Base load power

[supernova1965]

This is a mistaken belief they are elected for 3 years not to follow polls which are not democratic in nature the participents are usually chosen by newspapers or polsters hardly a democratic representation. If past governments had listened to poll numbers we would probably still not have the right for women to vote as one example.

I have wasted enough time on this thread see you all around other parts of the forum:D:hi:

[renormalised]

I'm not saying that the CO2 isn't causing a rise a temps at present. Just that you have to be careful about making that attribution because there are many other factors which influence the climate and we've really only barely scratched the surface of the subject with our observational data and computer models. The evidence we have is not the be all and end all of the argument. And governments, despite any evidence either way, will do only what's best for themselves and their support base (and I don't mean the ordinary voters). None of the politicians, Labor, Liberal or Green, knows what they're talking about. It's the general populace that needs to drive the agenda, not the pollies or big business. Only they can do it because ultimately it's the public that hold the power and the purse strings. They need to be given the facts in an unbiased and concise manner, so they can then tell the pollies what needs to be done and big business what they must do.

I don't doubt the science. I understand it probably as well, if not better than anyone here. But what I do doubt is the way in which they're going about trying to make the necessary changes and how they're going to implement them.

In my own opinion, we would be wise to be better safe than sorry and actually make the effort to reduce the emissions.

[Trixie]

I dont want to get in trouble for going off topic again so will post a response in a new thread.

[renormalised]

You know as well as I do what they use to determine general trends in palaeoclimates. You've done enough geology at uni to have learnt what they use and you should know of their accuracy.

Isotopic analysis of fossils (and don't go on about the diagenetic/metamorphic processes altering the isotopic ratios, because they've found reasonably good preservation of shelly fossils in unaltered sediments from the various periods that have allowed them to get good ratios of isotopes such as oxygen, strontium etc), mineral chemistry from sediments and the fossils within, the physical structures present in the sedimentary rocks, the fossils assemblages present in the sediments etc etc.

How accurate are they?? Accurate enough to be able to give general trends in temperature and atmospheric chemistry for geological time periods. You obviously can't pick specific periods (like yearly records....unless you're very lucky enough to find them preserved in the geological record, like glacial varves, freshwater lake sediments etc) and give accurate measurements. You maybe lucky enough to see growth ring patterns in fossil plants such as true trees, lycopods, gymnosperms, lepidodendrales, cordaitales, ferns and cycads etc, to be able to see yearly patterns and then make inferences from those patterns and the provinence in which the fossils were found.

And there's no way you can get direct measurements, unless you somehow build a time machine. So how are you going to get real numbers in the next few decades, as you say.

My reference to that site was only for the continent position reconstruction maps. As for your reference to Herr Budel...I think you better go lay down. That was Chris Scotese's site. He's a geologist at UT Arlington.

[Hagar]

Where can you get one of those bumper stickers? I thought bumper stickers were supposed to be funny.

[TrevorW]

Still no one has answered my question, what will force the polluters to change their ways to reduce my power cost and reduce CO2 ??

I do not believe the tax will make that happen

$23 a ton

950 grams of CO2 is evolved for every KWh of coal fire electricity produced. Note that for natural gas it is more like 600 g per KWh for natural gas powered plants.

so thats 1 ton per every 1000kwh

so an average household uses 10000kwh per year thats $230 annually per household or in my case $40 extra each power bill which is an addiotnal 70 cents per day roughly

[supernova1965]

We tried to answer the hip pocket always makes me change my ways and I think it will work with buisness they always look for ways to reduce costs it is standard operating precedure to minimise costs. The hip pocket is why I gave up smoking not my health which is stupid I know but it was the tax on smokes that made me give up

[Hagar]

It won't Trevor, the tax will only be paid by you and me. The polluters will pass on any cost. The only hope in all this is that the collected tax will be funneled into R&D if of course there is any left after advertising costs and management cost are calculated.

[KenGee]

buy products the right products, hopefully the ax will make them cheaper. Just like buying Australian made it's up to us in the end.

