricity is the only problem I see and that could be fixed by sending water up someplace and harvesting the energy of it falling...

alex

[rrussell1962]

Yep, that's Part IVA that essentially say's if the dominant purpose of a transaction is to avoid tax then the ATO can treat it as voidable. There are other more specific provisions on thin capitalisation and transfer pricing. I used to deal with a lot of that stuff, in another life, long ago....

[xelasnave]

Clearly things have gone downhill so you need to get back and help sort it out.

I think the lack of will comes from a belief that if we dont let folk get away with this sort of thing they will go elsewhere to a country that wont worry what they do.

And that is probably a fair view.

AND really with a market economy you really need a place where money simply disappears...all these folk hording billions probably do the rest of the economy good...I think we need very poor and very rich for the whole thing to work.

I read that on some planets the magntic field is such that you could place a pile of copper wire on the ground and generate plenty of electricity...Could that be so? If so why cant we get a big coil of wire to solve our problems of generation of energy.



alex

[rrussell1962]

About as much chance as you getting back into the real estate game to add some integrity! I'm out and staying out.