Base load power

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

The experimental station that is operational is I believe self sufficient in water as it is a closed system the steam created from pumping the water down into the hot rocks is recondensed back to water.

No, it's not closed.....if it was that would make it a perpetual motion machine, which the laws of thermodynamics prohibits. There is loss through leakage within and uptake by the rocks themselves. Not only that, the water in these geothermal systems is not ideal in that it can be highly corrosive. It's full of dissolved mineral salts which causes all sorts of problems with machinery and the plumbing as well as the efficiency of the water/steam flow and such. That's why they're so expensive to build....the pipes have to be made out of metal like stainless and even then the water will eventually corrode the pipes over time, especially at joints and junctions.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

That my friend is exactly my point

And your point is? Use candles to warm up in winter? That's safe enough?

[stanlite (Grady)]

the only problem with Hot rock power is it need geologically sable land mass to be viable (otherwise you have to redrill your wells after every earthquake) which is fine in Australia which is very geologically stable not so good for Japan ect ect.

The only really proven source of base load power not based on fossil fuels is Nuclear. A thorium based nuclear reaction is not self sustaining (therefore no chance of uncontroled meltdown) indeed the gen V reactors (which are still experimental atm as are all thorium based reactors lol) is designed to self distruct in the event the core becomes to hot (essentially the fuel rods melt the conduit supplying the power that causes the nuclear reaction in the first place) since a thorium reaction can only take place with the input of power (in this case a stream of neutrons to cause radioactive decay) if this conduit is cut the reaction stops immediately. I am posting a link that says all this in simple lanuge ... i had a physics friend explain it to me and show me the math but please god don't ask me to find the links lol

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_rea..._reactor_1.php

[stanlite (Grady)]

oh i better add that thorium reactors produce significantly less nuclear waste and can actually burn plutonium waste from existing Uranium based reactors. Plus we have about 1000 years supply of the stuff lol and India and China are already building some.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

And your point is? Use candles to warm up in winter? That's safe enough?

Just not Nuclear Energy

[stanlite (Grady)]

i would warrant that thorium based nuclear power is safer then candles

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Just not Nuclear Energy

No worries. So what alternative do you propose would be as efficient for a growing population with an impact on the environment of zero to none in normal day to day running operations? Let's include the impact on the environment during building the new power site too. That means how much ground surface is it going to take, what resources are needed to build it, what fuel will it use (if any), etc... Interested in hearing about ideas.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Just not Nuclear Energy

Only one problem, the paraffin and wax they use to make the candles contains C13 and that's radioactive

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

No worries. So what alternative do you propose would be as efficient for a growing population with an impact on the environment of zero to none in normal day to day running operations? Let's include the impact on the environment during building the new power site too. That means how much ground surface is it going to take, what resources are needed to build it, what fuel will it use (if any), etc... Interested in hearing about ideas.

If I knew that I would be a Billionaire, but I suspect it will be a compination of technology to replace it if successive generations had looked to the future we wouldn't be in the spot we are in. I suspect that hot rocks, Solar, Wind are a good bet people say that these except maybe for hot rocks are not capable of providing base load power. But that is not strictly true you can provide base load with renewables like solar and wind because you use these to make Hydrogen and burn this for power generation and for fueling our cars. And the only thing that is released when you burn Hydrogen is water.

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, there's plenty of science and research out there. However, unless you stay strictly within the bounds of the science and engineering, the sociopolitical ramifications will always crop up. People have opinions and they will express them, in whatever way, shape or form. The reason why this happens is that even if you list all the research and such that's been done, most people don't have the necessary background to understand much of it, so they fall back on what they know best and/or they will come at it from a political bent. Those that do understand it but also have a political bent themselves, will come from both angles.

true but since my post no one has mentioned a political party and the topic has just been about the science.

of course, we coudl just re-read the thread i posted for anything related to solar.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I suspect that hot rocks, Solar, Wind are a good bet people say that these except maybe for hot rocks are not capable of providing base load power. But that is not strictly true you can provide base load with renewables like solar and wind because you use these to make Hydrogen and burn this for power generation and for fueling our cars. And the only thing that is released when you burn Hydrogen is water.

Hot rocks as Carl mentioned has massive running cost because of the plumbing needing to be replaced all the time. So you need to burn something to make new S/S pipes and joins. I suspect a metallurgic plant running to do this would offset the gains from the hot rocks plant.

Wind doesn't work. The power generated from windmills is not stable and very inefficient, further requiring massive changes to the distribution grids. Ask anyone in Denmark. They actually had to run their coal stations twice as hard to compensate for the wind farms stuff ups. Cost and impact of manufacturing or maintenance needed to just keep the things going was a logistical nightmare. Again it doesn't add up. The impact of the environment is huge. Scraps of rusted propellers and other mechanical parts lying in land fills. That's why they're trying to sell the concept to the rest of the world. It's a white elephant.

Solar is nice on paper. Just not efficient enough and you need a couple (read s||t loads) of square kilometers to output the same amount that a tiny nuclear plant would produce for a fraction of the ground surface taken and a fraction of the cost.

Just being practical.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Hot rocks as Carl mentioned has massive running cost because of the plumbing needing to be replaced all the time. So you need to burn something to make new S/S pipes and joins. I suspect a metallurgic plant running to do this would offset the gains from the hot rocks plant.