[Peter Ward]

Well hasn't this turned into a bag of worms. I suspect Mike has been extremely patient and let it meander in to predictable areas to punish me.

As they said in Star Wars " stay on target "

Alternative base power.

Specifically Thorium. Cheaper than coal. Very little waste, and what there is, is easily handled. Safer than coal ( google the stats for number of coal workers killed each year). Scalable. 200mW in the back of a truck, but way more if you need it. No emissions. The technology was proven in the 1950's.
I suspect vested interests don't like it.

Rather than redistribute wealth via a lame "carbon tax" and wast millions to create rooms full of bureaucrats.... Please, someone, explain it to me, why the country is not investing directly in this base load enery future?

Oh..damm... Yes, the greens...opposed to all things nuclear.

BTW.... Has anyone told them what powers the Sun? :)

[Jeffkop]

The more I read about this thorium, the better it looks as an alternative Peter, I agree. Seems the risk to gain ratio is acceptable, and availabilty is good. The only information missing is what strategies will be employed to deal with the waste product. Most articles Ive read dont deal with it .. I dont know if thats concerning given the context that the thorium reactor was being discussed in, however its an issue I would like to clear up. I know the waste is less and far less dangerous than conventional nuclear waste and I also read that it can be reused ??? If so why is it waste.

[Eternal]

Solar with storage is a proven technology and is already in operation around the globe. There are already many Australian companies with expertise in this area. As opposed to the more ignorant comments on this forum it can still provide power after the sun has gone down.

The equation is therefore quite simple -
Solar with storage = proven technology already in operation around the world + significant expertise in Australia + renewable resource = Best choice
Thorium power plant = unproven technology with no plant in operation in the world + toxic waste + non-renewable resource = FAIL!

[midnight]

I would have to disagree. The thread is about base load and solar and wind are inherently unpredictable and therefore their ability to provide an electrically stable grid over short, medium and long term is not guaranteed. It's that simple.

I am all for solar & wind but only as a peaking plant where the storage technology (such as that the CSIRO are developing for wind turbines) is used to dampen the output power to avoid power fluctuations rather than wait until after dark.

Wind and solar unregulated cause line voltage & frequency regulation issues and possible over fluxing of transformers which require a large machine on the grid with a power stabiliser to control. The last few several hundred MW machines I have been involved in commissioning have strict grid compliance re electrical performance in sub second transient responses to several seconds response. Wind and solar without this technology come nowhere near this performance.

Darrin...

[renormalised]

What storage technology are you referring to??

I can think of quite a few, but I'll await your answer and then see just how much you really have a clue about this subject.

I took you to task a few posts ago about making comments like you have just done, yet again, without providing any proof of what you have said. No evidence of research into the technology or the cost of implementation. All I have read or seen of your posts is nothing more than babble and nonsense.

The only "FAIL" I see here is one of clarity of thought and logical argument on your part.

[midnight]

One possible solution I have though of is :

1. Immediately release the approval and funding to allow approx 4000MW of supercritical coal fired to proceed (most of this has already been penciled in by the Government)

2. Decommission the older, less efficient stations up to around this figure progressively as the new stns come online.

3. Within 5-10yrs, you have a net reduction of possibly up to 10% emissions by employing new coal fired, low SOx and NOx burning technologies on the old units decommissioned.

4. In parallel, use the carbon tax funds to encourage more distributed generation such as solar with power control technology to smooth out its response. Try to target the network's growth p.a as what should be installed p.a for renewables at the very least.

5. Commit to a 10-20yr plan to start phasing out coal fired with a proven base load technology. To me, only nuclear appears to satisfy this requirement.

6. Target is 40yrs (when the newly built coal fired will be at the end of their useful life), you have converted to the new base load technology and with any good forsight, alternative/safer/cheaper forms of nuclear may take us into a new era of secure and cost effective and safe power generation with virtually zero CO2 emissions.

