Base load power

[Jeffkop (Jeff)]

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 (Darrin)]

Originally Posted by Eternal

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!

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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!

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 (Darrin)]

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 (Carl)]

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 (Odille)]

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 (Marc)]

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.

Originally Posted by 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...

[Trixie (Carey)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

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.

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...

[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 (David)]

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-...australia-2020
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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...

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Carl)]

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 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

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

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.