Base load power

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Kal

It's funny that while alot of the forum members here seem to think that we should get rid of coal and go nuclear, the opposite is happening in Germany where they have decided to close all 17 of their nuclear power plants by 2017, and replace them with......coal and gas powered plants.

That only goes to show you how ill considered and knee jerking their decisions are regarding this. It's also a peculiarity of German politics as well, with the Greens having a very large say in what goes on in the Bundesrat.

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

.....Perhaps, we'll be cooking by candle light and log fires

and if the Greens have their way, scooping horse manure off the streets as we travel. And shivering at home

[midnight (Darrin)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I was under the impession that thermal solar could infact be baseload and run 24/7, well, at least the thermal-technology that went to China......... as it worked by super-heating large quantities of saline which had enough thermal inertia to make turbine-steam until the next heating cycle.

That's right. A high concentration saline medium was used as the energy storage with its high melting point and capability to extract heat at anytime day or night. Extend periods of lack of solar energy were supplimented by a heater and trace heating to ensure the medium remain "liquid" throughout the process.

I thought this had the most promise to bringing solar closer to "base load" than any other type of "off the shelf" technology.

Darrin...

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

and if the Greens have their way, scooping horse manure off the streets as we travel. And shivering at home

Some of the more extreme and fundamentalist greenies would also like to see a massive reduction in the global population too. But of course, they would be the survivors and elitist members of that reduction

At least, that's how they'd like to think it will go.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by midnight

That's right. A high concentration saline medium was used as the energy storage with its high melting point and capability to extract heat at anytime day or night. Extend periods of lack of solar energy were supplimented by a heater and trace heating to ensure the medium remain "liquid" throughout the process.

I thought this had the most promise to bringing solar closer to "base load" than any other type of "off the shelf" technology.

Darrin...

They have several plants of this type in Spain, generating quite a bit of power.

[renormalised (Carl)]

The only way to safely and responsibly convert from our present energy generating technologies to the new ones we have (and others that will be developed), is to gradually phase the new in and replace the old over a number of years, even decades. If this isn't done with a bit of common sense and an understanding of the social implications of just doing things willy nilly (which is what will happen and is happening), then the consequences will be just a grave as if we did nothing at all. What the pollies and the greenies have to remember is we've been addicted to coal/oil/gas for over a century and we've built a society based on shortsightedness and greed (capitalism and "market" economics). It will most likely take just as long to wean ourselves off it and replace the present system with something else. But, we have to be willing to do so.

[TrevorW]

I've read that the EU is working on fossil fuel zero emmission power plants using cabon capture techniques

[Eternal]

Whilst I understand what you are saying you are forgetting that nothing comes close to the cheapness and the ease with which energy is released from fossil fuels. You simply have to dig it out of the ground and bingo, instant high energy source (ok, a bit of refinement if you want petrol etc).

The fact of the matter is that so long as fossil fuels remain cheaper and easier to use than the alternatives we will continue to use them. It's only when fossil fuels become scarce and its price becomes too high will the alternatives begin to make inroads and by that time it will be too late to reduce our CO2 emmisions.

Finally, when it comes to this persistant idea that any alternative energy source must be able to match the existing baseloads of existing power plants smacks of not being able to think outside the box. The future of energy supply will most likely be a decentralised model not centralised.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Eternal

........
Finally, when it comes to this persistant idea that any alternative energy source must be able to match the existing baseloads of existing power plants smacks of not being able to think outside the box. The future of energy supply will most likely be a decentralised model not centralised.

I have no doubt that when a (green) energy source..whatever it may be... becomes cheaper than burning fossil fuels, it will be adopted.

Taxing individuals to reduce their carbon foot-print makes no sense to me.

People and Companies don't like their power bills and want to make them as small as possible....hence developing renewables that are cheap will guarantee success.

I'd suggest high density housing trends would make centralised power distrubtion a necessary evil for some time to come, as hampsters on treadmills are unlikely to help much in the interim ....I digress

Would I be happy being taxed an extra $2000 a year to fund cheap renewables?

Probably not, but it does make more sense to me than taking money (tax) from the top income earners so the lower income earners can afford to keep burning fossil fuels.

On bugger! Apolitical

[Eternal]

It's about levelling the playing field and making the cost of renewables comparable to fossil fuels to increase their uptake. The alternative is waiting 30 to 50 years when the price of fossil fuels will be too much but that will mean an extra 30 to 50 years of excessive CO2 emissions.

[Billyt (Bill)]

If its not coal, it has to be gas. It will be the only possible replacement to base load electricity in this country short of breakthroughs in fusion power.

Nuclear only not viable due to the startup cost, as the cost of all the red tape to get it over the line in this country would be greater than actually building & running the things.

Remember the nuclear accident in Japan was from secondary cooling failures, the reactors themselves survived the earthquake and tsunami intact.

Back to natural gas, problem at the moment is the supply of gas is still tight in this country. We have large resources in ground but they need to be untapped. The focus for gas reserves is about to shift though from where I sit, from the offshore NW shelf to unconventionial gas onshore, such as shale gas.

There have just been some test wells drilled in the Cooper Basin that look very promising & may unlock reserves of gas & security of supply for the SA & East Coast for decades maybe centuries. Watch this space. Similar plans for shale gas in Perth and Canning Basin WA as well.