Thorium is not going to happen anytime soon and many of Australia's coal fired stations are now passing 30yrs of age. Unless someone has the stick to get real and make something happen other than relying on "the market", we're in for a rough ride toward the end of this decade with power security.

Darrin...

[renormalised]

You got that right Darrin....

It's going to take at least 40 years to implement any of the new technologies in a way that will be socially and economically stable and responsible. You can't just up and change things overnight. Even if you found a way of generating and distributing 100% clean and safe, sustainable power. In the meantime, you can implement other programs that reduce electricity usage in homes (solar cells etc), legislation to curb unnecessary lighting in cities, the use of more energy efficient lighting methods in homes etc etc etc. Education in energy usage and sustainability etc. Things which will go part way to helping out, not create extra hindrances.

[Analog6]

Surely if we used alternative energies to reduce load we could then have a much lower base load need.

If every home had solar panels on the roof, starting with new homes and progressively retrofitting; and the energy produced went to and from at the base unit price - ie; the energy company pays you what you would pay them for a unit of power - then in a few years time the amount of solar power being utilised would be greatly increased.

Why are we not doing more to institute some offshore wind farms? I have done a lot of searching and there seems to be little going on in this field, yet germany is using Australian turbine technology in some of their offshore wind farms being built.

The government gives out enormous subsidies/grants/tax breaks to coal companies - the figures (from memory so be kind) in an article I read were something to the order of $13M to them and $1.1M to alternative energy research. I think we'd be better off if this figure was reversed.

I too have been very interested in the thorium nuclear plants. I find it very ironic and a sad comment on our (still very warlike) society that one of the big disadvantages is seen as the fact that no fissile materials are produced. The powers that be would rather pollute the world so they can have big weapons capability - bearing in mind if they used those weapons they'd create a wasteland, possible a waste world! - than throw money at what may be the best solution to the ever-growing problem of power demand.

[AndrewJ]

Just for info, from the members here in the supply industry,
how much of the base load is now controlled/affected
by the summer peaks these days???

Ie When i bought my house 20 yrs ago, i was told i wasnt allowed to put in a water tank ( i guess it pinched their revenue and sewerage charges )
Then, when they got to a point where they couldnt guarantee supply anymore, they changed their mind, and if i do a modification to my house, i would probably have to fit one. ( plus pay for a pipe and desal plant )

Now that a similar scenario is happening with electricity
I see/hear all sorts of comments re the increasing costs of airconditioners
esp on the new McToiletblocks being put up these days that are
"efficient to build and fit on a small plot", but not really efficient to run.
Would something as simple as legislating that if you want a house that requires major airconditioning, you have to have enough solar panels to run it. This would ensure that "most of the time" you are supply neutral
as most days you need the a/c, the sun is out???
Maybe this would also change the way houses are designed
to be more in tune with the environment as a byproduct.

Andrew

[multiweb]

Sounds like a plan. The CT should greatly help with this if it does what it's meant to do. Will be interesting to follow up.

[Trixie]

Yes it sounds like a good plan. I would still be adding gas into this plan though. We have a lot of gas reserves unused and right now it is still pretty cheap. It is also a lot less environmental impact than coal mining.

[Peter Ward]

Well, let's looks at this. Proven renewables:

PV solar provides no power when the Sun goes down. (house-hold systems with batteries and inverters simply can't satisfy baseload demands)

Wind provides no power on calm days.

Thermal Solar. Yes it can produce base load, but so, far plant output is quite tiny (200Mw) . Baseload? Questionable.

Thorium. Unproven? Hardly!

A Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) was run in the US from 1965 to 1969. It was brilliant, they literally turned it off on the weekends and fired it up again on a Monday. Waste...again the amounts are extremely small. The vast bulk of which go back to background levels in short periods.

Non-renewable. True. Proven reserves will only last a paultry 1000 or more years.

The real rub seems to be cost. Our current coal fired plants cost around $2.20 per watt, vs $2.00 a watt for thorium.

Compared around $9.00 per watt for solar systems (!!) they are dirt cheap.