Wind doesn't work. The power generated from windmills is not stable and very inefficient, further requiring massive changes to the distribution grids. Ask anyone in Denmark. They actually had to run their coal stations twice as hard to compensate for the wind farms stuff ups. Cost and impact of manufacturing or maintenance needed to just keep the things going was a logistical nightmare. Again it doesn't add up. The impact of the environment is huge. Scraps of rusted propellers and other mechanical parts lying in land fills. That's why they're trying to sell the concept to the rest of the world. It's a white elephant.

Solar is nice on paper. Just not efficient enough and you need a couple (read s||t loads) of square kilometers to output the same amount that a tiny nuclear plant would produce for a fraction of the ground surface taken and a fraction of the cost.

Just being practical.

You completely ignored that you can use the electricity of all these renewables I mentioned to make Hydrogen then you can make Fuel cells that can be used in cars and even have a unit in your home to provide your own electricity.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Only one problem, the paraffin and wax they use to make the candles contains C13 and that's radioactive

Excuse me , Sir!!

C-13 is most definitely -not- radioactive. If it were I'd be out of a job. The radioactive one is C-14 and that is not an issue. We all contain about 0.1micrograms of C-14 and it does us no harm.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

You completely ignored that you can use the electricity of all these renewables I mentioned to make Hydrogen then you can make Fuel cells that can be used in cars and even have a unit in your home to provide your own electricity.

Warren ... How can you make an efficient fuel for cars with energy created by an inefficient source in the first place? Grab a calculator mate. You're clearly not seeing the global picture. Heard about energy conservation? Carl will drop one in there I'm sure

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

You completely ignored that you can use the electricity of all these renewables I mentioned to make Hydrogen then you can make Fuel cells that can be used in cars and even have a unit in your home to provide your own electricity.

But that's an inefficient use of the power you're generating. Generate power (and lots of it) to crack water, to obtain the hydrogen, to burn as fuel, to create water vapour, which is several times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Wonder what the greenies would say once they realised this.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Excuse me , Sir!!

C-13 is most definitely -not- radioactive. If it were I'd be out of a job. The radioactive one is C-14 and that is not an issue. We all contain about 0.1micrograms of C-14 and it does us no harm.

That's right...C14...my mistake

I'm half asleep here

I know that, but it wasn't meant in that fashion. Only to point out that even something as mundane as a candle contains radioactive substances. Every living thing does. You can't escape it.

[casstony]

Having worked in publicly owned and private power stations I'd only support nuclear if it was publicly owned, for safety reasons. We also need to get as much as we can out of solar.

The thorium reactor looks interesting from a safety standpoint.

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

This is going to be hard to keep apolitical. Amid all the politik speak, I see that no new coal fired power plants are likely to be built in oz, and existing plants (like Latrobe ) will be shut down witin a decade.....begging the question with a rising population, where will the people of Oz get their electricity from?? Hot dry rocks? Gen V thorium nuke? ( yes Virginia, clean safe nuclear power, that you can't make bombs from does exist....it's just that they wanted to take the uranium option in the 1950's to, well, make bombs) Thermal solar? Funny I don't recall reading about any of these base load plants being constructed to date.....but would be interested to know if any progress is being made in these or other areas in Oz.

Do you have a link to this or is this just personal speculation?

In the government's own report from 2010 they show that coal made up 72% of Australian electricity production in 2007-08 and this is projected to fall to 43% in 2029-30.

Also, the answers you seek are pretty much contained in that pdf. Alot of new capacity will come from natural gas fired plants, with renewables doubling in capacity over the next two decades.

Under an assumed policy setting that includes both the expanded Renewable Energy Target
(RET) and a 5 per cent carbon emissions reduction target below 2005 levels by 2020, the
relative shares of non-renewables and renewables in electricity generation are expected to
change significantly over the projection period to 2029-30. In 2007-08, 93 per cent of electricity
was generated from non-renewables (coal, oil and gas) and the balance from renewable
energy sources. Under these policy settings, the share of renewables is projected to increase to
around 20 per cent by 2019-20 and remain broadly at that level until the end of the projection
period. This reflects the effect of the RET, which requires a ramp up of renewable energy in the
period to 2020. After 2019-20, renewable electricity generation continues to increase, albeit at a
slower rate.
Within the category of non-renewable energy, the key change projected over the outlook
period is a substitution away from coal-fired generation to gas-fired generation. While coal is
expected to continue to dominate the electricity fuel mix under the assumed policy setting,
emission pricing leads to a switch away from higher-emission energy sources for electricity
generation. Coal-fired electricity (both black and brown coal) generation is projected to
decrease at an average rate of 0.6 per cent a year over the projection period (table 1), leading
to a fall in its share from 72 per cent in the base year to 43 per cent in 2029-30.
Further, the longer term role of coal is heavily dependent on technological developments
related to carbon capture and storage. The timing for the deployment of carbon capture and
storage (CCS) technologies

[multiweb (Marc)]

Gas is the next petrol. There's a lot of it world-wide.

[casstony]

I think using gas to fire power stations is wasteful - much better to use it for home heating and cars.