Call me alarmist, (I really think we have more to worry from an Ice Age cycle setting in, rather than Warming...) If there is some cataclysmic event such as massive volcanic eruption or large collision event which ment reduced sunlight for months or years, those solar panels and wind generators are going to be pretty useless. We might all be screwed anyway, but its a thought.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Billyt

......

Nuclear only not viable due to the startup cost, as the cost of all the red tape to get it over the line in this country would be greater than actually building & running the things.

Remember the nuclear accident in Japan was from secondary cooling failures, the reactors themselves survived the earthquake and tsunami intact.

I would not advocate Uranium based nuclear.

Thorium based, has minimal hot waste (equivalent to the volume of a panadol tablet per anum), with a short half-life. The reaction also requires an external energy source to be sustained (like cars needing spark plugs) so even tsunami's are not a problem.

Conservatively Australia has enough Thorium ( if fact the worlds biggest reserves) to supply over 1000 years of base load power.

Talk about a gift-horse staring you in the face....

[Eternal]

Well for my 2 cents worth I believe the future will be based around biological hydrogen fuel cells. We already have a variety of bacteria, microbes and algae that produce hydrogen gas. It's only a matter of time before these organisms will be successfully genetically modified to produce a higher throughput of hydrogen. Once that is achieved it will resolve the transport and storage problem that currently plagues hydrogen fuel cells.

Imagine if you could a power supply that works similar to a plant; only requiring water, CO2 & infrequent sunlight to produce on demand electrical power through hydrigen fuel cells and that is small enough to fit not only inside a house but small enough to fit inside a car.

[stanlite (Grady)]

i am sure i am going to be shouted down but i am going into bat again for thorium nuke power. Just to point out the difference from the present nuke reactors thorium doesn't

1. produce material that can be used in nuke weapons
2. produces significantly less nuke waste and can be used to "burn" said waste.
3. CAN'T meltdown like present uranium reactors.
4. will cost significantly less (estimated cost for a 1GW reactor is 200million or something its in the article i posted earlier not the 1.2billion for present reactors)
5. its here now (other tech can take over in the future... well should take over)

i only raise this tech because it presents the most economically long term sound energy investment plan for the world (australia's fear of nuke power aside)

[gregbradley]

I wonder how many solutions there are already locked up in Oil Companies safes??

The Thorium solution sounds good. If nothing else the carbon debate has put attention on possible alternatives.

Greg.

[Peter Ward]

To add to the mix is fusion....

http://www.iter.org/

Sadly, while the French are looking to get first Plasma in about 7 years, this technology is not even on the radar in Oz....

[TrevorW]

No because the Govt does'nt have the balls to be proactive

you tell me why a country with 60% more daylight than Norway/Sweden has 60% less solar power

and I'll tell you because we've got 60% more coal than they have

the power come what may Co2 problem will only be resolved by a combination of all means of energy production

solar,wind,geo thermal,wave, ZEP coal, gas and even nuclear in one form or another

The United States Energy Information Administration regularly publishes a report on world consumption for most types of primary energy resources. According to IEA total world energy supply was 102,569 TWh (1990); 117,687 TWh (2000); 133,602 TWh (2005) and 143,851 TWh (2008). World power generation was 11,821 TWh (1990); 15,395 TWh (2000); 18,258 TWh (2005) and 20,181 TWh (2008). Compared to power supply 20,181 TWh the power end use was only 16,819 TWh in 2008 including EU27: 2 857 TWh, China 2 883 TWh and USA 4 533 TWh. In 2008 energy use per person was in the USA 4.1 fold, EU 1.9 fold and Middle East 1.6 fold the world average and in China 87% and India 30% of the world average.


In 2008 energy supply by power source was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8% (fossil 81%), renewable (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal power and biofuels) 12.9%, nuclear 5.8% and other 4%. Oil was the most popular energy fuel.



Oil and coal combined represented over 60% of the world energy supply in 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

No because the Govt does'nt have the balls to be proactive

Well I am not surprised if they don't show more of them after what is being dealt out to our government for the little they are doing in my book they need to go further while I see that it must be a gradual change over it must be started now (It should have been started a Decade or more ago) the government is being a little proactive and are being condemned for it.

Just on the news last night I saw some brave men from the conservitive side of politics pushing and shoving a green supporter and then chasing her down the street until she had to call the police and was in tears and frightened is that the way to have a debate that just says to me that they have no valid arguement if they have to resort to violence sure have a debate but lets not turn into a mob please that would be very UNAUSTRALIAN.


This is where fear politics leads and I for one am very sad the ones spreading the fear don't just talk to people in reasoned debate and avoid just trying to scare people for their own benifit and this happens on both sides of the fence both major parties when in opposition do it and it is just wrong.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

To add to the mix is fusion....

http://www.iter.org/

Sadly, while the French are looking to get first Plasma in about 7 years, this technology is not even on the radar in Oz....

There's a bit of controversy and mixed feelings in the general public and media back home about ITER. I think the cost to date has been pretty huge and although the science always worked on paper they are now starting to think it may not be viable and as practical as what they first thought financially. Japan is a major player in it also so I don't know how the tsunami is going to affect this as well. I'm sure they have other priorities in mind right now.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Yeah, for those who wants it, we have soulution - mini nuclear plant at your home :-)

Wouldn't bother me at all. I grew up within a couple of kilometers from a large one. It's hard to miss them in France. There's probably one every 30km. ... and I'm still waiting for that third eye to grow...