Unless renewables get a whole lot cheaper, or if you'd want to pay 5x your current electricity bill, the answer seems fairly clear cut.

[multiweb]

I reckon one day each dwelling or building will eventually have its own integrated self sufficient power cell and it will definitely be nuclear based. Or a very small local distribution plant supplying a given surface of household. There still would be need for a basic grid infrastructure for load balancing, distribution but very minimal. Each new structure would add to the "collective grid". I'm starting to sound like a borg. It's like the CT. Resistance is futile... :P

[marki]

Just a thought really but has anyone considered solar in conjunction with fuel cells? Power by day via the photovoltaic cells with excess energy stored to be fed back into the hydrogen cell when the sun goes down. If household appliances were reduced to 12V.....a possibility?

Mark

[AstralTraveller]

It might be worth looking at Zero Carbon Australia who propose that we can have zero-carbon stationary power by 2020. When I first heard of the plan I was quite sceptical as it was being promoted by the 'Ratbag Left' but it appears that it is a product of the Melbourne Energy Institute which is part of the University of Melbourne.

"With our natural advantage Australia can and should be positioning itself as a global renewable super power for future prosperity. This report will help shift the climate debate to focus on energy; security; affordability; export and of course opportunity. Beyond Zero Emissions offers a new and invigorating message that is much needed” Professor Robin Batterham, President, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, formerly Chief Scientist of Australia

I haven't had time to read and probably lack the knowledge to critique it so this isn't an endorsement. It's just that it looks like it should be considered.

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/

[renormalised]

That would be the ideal situation. I think it's time that, apart from distribution to major commercial enterprises and government run utilities, we get away from the mass distribution of electrical energy in its present form. Especially, if we do develop small, self contained generating plants for home and other local use. Might mean the big power generating corporations lose their monopolies on power generation, but so what. It'll mean one less fat cat making huge profits from the public and having undue influence over governments and government policy.

[renormalised]

Good idea....using the hydrogen cells as a battery during the day and then their own power + stored solar energy for night time use.

Maybe not 12V, probably a little too low, but you could still have 240V, since the hydrogen fuel cells could easily supply that sort of power. Or, even if you dropped that down to what they use in the US, 110V.

[renormalised]

Here's a way to help conserve energy and reduce CO2 emissions that anyone can do, since it involves land use and agricultural practices.....

Grow your own vegetables:)

Might mean some of us will have to learn to become green thumbs, but it will most certainly cut back on having to use great swathes of land to raise vegetable crops, cutting back on CO2 emissions by leaving that land forested or grassland/wetlands etc. Also means less CO2 emissions from farming equipment used to harvest these crops etc.

Also means less power having to be supplied to large scale farming, thereby helping to reduce some power consumption (probably not much in the overall scheme of things, but some is better than none:))

[TrevorW]

you get fresh vegetables that taste like vegetables as well, although some farmers might not appreciate it

also instead of using a dryer hang a clothes line under the patio and hang out the big items

if it's cold don't turn the heater up just put on a jumper

make sure no electrical item is left in standby mode

change all you light globes to fluro

don't turn lights on during the day open the blinds and let the sunlight in

re-cycle grey water

have a house with a tin roof, vented and insulated will be 5-10% cooler in the summer

[supernova1965]

I mentioned that early in the thread and it sank like a stone barely a ripple:shrug:

[Peter Ward]

For high wattage appliances low voltage means high current, hence higher distribution losses. You have to use very thick wire to minimize this...in short it's not practical.

As an example, the power (i.e wall) cable on 110V steam irons in the USA are noticably warmer than the 240V versions we run at home.

.....the heat in the power cable is wasted energy.

[AstralTraveller]

Solar hot water with a backup, preferably gas. Why is that not mandatory on all houses? My backup doesn't get used for 8 months a year. Simple, cheap, reliable and proven.

Walk to work or bus or train or bicycle.

I don't own a clothes drier or dishwasher and don't miss them. When the heater is on doors are shut, particularly the toilet and bathroom.

[TrevorW]

Peter don't know if you posted this thread on thorium reactors being developed by India

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/bhattacharyya1/

[multiweb]

That's great. Hopefully the pollies here take the hint and get their a$$ in gear :) I hear we have plenty of the stuff too.

[marki]

Ah but Peter you are assuming the energy can only be transferred in the form of electrons flowing through a wire from a far off distribution point. What if we used the reduced gas as the energy carrier instead passing it through fuel cells that are much closer to the area of need? Just a thought mind.

Mark

[KenGee]

LOL " Solar and wind are inherently unpredictable" gee so we're not sure whether the sun will come up tomorrow.

I'm a firm believer in using safe nuke power. We have safe access to a very large nuke source.

[Peter Ward]

The sun will stay (relatively) in the same place.
The earth will spin.
Sydney's current rain and associated cloud...will block the sunlight, moonlight, starlight and make my (not inexpensive) astronomical telescopes plus PV panels somewhat useless...not that I've giving up either any time soon. :)

Those scared of "nukes" could watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-T-WSWgBCc&feature=player_embedded) in the interim.

[Hagar]

There are a few methods of storing wind and solar power for later use but none have been the true answer. Most rely on changing the generated electricity into a storable medium such as compressed air, Battery storage, heat or capacitive storage. Most of these mediums require expensive secondary equipment and are to say the least very inneficient in their operation. The requirement to store these either at site or off site carries it's own problems either way. Voltage control of any network spanning hundreds of kilometers of cable requires very high voltages and very complex control equipment which even with todays technology struggles to react quick enough to provide a stable supply to the load bases in and around our capital cities. Outer areas suffer even worse from these voltage supply issues.
Rotating mass is by far the best way to stablise electricity supply thus one big rotating generator is much more stable than wind farms with many small generators feeding into the grid.

Bearing these facts in mind the alternatives for base load are significantly reduced until technology can find an answer and catch up. Wind and solar are primarily just a stop gap at the moment.

The answer seems to be for each of us to become self sufficient to some degree and reduce our need, at least during the day for coal fired generation. I cannot see Governments following this line. NSW for example has just tried to reduce funding for domestic solar generation and introduced a sceptisism in the community that will take years to repair. NSW quoted cost as the reason for the attempted change. Party politics asside Governments have to make some honest direction for us all to follow, be consistant, treat everyone equally and legislate change rather than applying another impost which requires the first year or two's income to sell it.

[multiweb]

LOL - This is funny but so true. :lol: Just basic common sense really. There's one thing to remember: nuclear is clean. Hard to believe but it has the less impact and the best return. We just need to step out of this 'nuclear is bad and dangerous' thinking. It's going to take a while and few generations.

[renormalised]

Ultimately, the responsibility to create the change that's needed is in the hands of the public, not the Governments. It's a malaise of society pretty much everywhere to abrogate the responsibility for the running of society to elected representatives and let them deal with the problems. Giving power over to these people was and is a mistake as can be seen all too well not only in the present but throughout history. Exceptionally few of these people have had the ethical, moral, social/personal maturity and merit to the hold the positions they have managed to con their way into. They are supposedly representatives of the people, not their overlords and masters. But that is they way things have turned out....they tell us what to do, not the other way around.

If we want things to change, then it's up to the people to tell the politicians what we want and that they're to implement those changes. Otherwise, we replace them and get someone in their positions who will listen and do their job...properly.

That's the only way we'll get any movement on power supply and generation...or anything else for that matter.

[Omaroo]

No modern Australian government has been "in power" - they've merely held office. I, too, think they've missed this point in recent times. The media are constantly referring to the current government "in power", and it's wrong. A dictatorship or sovereignty is usually "in power".

[renormalised]

You wouldn't know that they only "held power" by their attitude toward everything they say and do. Like everything else, you give them an inch and they take a mile. Things need to be shaken up, I feel.

[strongmanmike]

Well, we can't hold an election everytime there is disagreement on a policy.. as there'd be quite a few...let's see :question: ummm? how about Australia's involvement in Afganistan and more particularly Iraq!!!! or annexing parts of Australia as just two examples, all far more worthy and serious decissions to be put before such a clearly well informed public (:rolleyes:) as us, than a basic simple price on bleeding carbon! An election for a simple price on carbon..??..bah, makes me laugh :rofl:and question the inteligence of those proposing it :rolleyes:. Juuuust need to lump it until the next election... then vote, like the rest of us did in 07 to reinstate some workers hard earned rights in this country (another far more worthy reason to have held an unscheduled election), it's that simple :thumbsup:

Mike

[supernova1965]

How short our memory is if we as a nation have forgotten the Howard years I won't be specific on details you all know what I am talking about

This opposition as yet have produced no policies no plan to lead the nation only a promise to stop a tax what will they do after they are elected going by previous statements on mandates they won't have a mandate for anything else but stopping the tax while running the country will be unmandated show us a plan to run the country so far they only show an aptitude to spread fear and division not to bring a country together.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-stakes-his-political-life-on-beating-package-20110711-1hb11.html#ixzz1Sbut2DGi



I will take the opposition on what they say they will do and I see no evidence that they care more for getting elected instead of governing. I don't really care which party does it but I want to see our nation brought together not driven apart the old saying still holds true

[multiweb]

Yup - it's called a referundum. ;)



You mean lack of? :P

[Barrykgerdes]

This thread is getting of the topic and too politically biased. I assumed it was to discuss alternate forms of energy for future use.

Barry

[supernova1965]

Yes I appologise for being off topic but I believe my post was anything but Biased and I felt what I said about bringing the country together was a point that needed to be said. It is hard to discuss future forms of energy when it seems the need to do it is in question to begin with you can't get agreement on what to do if most people don't agree that there is a problem to solve.

[strongmanmike]

Hey!, why not a show of hands :hi: :lol:



Got me, slight ambiguity there huh?..I'll leave it to you to work out what I meant ;)

[multiweb]

:hi::hi::hi::hi: Beat you to it. :P


:lol: Touche! Spoken like a true MP. Mate it's rubbing off ;)

[strongmanmike]

It really is a bizzar situation mate :shrug:.

[strongmanmike]

You are partly right Bazza but if you check back over the thread quite a number of the alternative energy posts in this thread have had thinly or not so thinly deguised political party bashing attached, all directed toward the current government, so since the distain some feel toward the current governemnt is behind so many of the opinions regarding alternative energy anyway, a litte more political banter isn't really that far off topic, in fact it could be argued it is more on topic than not.

As long as people keep it in perspective (with a smile), are civil and refrain from using vitriol or flaming or openly wishing death upon those that have different political persuations :rolleyes:... I see no harm :shrug:

:thumbsup:

Mike

[TrevorW]

I'm all for alternative energy as long as it doesn't cost me more for the same, anything that will reduce my power bills in the long run and impove the environment, but I'm not for more expensive electricity, or manufacturers or electricity producers creating strategies or moving offshore etc to avoid working towards acheiving that goal at my expense

[strongmanmike]

Hmm Hon Mike Sidonio Labor MP for IIS Left ..has a ring to it

Hey, and you could be Hon Marc Aragnou Liberal MP for IIS Right :D.

Aaaand then, we can tell people that when we say things sort of off the cuff it may not be the full or gospel truth but if it is fully scripted first then everyone can trust what we have said...(even if we do change our minds afterwards) spoken by Hon Tony Abbott MP (Circa 2009) :thumbsup:

You in? :D

[marki]

Yeah you guys do that and I will be the Governor General. You are both fired :P;):D:lol:

Mark

[TrevorW]

I was going to say I'd be the "Queen" but that just didn't come out right

[supernova1965]

It may cost more but it is not for the same thing as you are paying to maintain the planet for the next generation and I believe we have contributed to the current state of the environment.

Making sure the future generations can have the same environmental living conditions we take for granted is our responsibility we are the custodians of this world not the owners we are the current caretakers and should act accordingly:shrug: seems simple to me.

[TrevorW]

Personally I don't agree, I believe corporations viz consumerism has created this situation

If they didn't invent it, make it, market it etc I wouldn't be tempted to buy it creating the need for more manufacturing and we'd still be living like we did back in the 50's and 60's you could buy any Holden you wanted as long as it was black.

Come on how many Iphones, Ipads, digital camera's, telescopes etc do we need, how many TV's etc every year camera makers for one bring out new models as do car manufacturers all in the name of consumerism all which contribute to the production of Co2

I don't mind doing my bit for the environment but we've already seen electricity prices rise in this state by 50% in the last two years, along with annual increases in all other Govt related charges that exceed the CPI

If we continue to consume at the same rate the levels of C02 will not lessen unless we can introduce other economical sources of power

[supernova1965]

I don't know about you but I have free will I decide what I buy no matter the temptation my computer's (and they are top of the line computers from only 1 or 2 years back) all of them are ones I have reclaimed from the recycle center and my scopes as well I have a second hand car also and the only reason I want to get a new car is so I can get a Hybrid Camry.

[Barrykgerdes]

Sorry the post was a little ambiguous in that the wrong conotation for biased has been taken. I just meant the thread was discussing political views in lieu of engineering views.

Barry

[strongmanmike]

Hey Mark, if you look as good as she does at her age woohoo don't just fire me :evil2:

Ok ok back on topic.....

[Deeno]

Lucky these extreme left wingers are a minority:thumbsup:...eh comrad:rofl:

[TrevorW]

energy ideas

http://www.giuliobarbieri.it/eng/SchedaProdotto.asp?I=55&gclid=COagj_ywj6oCFYULHAodnDhfxw

[marki]

Ah Mike thats taking role play too far :eyepop:. Best you just keep lusting after Julia.

PS you are still fired.

Mark

[AstralTraveller]

Comrade, there hasn't been any extreme left wing views here .... yet ;). It's not as if Mike is about to advocate nationalisation of the banks, mines, all heavy industry, telecommunications and power and place the lot under the control of councils of workers and consumers. What passes here for the whole political spectrum is actually just nuances of the same position.

Everyone chant:

The astronomers, united, will never be defeated!! :D

[multiweb]

S||t yeah! :thumbsup: First order of the day: turn all those bloody lights off after 9:00pm. That's pretty much the only thing we would agree on. :P and we reduce our carbon footprint instantly.

[TrevorW]

by over 300,000 tonnes or $6 million dollars worth

[strongmanmike]

Yeh, how funny and they can do what they want in the Senate now for the next several years :rofl: my stomach hurts :rofl: oh the pain

[Hagar]

No just my salary.:eyepop:

[strongmanmike]

:evil:

[Eternal]

Ok, let’s first start with the base load myth:
1) Power generating companies produce electricity based on demand – it is not generated in advance and stored as it is simply too expensive.
2) Because demand changes over time, power utilities meet this demand by forecasting the aggregate power requirements in advance based on previous and predicted trends. This predicted load becomes the minimum load required.
3) This minimum load requirement is the “base load” and is met by their cheapest generation units, which in Australia is more often than not coal.
4) Any additional requirement to this base load is met by additional power generation units when required. These units (often gas or diesel) are usually more expensive generation units but have the distinct advantage that they can be brought online quickly (coal powered generation units take between 6 to 24 hours to bring online and as such are too slow).
What all of the above means is that the concept of “base load” originates from the method that power companies currently use in the planning stages to meet demand; it is not a requirement in itself. The only real requirement for power generation in Australia is that the power being generated must meet demand.
The other part of the base load myth often involves reliability, in particular the notion that renewables cannot provide continuous power because of variability in the weather (sun & wind). But such a position assumes the fact that coal powered generation always work, which it doesn’t.
Coal powered generation units can and do fail. To make up for this coal powered generation companies invest significant money in additional generating capacity called a reserve margin, which consists of additional generation units they can quickly bring online as well as interconnects to other power stations.
What is often overlooked is that this same principle can also be applied to renewable power generation. Whilst the sun or wind may not be shining\blowing in one area, it definitely will be in another. And as for what happens to solar when the sun goes down, solar with thermal storage such as molten salts, is a proven economically competitive technology as the following links explain:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night)
http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/06/28/the-future-of-molten-salt-solar-energy-thermal-storage-and-concentrated-solar-power-worldwide-2010-2016/ (http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/06/28/the-future-of-molten-salt-solar-energy-thermal-storage-and-concentrated-solar-power-worldwide-2010-2016/)
Now as for the idea of using Thorium reactors to replace coal powered generators it needs to be understood that Thorium reactors still produce nuclear waste and still require Uranium. The fact of the matter is that Thorium reactors are nothing more than nuclear power lite. They make sense for countries that already have significant investment in nuclear power, such as China & India, as a means of making them safer but not for countries which do not, such as Australia.
However in the grand scheme of things we need to realise that no matter what solution is chosen, it will be 15 to 20 years minimum and billions and billions of dollars of investment before we see a result and whatever is chosen will be in place for at least the next 100 years.
If we choose non-renewable resources as our path then haven’t we just repeated the mistakes of the past? More importantly though is that if non-renewables are chosen there is no way we can predict the price or availability of these commodities in 50 to 100 years from now.
Indeed of all of the energy resources we can utilise, the only thing that can be guaranteed in the future is that the sun will still be shining and the wind will still be blowing, and both of these will still be free.

[Hagar]

A very simplistic view of the electricity market system leaving out an awful lot of the protocols and system used to provide electricity to our homes.
Firstly the market system runs on a 5 minute update process where required generation is recalculated every 5 minutes of the day.

You also forgot to mention the requirement of the system to have reserve in the form of spinning reserve whether that be coal or gas or hydro but almost never diesel or oil based due to the cost. As a general rule there is at least the equivelant of the largest generator in the generation area to maintain system security in the event of some other plant failure.

Summing up the rest, your opening statement ( it is not generated in advance and stored as it is simply too expensive.) says it all .
A very true statement and holds true for the storage medium for solar that you mention here. At $50 per KWHr (taken directly from the document you linked to) this equates to $50000.00 per MWHr. Interestingly the maximum allowable cost a generator can bid electricity into the grid at is $12500 per MWHr.

There are also problems with the replacement of the salt medium which degenerates with the intence heat and needs to be replaced annually. What by products do we end up with as a result of this process, does it need to be stored or can it be used to fertalise the world. All these systems are just the same as Thorium reactors, still very experimental, still a lot of unknowns.

I can assure you wind is still a major problem in our electricity sytem with it's uneven load characteristics and to say that the wind is always blowing somewhere is just a throw away comment meaning absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.

Base load is the actual load that is required to hold the grid together under stable loading conditions providing some system protection during fault conditions. If this load base isn't maintained the system would almost certainly shut down during any major fault condition. This is a frightening thought which could take as much as a week or more to restart the sytem and get it back to a stable condition.

I would be out of a job if it was all this simple.

More information can be found at http://www.aemo.com.au or the office of the AER. The entire system is extremely regulated but generation is largely produced by private companies who need to make a profit and not Government who can run at non profit pricing.

[supernova1965]

Finally a voice from the opposition that speaks sensibly when it comes to climate change and the need to do something about it.

Go Malcolm Turnbul the country needs more people like you in the conservative side of politics someone who tells the truth instead of spreading fear.

I believe that if more members of the opposition were honest with the public they would agree with Malcolm and have the guts to stand up to the people driving this campaign of pure fear.

[multiweb]

I like hearing the word honesty mixed with politics. :lol:

[astroron]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Warren

[TrevorW]

Another interesting power idea

http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=5d1f810b51-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

that has gone OS

[supernova1965]

That has huge promise this is the kind of project money is going to be aimed at with the current proposal. If the government had been foward looking when this was proposed it would be here instead of Arizona:screwy: