Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

[Bushmiller]

Paul

I stand corrected, I missed Millmerran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millmerran_Power_Station).

I was referring to Bluewater in WA, the last coal fired power station to be commissioned here in Australia (2009).

I was interested to read your insights into large battery storage.

Neil

You were way ahead of me as I had never heard of Bluewater and had to look it up. It is in WA so well outside my sphere. My take on that one is that the original contractors had financial issues, but it has been bought by a japanese consortium (of two?) and functions well enough now. They talked of building two more units, which if undertaken, would bring the station to roughly the same size as Millmerran: Millmerran is a small station. There was precious little information on the type of installation other than it has IHI boilers, Alstom turbines/generators and fired on sub bituminous coal (all coal fired power stations burn rubbish coal). Tey maintain is is one of the most efficient units of that type in WA. The detail is in the wording "that type" and "WA." Firstly it is sub critical. The other last six units built, which are all in QLD (Tarong North x 1, Callide x 2, Kogan creek x 1 and Millmerran x 2) are super critical units. Without troubling too much on the technical details it basically means they are the most efficient units in Australia of this type.



It seems they are due to re finance so it will be interesting to see how that goes. certainly it will not be easy and difficult to see how they will gain support for another two units. I also picked up on this

"The company is owned by Japanese energy giants Sumitomo and Kansai Electric, who paid about $1.2 billion in 2011. The Japanese investors bought the power stations from KordaMentha, which was selling in its capacity as administrator of Griffin Group.The Bluewaters 1 power station - one of the two company owned generators - recorded $129.2 million revenue and a $2 million loss before tax in the year to March 31, according to accounts filed with the corporate regulator. It had assets worth $430 million and $446 million liabilities."

Presumably Bluewaters was bought in a fire sale at a bargain basement price. Despite that, the cost per MW is still about twice that of Millmerran, admittedly a few years earlier.



I also saw in a WA newspaper report that a $4 million grant has been given for a feasibility study for a coal fired station in North QLD!

Australia one step closer to new coal-fired power station in Queensland’s north with $4 million committed to feasibility study | The West Australian (https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/australia-one-step-closer-to-new-coal-fired-power-station-in-queenslands-north-with-4-million-committed-to-feasibility-study-ng-b881456336z)

Are they stupid or what?

The battery issue is a glaring example of how politicians from either side embellish to suit their agenda or otherwise gain credibility. If they had turned around and said the Tesla battery is a gigantic emergency backup supply, albeit quite an expensive backup, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. However the SA government subtly led the populace to believe it would save them against catastrophes of nature. Musk was very happy to promote the wonderful attributes of his grid saving Tesla battery. Both ran a successful PR campaign. Don't get me wrong, it was not in fact a waste of time, but it was never going to be capable of saving the grid from major trauma. It will save marginal and brief under supply and as I mentioned before it has an excellent frequency control capability, primarily because of the exceptionally fast response rate, which is far better than even hydro power (previously the fast rate response provider). My memory is that it cost $500,000. That is expensive for 100MW for one hour.

Something else I feel bound to remind readers of this thread is that the grid is huge. I have not done the sums, but over 4000Kms long I would guess.

468441

A facility in Adelaide or Melbourne (or even Sydney) is of no assistance to Brisbane and vice versa.

Regards
Paul

[woodPixel]

The uses for CO2 are vast. I like the methanol, alcohol and "reverse coal" ideas.

Now, all we need is energy! If only Australia had access to a vast, limitless, abundant source of renewable energy....


Full Page Reload (https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/carbon-capture-power-plant-co2-concrete)

Carbon XPRIZE (https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon)

[Beardy]

Bushmiller I have enjoyed the insight from your posts on this subject and your practical approach so thankyou for that
Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area compared to the much smaller densely populated European ones that can share/trade supply across the border or easily piggy back new technology onto their system ?

And with that, given we don’t know what form the “new” alternative base supply will come We can’t really set up infrastructure apart from tinkering adhock like we are with our present setup ?

Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[rwbuild]

Something to remember is that much of the new technologies we are discussing would come about in the course of time anyway. The current crisis, if for a moment we can refer to a crisis, even it is only a perceived crisis such as the Y2K scenario, hastens technology along at an accelerated rate. In fact the other commonplace crisis of wars does the same thing.

Not all the technologies are going to work: Arguably most of them will fall by the wayside for economic reasons or practicality, but out of those many new ideas some will be adopted and one or two may even be game changers. Crisis accelerates accelerates invention and change. We just have to be wary of stating that every new invention is a saviour.

Perhaps it would be useful to define some of the timelines for change. To my mind immediate is this year, 2020. The near future is up to 2030 and the future perhaps to 2050. Long term would be 2100. Of course these are purely my timelines. I think we are being a little pedantic when making reference to times and getting worked up when we are talking about quite similar things.

Regards
Paul

Some weeks prior to FF starting this thread, I called in to say G'day to him and one of our main discussions was climate change and what you have stated as above was basically the gist of my side of our conversation.
As I said in my 2nd last post prior to this, the facts and answers are somewhere in the middle of the two camps and they need to work together without getting hysterical about their respective views.
Progress progresses exponentially.

[FenceFurniture]

The uses for CO2 are vast.Yep, you can even change a climate with it, provided you are able to produce enough of it! :roflmao2:



Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge areaThis is an issue that complicates a great many things for us (not the least of which is transport infrastructure and cost). That is where more localised solutions become more practical like sharing Solar panels (buying elec from your neighbour), neighbourhood battery sharing in a mini-grid. That would also go some way towards getting around the problem of a roof that can't take panels (mine is asbestos we think), or are too shaded to be properly effective, and renters that can't get panels put on.

[Bushmiller]

Bushmiller I have enjoyed the insight from your posts on this subject and your practical approach so thankyou for that
Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area compared to the much smaller densely populated European ones that can share/trade supply across the border or easily piggy back new technology onto their system ?

And with that, given we don’t know what form the “new” alternative base supply will come We can’t really set up infrastructure apart from tinkering adhock like we are with our present setup ?

Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Beardy

Thank you for your kind words. I do have a slight advantage being directly involved in the business. However, I have to tell you that there is still a large range of views regarding climate change among my colleagues, many of whom I regard as friends. I am based in QLD after all and it is arguably the most conservative (think fearful and frightened here) state there is, although WA may rival it, but I have never even visited WA so I am even more unqualified than normal to comment.

Yes, Australia is in the invidious position of a small population and a vast land. Simple things become difficult. I think it was in another thread that the subject of transmission was dismissed as not being an issue. It is of course an issue in the same way roads are an issue. We are a relatively wealthy country so we get away with it, but every long road or transmission line has fewer people to pay for it than in most other countries. It is ironic that we have all this sun and all this space and still it is difficult to position solar farms economically. It is also ironic that back in the 70s and 80s Australia was a leader in solar development. The old story. There was just not the interest here for research and other counties where the sun hardly shone romped ahead. Even if we did not use it ourselves (because of our abundance of coal and other resources) we should have pursued it to sell onto other countries less fortunate than us with resources.

nother potential export lost. Oh, the benefit of 20/20 hindsight!

I think in some ways you have hit on the key to the problem. It is that we need a replacement base load system to the current coal fired stations (and the gas fired stations, except they tend to be more expensive to run, but are more flexible). None of the renewables for the moment (note please "for the moment") or unless there is a significant breakthrough, are in a position to reliably produce base load power. Base load power has nothing to do with size, although in the past it was indeed the larger stations that did this, but more to do with the ability to produce reliable power at any time. That is the crucial criteria: at any time.

Sure, we should be moving towards alternatives and if we don't life is going to become very difficult and much less attractive than it has been in recent times. I will still trot out my mantra that the alternative has to be economic or it will not gain traction, because of the competitive market.

What are the alternative base load options? Really? Sweet Fanny Adams your honour! :( Currently we have coal but the only alternative is nuclear. In Australia in particular I doubt nuclear will fly for these reasons.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. When they are built they tend to be larger installations to maximise the economy of scale (I have heard that there are some "pocket" sized plants being considered, but I know nothing about them to the extent they may not even have been built). Large plants do not suit Australia because of our relatively small grid (Megawatt wise, not distance). What do we do with the waste? Still no solution to that. What about safety if something goes wrong? Are they more susceptible to terrorist attack? No, but more of a disaster if they are "hit." And which one of you wants one in his back yard? No, no, no, we are not going to stick them out in the desert because there aren't any power lines and it is too costly to put them up and the government won't give them to us for free: This of course is the chant of the private owners. On top of that, the pay back period is going to be long (remember it has to be economically viable) and in the meantime a renewable might get sufficient traction that it becomes both cheaper and more reliable all around the clock!

There is one nuclear alternative that dispenses with some of the concerns above. It is Thorium powered nuclear, but nobody seems to be terribly interested primarily because you can't make bombs with thorium. If Chernobyl and Fukushima had been powered by thorium there would not have been the catastrophic disasters experienced in those two locations. However, that it a bit glib of me as thorium is a very different product. It's big advantages are that the half life of the spent fuel rods are nowhere near as long as the isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium and the reaction can be shut down at the flick of a switch thus eliminating the melt down potential.

However, no bombs and the initial reaction is quite a lot more difficult to establish. Incidentally, Australia just happens to have one of the largest thorium resources in the world.

I am starting to ramble, but on your last point we do need to know where we are going before we build roads just on the off chance.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Paul do you have any feel for roughly what % of our power needs to be base load?

[Bushmiller]

It's persisting it down - has been since lunchtime Satdy.

256km radar just now
468440


Excellent news - the Currowan fire in the Shoalhaven is now extinguished. Funny thing is that on "Fires near me" there are still heaps of incidents - trees down! (and listed as Out Of Control :D)

Brett

And there I was feeling very pleased that we had 40mm on Friday (looks like you could be getting nearer to 400mm!) and all but one of our tanks are full. Nearly 50,000L. We just ordered two more tanks on Thursday. I think that is what did it! :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

[Beardy]

This is an issue that complicates a great many things for us (not the least of which is transport infrastructure and cost). That is where more localised solutions become more practical like sharing Solar panels (buying elec from your neighbour), neighbourhood battery sharing in a mini-grid. That would also go some way towards getting around the problem of a roof that can't take panels (mine is asbestos we think), or are too shaded to be properly effective, and renters that can't get panels put on.

It is probably also the reason why our per capital emissions are higher than other countries which is why I don’t think it is a relevant point of data.p apart from its propaganda use.
Sharing of power with your neighbors is fine and panels on your house can make economic sense for the owner but it is in no way a solution to our problem of running public infrastructure and industry. Batteries are still not up to the task yet either

Curious as to why you can’t put panels on an asbestos roof? Is it just the installers that don’t want to touch it?

[Beardy]

Brett

And there I was feeling very pleased that we had 40mm on Friday (looks like you could be getting nearer to 400mm!) and all but one of our tanks are full. Nearly 50,000L. We just ordered two more tanks on Thursday. I think that is what did it! :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

i have just installed an additional 100,000 litres of tanks to my place and they have already filled in the last couple of days :)

[doug3030]

..
I think that is all more to do with a couple of people wanting to argue with anything they can about my posts. Speculated timelines are a pretty soft target for that, but if it wasn't timelines it would be something - anything - else, just to be argumentative...
468454

[rwbuild]

Lucky buggers, just looked at gauge, 3.5mm in 36 hrs :(

[Beardy]

Lucky buggers, just looked at gauge, 3.5mm in 36 hrs :(

My gauge was overflowing at 200mm an hour or so ago so have emptied it to start again. Are you forecast to get a bit more ?

[FenceFurniture]

Is it just the installers that don’t want to touch it?Pretty much. It's also a bit steepish and mossy. Apart from that I don't own it anyway.

[rwbuild]

My gauge was overflowing at 200mm an hour or so ago so have emptied it to start again. Are you forecast to get a bit more ?


Supposed to but don't hold much hope looking at the radar, big sandstone fence in the way.......

[FenceFurniture]

We had 193mm until 9am this morning, and I'd reckon we've had that much again since then. If that is right then it'll be a half a metre since Friday morning.

[Glider]

Supposed to but don't hold much hope looking at the radar, big sandstone fence in the way.......

You're a fair way out of range of maritime weather, Ray. Normally, I'm right on the edge of it but the stronger East Coast lows, like the one we're having now, penetrate a bit further to the West. I haven't measured my guage but I estimate >50mm so far. The paddocks are greening up and we're in for a second Spring, not a day too late. Two weeks ago it was brown paddocks, no feed and a dry river bed.

I hope you get some rain soon.

mick

[rwbuild]

Yep but at least the catchment of the Lachlan-Wyangala Dam will get some of it, at least Cowra hasn't had to bring any water restrictions in yet and a lot of the farmers are getting some in the N & NW

[Bushmiller]

Paul do you have any feel for roughly what % of our power needs to be base load?

That is actually quite a complex question and probably up for some debate.

It could be the generators that are always on line up to their normal loading. For example, at Millmerran we run at full load most of the time and only reduce load when there are limitations on our plant. Those limitation are primarily, but not exclusively, during elevated ambient temperatures. Other stations reduce load probably at times for similar reasons and sometimes also because it is not economic for them to run at a higher load with the prices being offered (actually price are not offered as it is a bidding system). So under these circumstances the amount of base load power is dictated by the night time demand during the week. It may be less at the weekend. That could be construed as the effective base load.

I think this base load would be between 50% and 60% of normal maximum loads for the day. Coal fired stations could be producing up to 70% at times but there are so many variables with solar and wind.

When I am next back on shift I will see if I can put some ballpark figures together just based on what I see over a few days. They will not be official figures and I am not sure that such a breakdown even exists.

The base load may be able to be defined as the minimum load on average at night and a base load station is one that contributes either wholly or partially to that demand. Any other load at other times may partially be supplied by the "base" load stations ramping up, if they have capacity, as well as other players coming into the mix.

One other point I should make about base load stations is that they are often not very flexible at lower loads. To give an example, it might be cheaper to stay on line at a very low (or even negative) price than coming offline completely and restarting. Restarting a coal fired station is costly and sometimes protracted. The gas turbine stations, some of which are completely unmanned can come on (and off) at the flick of a switch. One ex colleague previously worked at a facility near us and he would log in on his phone from home, start the machine and drive in to see if everything had gone as expected. Another ex colleague now controls a number of gas turbines around QLD from his Brisbane base. These are the peaking machines. They only fire up when the prices are high. When the first colleague joined us he said that the gas turbines at his previous location had only run twice the previous year.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

We had 193mm until 9am this morning, and I'd reckon we've had that much again since then. If that is right then it'll be a half a metre since Friday morning.

Whoa! I'd be participating a little more on the boating section of this Forum. :D

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Whoa! I'd be participating a little more on the boating section of this Forum. :DYeah, it's pretty insane. Having had nil precipitation to speak of for maybe 3-4 months I hadn't had to really mow the lawns until Tuesday 11 days ago. And only then because we'd had about a week of light rain rain on and off. Around the shady edges it was a little longer but the main part was still only about 60mm after months of summer. Since then (11-12 days) it's grown about 100mm! Problem is that we have still got a week of rain ahead (poor bugger me :D) so I may need to invest in a scythe by the time things dry out.

[rwbuild]

North Richmond bridge covered, first time since Feb 1992 and without ANYTHING released from the catchment dams.

[FenceFurniture]

The low appears to be heading down the coast, so maybe the southern NSW/Vic firegrounds are going to get a good dousing. Maybe even a bit more heading Cowra way for you Ray.

468470

[Bushmiller]

Having had nil precipitation to speak of for maybe 3-4 months I hadn't had to really mow the lawns until Tuesday 11 days ago.

We hadn't fired up the mower for well over a year! The two back tyres were flat. Battery, surprisingly, was OK. A bit of air in the tyres. a full tank of fuel and SWMBO was good to go. A full day enjoying the wind in her hair :2tsup: .

Regards
Paul

[rwbuild]

The low appears to be heading down the coast, so maybe the southern NSW/Vic firegrounds are going to get a good dousing. Maybe even a bit more heading Cowra way for you Ray.

468470

Bright sunny day here, but the farmers need it desperately, some of them have started working ground in anticapation

[FenceFurniture]

Just revisiting this:
I'd like to see the fire spotting towers manned again. Someone told me they stopped the practice for safety reasons. I'm trying to understand why the people in the tower couldn't see the danger approaching and get out. Water bombing a small blaze must surely be more effective than a major inferno.Bums on seats with binoculars is the preferred method in WA apparently.
West Australian tower watchers are the state's first line of defence against bushfires - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-09/wa-tower-watchers-first-line-of-bushfire-defence/11947810)

[Bushmiller]

i have just installed an additional 100,000 litres of tanks to my place and they have already filled in the last couple of days :)''

An additional 100,000L! I'm suitably impressed. We will be at 100,000 when the new tanks arrive in about three weeks: After the rains have subsided?

Regards
Paul

[woodPixel]

Bugger having people sitting around watching.

This is the VIIRS and MODIS infrared satellite feed. It shows hotspots that develop in patches of 375 metres.

Historical data, overlays, intensitys, changes... the works. The Advanced data and options show EVERYTHING.

This is Aus... simply zoom in, the URL is bookmarkable one you reach your own area FIRMS - Fire Map (https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#z:4;c:138.5,-28.7;d:2020-02-09..2020-02-10)

This is an example of what the public data can do: Bushfire.io | Alpha | A bushfire map (https://bushfire.io/?location=9/-35.54116627999815/148.73565673828128/Satellite)

Absolutely no need for people. This data has a resolution of 15 minutes, is instantly updated and may be readily imported into a map.

Alerts can be sent to crews before anyone even knows its started!

[FenceFurniture]

Bugger having people sitting around watching. Maybe....'cept for this bit:

Note: Cloud cover may obscure active fire detections.

[woodPixel]

and this was in my Bloomberg trading feed this morning Bloomberg - Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-03/climate-models-are-running-red-hot-and-scientists-don-t-know-why)

So, if its good enough to trade on (i.e. make money with*), why isn't it good enough to use for mitigation?

Is "Climate Change" so made up that we can use it to invest, but it isn't real enough to act upon?

It can't be both!

God damned CCD'ers. God damned conservative politicians. They'll be the death of us.



* Or better still, avoid massive losses!

[FenceFurniture]

So yesterday was the wettest February day EVER for Katoomba since 1886, with 226mm until 9am this morning, bringing the total since Thursday 9am to:
32.0 (T)
66.0 (F)
193.4 (S)
226.0 (S)
517.4mm in four days

[Bushmiller]

So yesterday was the wettest February day EVER for Katoomba since 1886, with 226mm until 9am this morning, bringing the total since Thursday 9am to:
32.0 (T)
66.0 (F)
193.4 (S)
226.0 (S)
517.4mm in four days Brett

That level of rainfall here would result in the Island of Millmerran (it has already happened in the 2010/2011 floods) and we would be able to cede from the Toowoomba shire, although that may not be the best time to emulate the Kingdom of Hutt River. I imagine that all your water flows down the hill, But what happens at the bottom of the hill?

These records actually emphasise that climate change is not just about heat: Climate Change is about extremes in every sphere: More of just about everything.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

These records actually emphasise that climate change is not just about heat: Climate Change is about extremes in every sphere: More of just about everything.Yes, and it's the very frequency of these records falling that should be alarming to everyone.

Your point about extremes in every sphere brings up a point that may have been mentioned earlier, but certainly bears repeating. Somebody mentioned huge snow dumps in North America means the climate can't be warming. Part of the cause of that was that Lake Erie didn't freeze over and therefore there was much more evaporation which created much more snow.

Even evidence supposedly supporting deniers can be evidence to the contrary when examined properly.

[Bushmiller]

Indeed Brett

It was a similar phenomena when in the arctic some, but not all, glaciers extended for a while. This was in fact because there was more melt water than normal and the deniers latched on to that quick smart. It was explained, but I doubt it was accepted. The extended glaciers weren't, of course, sustainable.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I've just watched last week's 4 Corners "Black Summer".

Anyone reading this thread who hasn't seen it should watch it, but be warned - it's harrowing. (and for the ABC knockers who think it might be stacked with whatever - it's reportage without opinion)

Four Corners : ABC iview (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/four-corners)

[FenceFurniture]

It was a politician free zone on Q&A last night (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/qanda) (the best kind of Q&A by far). The topic was Transitioning from Coal to Renewables, which is absolutely smack on the theme of this thread (how to do the transitioning). There was no discussion of whether or not CC was happening - none whatsoever. Much discussion of what a golden economic opportunity is staring Australia in the face. Matt Evans summed it up at the end when he said "Everybody wants this to happen except a small bunch of federal politicians".

One of the points made at about 21:30 was from our representative at the recent Davos summit (Sophia Wang). She said that the eyes of the world's commerce leaders were on Australia, so we sure are NOT a "nobody". BTW, her start up business is pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere to make building materials.

A very good show indeed - extremely informative, albeit with a stacked audience (stacked with concerned coal miners, farmers, young people and other similar super-radicals).



One slightly disappointing note however, was to see two people in a row (the questioner and the first answerer) both thinking that there are only two "u"s in Nuculur when everyone knows there are at least three. :doh:

[Boringgeoff]

I have been following this conversation with interest and appreciate all contributors for your interesting views. Up to now I've not commented because I don't think I have the intellect to add anything meaningful.
Except this may be of interest. I owned a truck delivering concrete from 1980 to 2oo7, the initial truck was replaced in 2003. I used to calculate that I was getting about 3 km for each litre of diesel burnt. I dug out my old log book and did a bit of maths. In 23 years the truck did 708,827 km which at 3km/L is 236,275 litres of diesel. The computer tells me that each litre of diesel produces 2.68 kg of CO2 which equates to 633,217kg.
The agitator on the back of the truck utilised a petrol burning donkey motor. Having no record of petrol consumption I conservatively worked on burning 10 L per day. I said conservative, some days I burnt 80 litres other days none. At 60 L/week x 50 weeks x 23 years equals 69,000 litres of petrol. Once again Mr Google tells me that each litre of petrol produces 2.31 Kg of CO2, which equals 159390kg. Add the two together (792,607kg) and I am responsible for nearly 80 Tonnes of CO2 from that source alone.
On the upside the vintage car enthusiasts inform us that the manufacturing process of any vehicle creates more pollution than that vehicle will produce in its lifetime. On that basis I am giving myself a pat on the back for making that 1976 Ford Louisville last from 1980 to 2003 and it didn't end there, after I sold it, it went on for a few more years as a skip bin hauler.
Cheers,
Geoff.

[FenceFurniture]

In the absence of any answers to repeated requests of what the remaining deniers and fence sitters are afraid of, one can only assume that it is economic loss (for themselves and/or the country) combined with fear of the unknown aka staunch conservatism. I believe that those two assumptions are not only correct, but also that there are no other reasons for denial.



When I started High School in 1968, to play the sport of our choice we had to be able to swim a lap of the Gunnamatta Bay Baths....out at the 7 metre deep Pontoon, otherwise we had to take compulsory swimming lessons.

I could swim just fine, but I was afraid to go out of my depth.
I wanted to play tennis for school sport, so I had a problem to overcome.

At the very last minute...the day before the swimming test....Dad took me down to the pontoon, we both held on to the ladder. No worries.
Dad said "We both know you can swim, right?"
"Yep"
"So......let go of the ladder......"
And with a deep intake of air, and no doubt a bit of a charge of adrenalin.....I swam away from the ladder....and played tennis the next week.

I didn't know what I was scared of. I was just bloody scared.



All of our entrepreneurs, captains of industry, scientists etc etc are telling us that we have a golden opportunity to lead the world in renewable energy technology, and create a very strong foundation for our future economy.

We are being held back by a diminishing number of people who are scared, but who cannot - or will not elucidate what they are scared of. I have previously noted (in here) that I said in October that I thought this summer may well change a lot of minds about the reality of CC (given that the bushfire season started in mid-winter, for crying out loud). I would be fascinated to see data on people who have changed their minds in the last 6 months.



The inescapable facts are:

We will run out of oil by ~2070, and will no longer have reason to meddle in the Middle East.
Electric vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles are being widely developed, and at an increasing rate. Infrastructure for their ongoing support is dragging the chain right now - at least in Oz, but will start to catch up reasonably soon. That is known as transition.
Burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which has increased by 33% as a component since about 1950. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Coal is on the nose for all of the world's banks and other lenders - very soon it will be impossible to find external finance for CF power (simply because a return on investment will not be seen)
Australia will have no say in the world wide demand for our coal (as high quality as it is) falling through the floor, which will savage our national income
We have an abundance of other resources that will used in tech of the future
There are multiple emerging technologies to change our energy sources, and the next five years or so will see tremendous advances
The world IS going to transition away from coal (and it's sounding like hydrogen and perhaps methanol might do the heavy lifting part of coal)
Australia is being presented with a golden opportunity to cash in on this energy transition. If we do not jump in and lead then we will have lost the impetus that a small nation like ours needs, because other nations or large corporations WILL seize the opportunities that we ignored. We will then have to explain to our grandchildren why we sat on our hands as the country burnt to a crisp, and our economy went overseas.


How, in all conscience, can anyone suggest we should not just go along for the ride, but drive the damned bus? It is recklessly and reprehensibly irresponsible not to. If we do not go along we will have ensured the very thing that deniers are so afraid of - WRECKING THE ECONOMY! (leaving the planet out of it for a moment)


This is not Sophie's Choice - Sophie can keep both kids.

Or lose them both if we are reckless.

[FenceFurniture]

On that basis I am giving myself a pat on the back for making that 1976 Ford Louisville last from 1980 to 2003:U And Geoff that was no doubt purely for economic reasons (which is why deniers will be dragged along the transition path, like it or no)



each litre of diesel produces 2.68 kg of CO2
each litre of petrol produces 2.31 Kg of CO2I don't dispute the veracity these figures at all, BUT I don't understand them.
Uncle Albert told me that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
A litre of petrol weighs 0.75kg, and presumably there are other things produced besides CO2 when it is burnt, but surely that means a minimum of 2.31 - 0.75 = 1.56kg of oxygen is taken in during the process. At sea level and 21°, 1.56kg of O2 is 1176 litres, which seems extraordinary - over a m³ of pure oxygen to burn a litre of petrol! (and that assumes that ALL the petrol is converted to CO2 which is clearly far from the case)

What am I missing? Mick? :?

[Beardy]

In the absence of any answers to repeated requests of what the remaining deniers and fence sitters are afraid of, one can only assume that it is economic loss (for themselves and/or the country) combined with fear of the unknown aka staunch conservatism. I believe that those two assumptions are not only correct, but also that there are no other reasons for denial.



When I started High School in 1968, to play the sport of our choice we had to be able to swim a lap of the Gunnamatta Bay Baths....out at the 7 metre deep Pontoon, otherwise we had to take compulsory swimming lessons.

I could swim just fine, but I was afraid to go out of my depth.
I wanted to play tennis for school sport, so I had a problem to overcome.

At the very last minute...the day before the swimming test....Dad took me down to the pontoon, we both held on to the ladder. No worries.
Dad said "We both know you can swim, right?"
"Yep"
"So......let go of the ladder......"
And with a deep intake of air, and no doubt a bit of a charge of adrenalin.....I swam away from the ladder....and played tennis the next week.

I didn't know what I was scared of. I was just bloody scared.



All of our entrepreneurs, captains of industry, scientists etc etc are telling us that we have a golden opportunity to lead the world in renewable energy technology, and create a very strong foundation for our future economy.

We are being held back by a diminishing number of people who are scared, but who cannot - or will not elucidate what they are scared of. I have previously noted (in here) that I said in October that I thought this summer may well change a lot of minds about the reality of CC (given that the bushfire season started in mid-winter, for crying out loud). I would be fascinated to see data on people who have changed their minds in the last 6 months.



The inescapable facts are:

We will run out of oil by ~2070, and will no longer have reason to meddle in the Middle East.
Electric vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles are being widely developed, and at an increasing rate. Infrastructure for their ongoing support is dragging the chain right now - at least in Oz, but will start to catch up reasonably soon. That is known as transition.
Burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which has increased by 33% as a component since about 1950. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Coal is on the nose for all of the world's banks and other lenders - very soon it will be impossible to find external finance for CF power (simply because a return on investment will not be seen)
Australia will have no say in the world wide demand for our coal (as high quality as it is) falling through the floor, which will savage our national income
We have an abundance of other resources that will used in tech of the future
There are multiple emerging technologies to change our energy sources, and the next five years or so will see tremendous advances
The world IS going to transition away from coal (and it's sounding like hydrogen and perhaps methanol might do the heavy lifting part of coal)
Australia is being presented with a golden opportunity to cash in on this energy transition. If we do not jump in and lead then we will have lost the impetus that a small nation like ours needs, because other nations or large corporations WILL seize the opportunities that we ignored. We will then have to explain to our grandchildren why we sat on our hands as the country burnt to a crisp, and our economy went overseas.


How, in all conscience, can anyone suggest we should not just go along for the ride, but drive the damned bus? It is recklessly and reprehensibly irresponsible not to. If we do not go along we will have ensured the very thing that deniers are so afraid of - WRECKING THE ECONOMY! (leaving the planet out of it for a moment)


This is not Sophie's Choice - Sophie can keep both kids.

Or lose them both if we are reckless.

That all sounds fine but the two points that I still struggle with are ;

1- What is this golden opportunity that Australia is presented with? I hear this touted a bit but don’t understand what it is.

2- This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face.

[FenceFurniture]

That all sounds fine but the two points that I still struggle with are ;

1- What is this golden opportunity that Australia is presented with? I hear this touted a bit but don’t understand what it is.

2- This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face.Watch Q&A from last night.

[rustynail]

Tennis!? When there is Union or League? Blimey, when I started High School I thought I could walk on water.

[Beardy]

Watch Q&A from last night.

I will tonight, I hope my questions are answered but I am not confident

[FenceFurniture]

Tennis!? When there is Union or League? Blimey, when I started High School I thought I could walk on water.I never did try playing Union in summer.







Or winter.

[FenceFurniture]

I will tonight, I hope my questions are answered but I am not confidentThat shows an underlying negative attitude. A positive or neutral response would be "I will tonight". Negative attitudes just won't get the job done I'm afraid.

[Beardy]

That shows an underlying negative attitude. A positive or neutral response would be "I will tonight". Negative attitudes just won't get the job done I'm afraid.

I knew you would pick up on that, I am not negative I am just realistic. I should wait until I watch the show but my underlying thought is that if we knew the answers to those questions it would already be happening.
Everyone is happy to blame the government but if there was an opportunity this country has countless entrepreneurial types that would be all over it regardless of what the government of the day thought.........where are they? Why haven’t they grabbed this opportunity?

[FenceFurniture]

Everyone is happy to blame the government but if there was an opportunity this country has countless entrepreneurial types that would be all over it regardless of what the government of the day thought.........where are they? Why haven’t they grabbed this opportunity?They ARE all over it - that's the point - but things keep going overseas because of this tone-bloody-deaf-useless-get-in-the-road-of-everything-except-coal Government, that has no balls, unity or vision.

And there's no point saying that previous govts were the same or similarly useless - maybe they were, maybe they weren't - but THIS is the situation we are now in, and it needs properly addressing by the Govt of the day. We still have 2+ years of this one-seat majority Govt (who claimed a HUGE victory and mandate - with one seat!! :doh:), although we may be mercifully spared the full term. Albanese needs to get their policy in order in fairly short time - they might be caught short otherwise.

At least we are now rid of Abbott. He's still yapping in the background, but that will dissipate as his invitations to yap run out (end of this year perhaps?).

We need leadership! We need to catch up on a decade of nothing happening.

[doug3030]

Coal is on the nose for all of the world's banks and other lenders - very soon it will be impossible to find external finance for CF power (simply because a return on investment will not be seen)

Even if it was possible to switch off all coal-fired power today, it would still be necessary to mine coal.

There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without it.

[NeilS]

This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face.



One of the new technologies is based on hydrogen and it is already well developed as a technology.

Having such abundant primary sources of green energy here hydrogen is likely to become our premium energy export to countries that don't have the same green energy advantages as we do. I expect that the fleet of tankers (or similar) that are currently exporting gas will in time transition to exporting hydrogen.

You can already buy a car here in Australia that runs on hydrogen, but there is just not enough of them yet to have a network of re-fuelling points. Heavy haulage trucks and light trains (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2020/12/29/heavy-duty-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-and-trucks-power-up-for-the-2020s/#36373a24260c) are now being test run on hydrogen. If you can run those on hydrogen you should be able to scale up to run micro or mini base load electricity generator with it, etc.

Hyundai Nexo: first hydrogen car certified for Australia, now for the refuelling stations | CarAdvice (https://www.caradvice.com.au/805257/hyundai-nexo-certified-australia/)

Toyota won't roll out their hydrogen cars here until there is an established network of refuelling points.

Hydrogen cars: Future or fiction? - www.carsales.com.au (https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/hydrogen-cars-future-or-fiction-104760/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAm4TyBRDgARIsAOU75spsEzNUeW1QPynjVrtMaW-QKFMDGiCND7e7Ei8skdjvKJUEiXqlD6MaAhF0EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds)

The transition to hydrogen and electric cars is already underway. The UK has just announced that it will ban the sale of all new diesel and petrol cars from 2035.

How will the petrol and diesel car ban work? - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40726868)

Some of of us will have already bought our last new diesel and petrol car. Like Geoff, I keep my vehicles for a long time...:B

The problem here in Australia is that the constant rhetoric from some components of the political class and media has for so long been that we are going to fall out of the sky if we stop using what has been our cheap sources of energy up until now. Yes, if we were to immediately stop using fossil fuels the lights would go out, our vehicles would stop and our economy would tank, big time. But that is not what has happened elsewhere or will happen here. The word 'transition' is currently missing from the rhetoric from that quarter (or eighth, or whatever % it is) as that requires an acknowledgement of where we need to get to and a planned pathway to get there. Without that some sectors of our society are going to be left behind, the cost of getting to there will be higher and there will be other unexpected and negative consequences.

Had we started the transition a decade ago, like the UK and some other countries in Europe did, the transition would have been smoother and more gradual. Having been held back for so long we no longer have that luxury.

However, it will still be a transition, not a jump, and once the momentum picks it won't feel like such an insurmountable undertaking.

PS - Apologies for the personal reflection here: My grandfather (who never owned a car) was a livestock trader. This included horses and, in particular, draft horses. These were working horses to pull ploughs, waggons and the like. When young, my father became an expert horseman helping with the livestock. Yet, I never saw my father on a horse (just later via the poor newspaper photo below), but he loved his cars and we had many of those. The transition from horse to engine power happened in a relatively few years. During WWII my father trained as a morse code signalman, then became an expert in repairing valve radios, then transistors radios, then B&W TVs then colour TVs. In his latter years he was intrigued with the early years of internet and video conferencing (which I was involved with). He had no idea where morse code would lead him and the subsequent technologies that would evolve from there, but it was quite a journey; from horse back to riding the internet. In comparison, the steps to get to a clean energy economy seem relatively small and tame to me!


468524

[AlexS]

Been off line for a couple of days due to the storms in Sydney, so I've had to skim through a couple of pages of posts to try to catch up. However, without trying to go off track or divert from an otherwise good post, I have to take issue with this:


even it is only a perceived crisis such as the Y2K scenario

The Y2K scenario would have been a major problem if it had not been recognised and dealt with. As an example, all the data loggers used for telemetering water data in NSW were first generation units that would have failed. That would have meant that many people in Sydney wouldn't have had water, or depending on the circumstances at the time, dams around the state could have been put in dangerous states. Farmers in the west of the state would either have gone without their ordered irrigation supplies or watched water go to waste. OK, back onto the topic - almost.

After the weekend storms, I think we've become a marginal electorate - there are unwanted pools everywhere!

[NeilS]

There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without [coal].

I'm not a metallurgist, so I have no insights into the veracity of the following report (that you are unlikely to have read about in the Murdoch press) from Germany on a steel furnace running on renewable hydrogen: a world first.

first://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/ (https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/)

SSAB is planning to do the same thing in Sweden.

First in fossil-free steel - SSAB (https://www.ssab.com/company/sustainability/sustainable-operations/hybrit)

I have no doubt that there will be issues ahead for them, but try telling German and Swedish steel makers who have been at it since steel manufacturing began that there is no practical way of achieving what they plan on doing. Anyway, I like their chances better than us producing 'clean' coal. What a stalking horse or red herring (whatever) that was to deflect us from getting on with what has to be done!

[FenceFurniture]

Even if it was possible to switch off all coal-fired power today, it would still be necessary to mine coal.

There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without it.Sure, but that doesn't mean that we would necessarily need new mines or new CF power stations. Remember that I have twice said before that I still see some CF power generation happening for....I dunno...as long as it takes to replace it altogether.

The argument is not so much about not burning coal, as not putting CO2 into the atmosphere (nett), so if we still need to burn some coal for heavy industry we should be able to as long as we take back out the quantity of CO2 that has been emitted. It's absolutely not about shutting everything down and then saying "OK, what do we do now?" So if the industries that are putting out CO2 are also (just as an example) investing in Sophia Wang's business (which she said was very easily up-scalable and transportable), then that is the same as buying carbon credits.

[FenceFurniture]

Had we started the transition a decade ago, like the UK and some other countries in Europe did, the transition would have been smoother and more gradual. Having been held back for so long we no longer have that luxury.Ain't that the truth.


During WWII my father trained as a morse code signalman, then became an expert in repairing valve radios, then transistors radios, then B&W TVs then colour TVs.Morse Code has been invented? We're all screwed then. All the Semaphore flagmen are out of work.

[Bushmiller]

The Y2K scenario would have been a major problem if it had not been recognised and dealt with. As an example, all the data loggers used for telemetering water data in NSW were first generation units that would have failed. That would have meant that many people in Sydney wouldn't have had water, or depending on the circumstances at the time, dams around the state could have been put in dangerous states. Farmers in the west of the state would either have gone without their ordered irrigation supplies or watched water go to waste.


Alex

You made me go back through pages of my drivel to find that one as I thought I recognised it (Post #393). :rolleyes:

I may have expressed myself poorly and I suspect your hydrology background is a little sensitive to some aspects. My poor attempt was to explain how technology gets ramped up when there is a crisis. It happened in WW2 (probably WW1 too, but a bit before my time) and it is undoubtedly happening again in these times and that was my reference to perception. My reference to YK2 was that it was indeed perceived as a risk. That fact that 1 Jan 2000 turned over without all the computers in the world (including those in our cars) crashing (that's the computers: Not the cars) is irrelevant, The crisis hastened action. I dread to think what would have happened if the computers had all died. I remember asking a computer guru friend what would happen and he said that they had no idea. But what if......

Having said all that, I think the "perception" of climate change is more of a reality. A fait accompli, but I was trying to leave the door open for debate.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

There is more to Y2K than what I will talk about here, but IIRC one of the problems to be overcome is that we COBOL dinosaurs of the early 80s used to use a test date year of 1999, because we all knew for an absolute fact that there was no way these programs were going to be running in 15-20 years time so if our test data succeeded with that date, then no wuckas.

OOPSIE!

That's what you get for employing programmers who can write good solid stable code that lasts for.....longer than the analyst had planned.

1997-99 was the golden period for COBOL programmers to earn big but short-term bucks.

[doug3030]

but try telling German and Swedish steel makers who have been at it since steel manufacturing began that there is no practical way of achieving what they plan on doing.

There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without it.

The linked articles indicate that these companies hope to be commercially producing fossil-free steel by the mid-2020's. Nobody said it could not be done. The would-be manufacturers themselves seem to concur with my statement from the content of the articles linked.

It is really getting tiresome to see a lot of my statements and those of others here being taken out of context by a self appointed few who do not wish to hear any opinions that do not align exactly with their own.

[Toymaker Len]

1-" What is this golden opportunity that Australia is presented with? I hear this touted a bit but don’t understand what it is".
-We have massive amounts of free energy that we can pump up into asia by -direct transmission, carbon neutral steel and aluminium, -exported hydrogen. The world is wanting these products already and as the first most obvious reaction to climate chaos will be many carbon taxes we will be well placed to supply low carbon products and energy.

2- "This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face."
-We were up with the world leaders in solar and wind energy and profitably exporting our intellectual property until Abbot wrecked it. I remember him bragging that he had wiped fifteen thousand jobs from the renewable sector. But right now just about all the tomatoes sold through Coles supermarkets come from one hydroponic farm in SA which is powered by a concentrated solar mass system. Not only runs a desalination plant which provides all the water but also supplies all the energy for pumping, lights, etc. It looks like concentrated solar mass will be the long term winner. It works by collecting heat in a solar tower, moving that energy by the medium of compressed air and pumping it into sand storage where it will keep hot for weeks or months. Extraction of the energy is simply by pumping water through pipes in the hot sand silos and then running the hot steam through conventional steam turbines. This provides super cheap reliable base-load power 24/7.

[Toymaker Len]

Even if it was possible to switch off all coal-fired power today, it would still be necessary to mine coal.

There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without it.

This is just not true. At the beginning of the industrial revolution steel was made with charcoal and it was only replaced with cokeing coal as forests were decimated and charcoal became more expensive. Very recently our own CSIRO published a number of papers revealing that their research had shown steel could be made with modern charcoal and it would produce better and cheaper low carbon steel. The Liberal Federal government responded by slashing the CSIRO budget by $300m. Causing the loss of about 300 permanent science jobs. When are we going to wake up!

[FenceFurniture]

"We'll all be rooned" said Hanrahan.

[doug3030]

This is just not true. At the beginning of the industrial revolution steel was made with charcoal and it was only replaced with cokeing coal as forests were decimated and charcoal became more expensive. Very recently our own CSIRO published a number of papers revealing that their research had shown steel could be made with modern charcoal and it would produce better and cheaper low carbon steel. The Liberal Federal government responded by slashing the CSIRO budget by $300m. Causing the loss of about 300 permanent science jobs. When are we going to wake up!

What about high carbon steel and alloys? Only having low carbon steel would be very limiting.

[Bushmiller]

I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between pilot plants and mainstream plants. It is excellent that companies are investigating new possibilities, but it is a trap to suggest that tomorrow everybody is going to switch over: Ok, yes, I am being a little dramatic there, but all these things should be put into perspective. It's a possibility: Not a probability at this stage. It is similar to the geothermal power. It was/is possible, but is it viable?

I did take this from Neil's post:

"Thyssenkrupp is one of the world’s largest steel producers and produces around 12 million tonnes of crude steel annually. The company has committed to achieving a 30 per cent reduction in the company’s emissions by 2030. The company is also aiming to become carbon neutral by 2050."

Clearly they have a reasoned approach to emissions, but note that only one of the 28 selected tuyeres had hydrogen running through it in the pilot.

I am not completely up on the requirements for high carbon steel (despite having worked at the Newcastle steelworks for two year back in 1980) but clearly the BOS plant requires some form of carbon (can they extract it from CO2? That has the carbon and the oxygen :) )

Regards
Paul

[Beardy]

1-" What is this golden opportunity that Australia is presented with? I hear this touted a bit but don’t understand what it is".
-We have massive amounts of free energy that we can pump up into asia by -direct transmission, carbon neutral steel and aluminium, -exported hydrogen. The world is wanting these products already and as the first most obvious reaction to climate chaos will be many carbon taxes we will be well placed to supply low carbon products and energy.

2- "This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face."
-We were up with the world leaders in solar and wind energy and profitably exporting our intellectual property until Abbot wrecked it. I remember him bragging that he had wiped fifteen thousand jobs from the renewable sector. But right now just about all the tomatoes sold through Coles supermarkets come from one hydroponic farm in SA which is powered by a concentrated solar mass system. Not only runs a desalination plant which provides all the water but also supplies all the energy for pumping, lights, etc. It looks like concentrated solar mass will be the long term winner. It works by collecting heat in a solar tower, moving that energy by the medium of compressed air and pumping it into sand storage where it will keep hot for weeks or months. Extraction of the energy is simply by pumping water through pipes in the hot sand silos and then running the hot steam through conventional steam turbines. This provides super cheap reliable base-load power 24/7.

I was just about to respond to your post but Bushmillers post # 461 since probably did it better than I can.

It is great we have all these new technologies emerging and I look forward to the end of coal etc. but the truth is this is all still trials and spin doctoring at this stage.
I recall Tim Flannery getting a 90 million dollar grant from Gillard for his thermal rock energy that he said was very straight forward and an easy form of energy, well after the money was gone guess what, it was too hard.
I am sure that the Ginas, Clive’s and Twiggys etc of the nation will be all over it as soon as the right technology is here regardless of the government of the day.
Likewise , I know little about hydrogen but again, common sense tells me that if our mining fraternity has not already jumped on it it must not be a winner yet, I can’t imagine that all that opportunity is sitting in the ground with big $$$$ signs all over it and they are ignoring it can you?

[FenceFurniture]

Doug, remaining calm and balanced is useful to the discussion.
Practising blatant double standards is not.
Looking for every single itty bitty word to argue with, and being generally contrarian and argumentative it is not productive.

Different point(s) of view? No problem - just express it/them in the spirit of debate and discussion rather than continual combative, emotive argument.

You claim to have been taken out of context repeatedly, or in your precise words "a lot", and yet you do exactly that, showing double standards. Here are some exchanges to exemplify that. This is your entire post, in response to me saying that coal is on the nose for financiers (and note that I have never suggested switching off all coal-fired power today, and have in fact twice before this statement said that we will need some CF power for a while yet - "I dunno....for as long as it takes to replace it altogether" was my exact response):

Even if it was possible to switch off all coal-fired power today, it would still be necessary to mine coal.

There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without it.I made no allusion to saying steel manufacturing could be done without coal (but I did say that perhaps hydrogen or methanol might take over from coal). I was merely stating that it is going to be impossible to find finance for coal (which BTW is an indisputable fact - ask the banks, or Gautam Adani). I was actually talking about new coal, but it could be extended to existing coal that needs refinancing (and IIRC Paul said Millmerran was coming up for refinancing?).

Therefore by default, and implied in my response, existing coal can still be used for a while yet to manufacture steel, by utilising existing CF assets that can be kept running. So I spent another half dozen lines calmly clarifying your obfuscation of my original post about coal being on the nose financially.



And yet when Neil quoted the second half of your post (carefully inserting "[coal]" to be very clear that he was quoting you....wait for it....in context, and then goes on to say (note his caveats in bold):

I'm not a metallurgist, so I have no insights into the veracity of the following report (that you are unlikely to have read about in the Murdoch press) from Germany on a steel furnace running on renewable hydrogen: a world first.

first://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/ (https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/)

SSAB is planning to do the same thing in Sweden.

First in fossil-free steel - SSAB (https://www.ssab.com/company/sustainability/sustainable-operations/hybrit)

I have no doubt that there will be issues ahead for them, but try telling German and Swedish steel makers who have been at it since steel manufacturing began that there is no practical way of achieving what they plan on doing. Anyway, I like their chances better than us producing 'clean' coal. What a stalking horse or red herring (whatever) that was to deflect us from getting on with what has to be done!....you start nitpicking single words and complaining you were taken out of context, when you were not at all taken out of context by Neil. He was merely quoting you so that his next statement about what is being developed for steel milling would be relevant to it. Neil didn't say anything about being able to shut coal down now wrt steel - he was just talking about what is coming up (and thanks Neil). In fact nobody (in this discussion) has said that coal can be shut down now.


The linked articles indicate that these companies hope to be commercially producing fossil-free steel by the mid-2020's. Nobody said it could not be done. The would-be manufacturers themselves seem to concur with my statement from the content of the articles linked.

It is really getting tiresome to see a lot of my statements and those of others here being taken out of context by a self appointed few who do not wish to hear any opinions that do not align exactly with their own.

So are you seeing anything positive in the discussion Doug? Are you learning anything new? Or is it all disagreeable, and all to be quibbled with? (if Len comes back to address high carbon steel, the next thing will no doubt be "but what about HSS"?)

Personally, I'm taking away many positives from this discussion, and learning stacks of stuff that I didn't know about.


As for this....
...a self appointed few who do not wish to hear any opinions that do not align exactly with their own.....that's just an emotive exaggeration, and quite unproductive to what is generally a very informative discussion, despite some occasional white noise.

[rustynail]

It is most unfortunate that both here and also in real life we have found ourselves at odds over a situation which does not improve with argument.
Global Warming, Coal mining, Co2, production, renewable energy etc. Yes these are all factors worth serious consideration as they are all important contributing aspects to the current situation. Nitpicking proves nothing and it is nitpicking that handicaps logical progressive thinking. In the course of this thread we have never stopped to take stock of where we, as a Country, are really at. Can we seriously consider closing down the coal industry overnight? Are renewables at a level and standard to take over where coal has left off? Have we got the money to make the changes needed overnight? The list goes on. We are not politicians (thank God) we do not have to lie, misquote or stab anyone in the back just to keep our nose in the trough. We are blessed with the freedom to take the time to hear alternate points of view, theorys and wishful thinking. Because somewhere among all this are the fundamentals to come up with a sensible solution. Leave the nitpicking to the monkeys.

[Bushmiller]

[QUOTE=FenceFurniture;2173463] (and IIRC Paul said Millmerran was coming up for refinancing?).

QUOTE]

Brett

Not quite. It is the Bluewaters station in WA that is about to be re-financed. It will not be easy for them. Banks don't stick their necks out for anybody and if there is doubt on the ability to repay it won't fly.

Regards
Paul

[Beardy]

It is most unfortunate that both here and also in real life we have found ourselves at odds over a situation which does not improve with argument.
Global Warming, Coal mining, Co2, production, renewable energy etc. Yes these are all factors worth serious consideration as they are all important contributing aspects to the current situation. Nitpicking proves nothing and it is nitpicking that handicaps logical progressive thinking. In the course of this thread we have never stopped to take stock of where we, as a Country, are really at. Can we seriously consider closing down the coal industry overnight? Are renewables at a level and standard to take over where coal has left off? Have we got the money to make the changes needed overnight? The list goes on. We are not politicians (thank God) we do not have to lie, misquote or stab anyone in the back just to keep our nose in the trough. We are blessed with the freedom to take the time to hear alternate points of view, theorys and wishful thinking. Because somewhere among all this are the fundamentals to come up with a sensible solution. Leave the nitpicking to the monkeys.

Agree 100%, part of the problem is there are so many issues within the debate.

If you took the CC aspect out of the debate and just discussed transitioning to an alternate energy source it would be a much more fruitful debate. CC itself appears to cloud some people’s judgment as it has become almost a religious type argument which isn’t helpful

[rwbuild]

Very sad but understandable, until we get a unified policy for Australia and not a parochial (think trains) policy it is going to be a very rocky road and requires object input by all parties.
“We’re out”: Big contractor dramatically quits Australian solar sector | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/were-out-big-contractor-dramatically-quits-australian-solar-sector-33796/)

[doug3030]

Doug, remaining calm and balanced is useful to the discussion.
Practising blatant double standards is not.
Looking for every single itty bitty word to argue with, and being generally contrarian and argumentative it is not productive.

Different point(s) of view? No problem - just express it/them in the spirit of debate and discussion rather than continual combative, emotive argument.

Well Brett, from where I sit that describes your own behavior, not mine.


It was a politician free zone on Q&A last night (https://iview.abc.net.au/show/qanda) (the best kind of Q&A by far). The topic was Transitioning from Coal to Renewables, which is absolutely smack on the theme of this thread (how to do the transitioning).

Agreed. So if we are discussing how to do the transitioning then it is part of the discussion to bring up issues which need to be overcome, isn't it?

So when anyone mentions an issue that has to be dealt with such as when I mentioned steel manufacture, why do others post information proclaiming that it is possible to make steel without coal. I know that. That's why I used the word "currently" which the critics trying to discredit my statement conveniently ignored. A helpful response to my post could have been to post the links to the very interesting material about the companies working on the problem and indicate that the companies themselves admit that commercial viability is a quarter of a century away instead of saying:

but try telling German and Swedish steel makers who have been at it since steel manufacturing began that there is no practical way of achieving what they plan on doing. which gives a false impression that the problem is already solved (and thereby inferring that my point was - well, pointless, when it is actually valid) when there is a hell of a lot mere to do before that is a fact.

Brett you accuse me of picking on single words - well in that case the single word "currently" makes all the difference to the context. A number of times you have called for all the CC deniers in the thread to declare their position. As far as I can see without dredging back through the whole thread, there aren't any here; just other members trying to debate the same issue but with slightly different ideas and point of view to your own. You claim to want debate and discussion, yet when someone presents a point you don't like YOU are the one who gets all combative and emotive.

[Beardy]

Very sad but understandable, until we get a unified policy for Australia and not a parochial (think trains) policy it is going to be a very rocky road and requires object input by all parties.
“We’re out”: Big contractor dramatically quits Australian solar sector | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/were-out-big-contractor-dramatically-quits-australian-solar-sector-33796/)

As soon as I saw who the publisher was I thought it best to get the whole story

Downer EDI profit falls 35pc on '''risky''' construction (https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/downer-edi-profit-falls-35pc-on-risky-construction-20200211-p53zuk)

[FenceFurniture]

As soon as I saw who the publisher was I thought it best to get the whole story

Downer EDI profit falls 35pc on '''risky''' construction (https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/downer-edi-profit-falls-35pc-on-risky-construction-20200211-p53zuk)The Fin Review is paywalled.

[Beardy]

The Fin Review is paywalled.

Hopefully this works

“Downer EDI will no longer build solar, coal or iron ore construction projects because they are too risky, chief executive Grant Fenn said after delivering a 35 per cent drop in interim net profit to $91.4 million.
Profits were dragged down by the poor performance of the contractor's engineering, construction and maintenance division, which reported a loss of $37.4 million compared with a profit of $22.4 million a year earlier.
Downer has previously slashed its full-year profits guidance in January by $65 million due to cost blowouts on two projects, APA Group's Orbost gas plant in Victoria and its construction of a processing plant for OZ Minerals' Carrapateena copper gold mine project in South Australia in a joint venture with Ausenco.
The profit warning caused its shares to slump 18 per cent. The stock has not recovered from the losses, and fell further on Wednesday morning, losing 34¢, or 4.5 per cent to trade at $7.13.


Downer EDI shares dive 18pc on profit warning
Mr Fenn is backing away from taking construction risk after a series of project cost blow-outs, telling analysts on Wednesday that the company would also not bid for "hard dollar" structural, mechanical and piping contracts or electrical and instrumentation contracts.


Downer instead plans to focus on sectors where it believes it can compete effectively, including transport, high voltage power transmission and substations, telecommunications, water and wind farms.
The Australian market for solar projects had "evaporated" due to the difficulty of connecting farms to electricity grids, and so avoiding solar was not a big move for Downer, Mr Fenn said.”

[woodPixel]

We can solve all problems with lasers.

They are very modern.

For those things that cant be solved with lasers, we can use ball bearings.

[NeilS]

In the absence of any answers to repeated requests of what the remaining deniers and fence sitters are afraid of, one can only assume that it is economic loss (for themselves and/or the country) combined with fear of the unknown aka staunch conservatism. I believe that those two assumptions are not only correct, but also that there are no other reasons for denial.



Brett, et al.

My observation (close up within my own family) of those that are not convinced about climate change and its causes is more complex than that. Here are a few of those complexities.


* Some are neither afraid nor coming from fear of economic loss; given the information and influences on them some are just undecided on the matter. Yes, they are fence sitters, but more importantly they are not gamblers..."if in doubt, they don't". Yes, a conservative position, but not an unreasonable approach if you are undecided.

* Many are rusted on conservative voters who don't trust politicians in general, but mistrust any party to the left of centre even more. They are more conducive to the messages coming from the right. Here in Australia over the last decade or so those messages have been crafted to be hostile to taking the proactive action on CC coming from the left. If they lived in the UK the messages they would have been getting from the right over the last 30yrs would have been very different. Less than 3% UK citizens now say that climate change is not happening and a similar very low % still say that humans are not the cause of climate change. The views held here on CC among conservative voters are an artifact of our politics. The point being, the views of conservative voters here in Australia have been skewed by a concerted effort by the political class on the right to gain and stay in power and cannot be attributed entirely to any 'natural' conservative position.

* Some resist the changes proposed for avoiding CC by the same groups in society that brought about changes in laws on issues such as sexuality and marriage, which they resisted. Because these social conservatives didn't trust those opponents on those issues they don't trust them over this issue either.

* Some live in families/workplaces/recreation, faith and other community groups where they only/mostly hear the views circulating and being reinforced within those groups. They are not fence sitters, they are just oblivious to any alternatives and any media that gets to them doesn't challenge their equilibrium.

* Some are less educated. Surveys repeatedly show that the higher the level of education the more supportive individuals are on the need for action on CC. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that less education equals less intelligence. Not everyone has had the same educational opportunities. However, complex arguments exercised in higher education don't work so well with those who have been to the school of life. A more nuanced engagement at the level of values is required with them than repeatedly challenging them with arguments. Do that and they will quickly disengage.

* Some are resistant to any changes that will jeopardise their already precarious financial situations. The combination of low wage growth and absurdly high house (actually land) prices here in Australia has put financial pressures on many families. They know that any shift in their financial circumstances can tip them into mortage stress and default. Scare talk about taking a more proactive stance on CC will put a "wrecking ball" through our economy plays to their fears. The argument that we here in Australia would only make a very small difference if we if took more action and why do it unless every other country does the same further convinces them that it is not in their or our interest to do so, at least for now. They may be 'afraid of .... economic loss', but as responsible parents they are rightly concerned for the welfare of their family.

* And, some are not so much afraid as angry that others are pushing for changes that they don't see as being necessary. Pushing back just confirms for them that others are out to get them!


These undecided, resistant and anti-change folk are almost without exception very fine people, living honest hard working lives and contributors to their communities. They are the ones who step up when needed in a crisis like we saw across the southern states this summer. They are not other, they are us with different opinions. But, they have not been served well by some of our political class and some sectors of the media who have my lowest regard as I doubt their motives.

However, I reserve my greatest scorn for the denialist organisations, their aligned think tanks, and their deep-pocketed funders who have been manipulating good people to their own ends.

[NeilS]

It is really getting tiresome to see a lot of my statements and those of others here being taken out of context by a self appointed few who do not wish to hear any opinions that do not align exactly with their own.

If that includes me, I'm sorry you feel that way Doug.

I looked back at your original post and, on reflection, I don't think I took it out of context, but I won't quibble on that.

If I express a different view in response to a post that doesn't mean that I did not wish to read that poster's views. Far from it.

And, I would have thought that anyone who posts to a thread on these forums is self appointed, other than the Mod of course.

[Beardy]

Neil you forgot one other group.
Those that don’t trust the mistruths and scaremongering that constantly comes from the pro CC camp ( just like they do from the denialists) The likes of Tim Flannery have done the cause no favours.
If they were honest and upfront of the real state of play they could gain more trust and traction

[FenceFurniture]

The likes of Tim Flannery have done the cause no favours. If they were honest and upfront of the real state of play they could gain more trust and tractionUnless there is some kind of evidence shown (here) supporting statements like that then they are just bombs thrown into the debate, and that's one very good reason why matters get heated from time to time. How about a link or two to some articles that support that point of view? That way, readers of your post can make up their own minds after reading at least some supporting evidence. My point being that I'll be damned if I believe that TF has done the cause no favours and not been honest and upfront, just because someone (who most often disagrees with my point of view anyway) says so, without evidence supporting it.

[Bushmiller]

At the risk of going down a side road but at the request of Brett, the OP, I have a little information on what we are up against regarding the transition to renewables. Brett's question was specifically what constitutes the "base" load. So I have put together a screen shot to assist with this. The first is just a snapshot of about the last 24hrs (not quite 24hrs) of demand to gain an idea of maximum and minimum loads. You will see that the minimum demand occured, not unexpectedly, around 0300hrs and in round figures was 18,250MW for the whole Eastern seaboard grid. Sorry WA, I'm afraid you are not in this.

468552

The maximum was during the evening peak and about 27,000MW and this is fairly typical. Please note that I am reading off a fairly imprecise graph so the figures are rounded off. If we accept that the stations supplying the minimum demand are the base load stations, because they can supply during the night or at any time and they are supplying power when the price is low, which effectively means they are the most economic units, we can work out that on that particular day the base load represented 68% of the power required during the day. However, that is not really a true picture as the day was mild, temperature wise, and there was a lot of unutilised power available. So I went looking for the maximum demand for the year to date. That was 33,920MW.

Our minimum load as a percentage of that is 54% and I believe could be described as the base load. We will have the most trouble replacing this portion. While I was able to find maximum load figures quite easily there was nothing on the minimum load so I have had to take yesterday as fairly typical. If somebody wanted to be picky I guess you could say the base load is about half our maximum: In other words still quite a bit.

The following are some statistics for each of the states with a few comments of mine. Firstly:

NSW. The peak is clearly at tea time. Prices range from $25.00 to $295.00. Lots of surplus capacity (green line). Max demand 10,100MW. Min demand 6,500MW

468553

QLD: Similar peak period and pricing (but not identical). Max demand 8,500MW. Min demand 6,500MW


468554

SA: Max demand 1600MW, min demand 1000MW. Two distinct price peaks pretty much coinciding with high demand when the solar isn't playing much of a part. $300.00 to $-40.00 Take note of several hours of negative prices!


468555

TAS: Max demand 1200MW. Min demand 900MW. Max price $400.00 Minimum $-30.00. More negative prices


468556

VIC: Similar pattern to NSW and QLD prices $265to $20. Max demand 6250MW. Min demand 4000MW.

468557

If you would like any further information, please say.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

That's excellent detailed info - tvm!

I recall that you have mentioned before (and please correct any discrepancies) that gas - presumably natural gas - is the base load champion for expediency of delivery, followed by coal, which is what is mostly used. I would have thought that coal would have some kind of reasonably significant delay compared to gas - yes?

Where I'm going there is I'm wondering how good would Hydrogen be at producing Base Load power as quickly as required, as long as it is in plentiful supply of course (and that won't be until new tech can produce it significantly). I would have thought that it would be at least as efficient as natural gas, given that Hydrogen is one of the most volatile fuels we know of.

[Toymaker Len]

What about high carbon steel and alloys? Only having low carbon steel would be very limiting.

Sorry Doug I should be more clear. I am not referring to the formulation of the actual metal I am using the generic term "low carbon" to indicate a manufacturing process which does not rely on fossil sourced carbon. The Garnaut Report in 2007 and the second one in 2010 went into the potential future demand for "low carbon" steel and aluminium. Australia is ideally placed for this. Our bauxite and iron ore reserves are out in hot dry areas which are ideal for concentrated solar mass power stations. The cheap renewable power could be used right there to make low carbon aluminium and steel. It would be a huge bit of value adding and job creation.

[Bushmiller]

That's excellent detailed info - tvm!

I recall that you have mentioned before (and please correct any discrepancies) that gas - presumably natural gas - is the base load champion for expediency of delivery, followed by coal, which is what is mostly used. I would have thought that coal would have some kind of reasonably significant delay compared to gas - yes?

Where I'm going there is I'm wondering how good would Hydrogen be at producing Base Load power as quickly as required, as long as it is in plentiful supply of course (and that won't be until new tech can produce it significantly). I would have thought that it would be at least as efficient as natural gas, given that Hydrogen is one of the most volatile fuels we know of.

Brett

Yes, gas power can be ramped up much faster than coal power, but it tends to be more expensive. Everything comes at a price.

Hydrogen is an interesting concept and it has been mentioned several times on this thread already. Hydrogen has to be extracted and the most common form at the moment is using electricity. When I worked at Bayswater PS we produced our own hydrogen there and also supplied Liddell across the road as their hydrogen plant never worked properly. It is quite expensive to produce until different technologies come along. Power stations use hydrogen as the coolant in their generators. It has the best thermal conductivity and the least windage.

As a fuel it comes down to the fact it has to be made. Maybe you could use it in the boilers. In cars, which is where is has been mostly touted, I think after cost the biggest issue is safety. Ask the people on the Hindenberg. If your H2 powered car has a bingle will it be more prone to exploding? Is there a way around that? It is rare for petrol or diesel powered vehicles to catch fire in a crash, although it happens occasionally. Certainly there is enough energy in H2 gas, but it is more a question of control. We are pretty careful with it at work and have quite a bit of security around it: For example when we move in the immediate vicinity of the H2 plants there is , obviously, no smoking, no two way radios, no mobile phones etc.

All that would have to be considered, but interestingly I have never heard of any of those concerns when hydrogen potential has been discussed. Nevertheless, if it can be made commercially viable it is another possibility.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I think after cost the biggest issue is safety. Ask the people on the Hindenberg. If your H2 powered car has a bingle will it be more prone to exploding?LPG cars have been on the road for about 40 years, and don't seem to have earned any particularly dangerous reputation, AFAIK.




In today's news:
Rogue Nationals wanting new coal-fired power stations face battle with Liberals and markets - Politics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-13/national-party-rebels-fighting-for-more-coal-power-stations/11959568)

[Bushmiller]

LPG cars have been on the road for about 40 years, and don't seem to have earned any particularly dangerous reputation, AFAIK.






Brett

LPG? Good point. Some detail on H2. Note the upper and lower explosive limits (4% and 75%)

Hydrogen Compared with Other Fuels | Hydrogen Tools (https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-compared-other-fuels)

and a little bit of discussion here:


Why are hydrogen cars so expensive to fuel and considered dangerous? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/Why-are-hydrogen-cars-so-expensive-to-fuel-and-considered-dangerous)

You will have to open up the articles for further reading. Warning: Both articles are on the negative side.

Hydrogen at the power staions is made using electricity to separate it from water. It is stored at about 16MPa (liqid form)

Regards
Paul

[Glider]

The CSIRO have been working on hydrogen as a fuel for quite a while. The last I heard, they were looking at transporting it as ammonia and then processing it into its molecular components of nitrogen and hydrogen. I believe the process involves using solar energy for the initial reaction and possibly re-conversion.

I believe industry uses 2/3 of baseload power and domestic the balance. This being the case, using solar for day shift manufacturing is a no brainer. All we need is power transmission capability.

mick

[FenceFurniture]

While you are here Mick, can I direct you to my post #439 please?

[Bushmiller]

LPG cars have been on the road for about 40 years, and don't seem to have earned any particularly dangerous reputation, AFAIK.




In today's news:
Rogue Nationals wanting new coal-fired power stations face battle with Liberals and markets - Politics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-13/national-party-rebels-fighting-for-more-coal-power-stations/11959568)


Have alook at this too!!

Billion-dollar Indigenous-led power station to revive struggling Queensland coal town - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-18/billion-dollar-indigenous-led-power-station-revive-qld-coal-town/11194306)

Regards
Paul

[Glider]

While you are here Mick, can I direct you to my post #439 please?

Sorry mate. I've only been following this thread on & off. Been in the shed from sparrows until dark.

I'll have to sit down & do some calcs. tonight and let you know. Of course, petrol is vegetable soup changing composition with the seasons, so there'll be an error factor involved, but close enough is good enough for this topic.

Are you going for a personal best for length of thread? Or even a forum record?

mick :)

[A Duke]

:oo: The End is nigh! :oo:

[Boringgeoff]

I have been thinking about my post No 437 and FF's at 439. At 90 kmh the truck would take two minutes to cover 3 km, the engine is a Caterpillar 3208, 8 cylinders and 10.4 litre displacement. At 90 kmh it's pulling 2,800 rpm which is 5,600 rev's over the two minute span, but because it's a four stroke engine only half the rev's are hot so that brings the firing rev's back to 2,800. 2,800 x 10.4 = 29,120 litres of air/fuel mixture sucked in over that two minute period, that's assuming 100% efficiency which it wouldn't achieve but we'll stay with that. That's nearly 30 m3 ​!!!
In that two minutes each cylinder has fired 2,800 times therefore 8 cyl's x 2,800 = 22,400 individual firings for 1 litre of diesel. A minuscule drop of diesel, one 22.4th of a ml is injected each firing if my maths is right.

Years ago before we had radios and other distractions in the trucks I used to do these maths problems in my head (writing numbers in the dust on the dashboard not allowed) but I had to use a calculator for this. I hope I'm correct but no hard feelings if my calculations get blown out of the water (or off the road).
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Beardy]

Interesting article from back in September from the ABC

Rare weather event over Antarctica driving Australia's hot, dry outlook - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-06/rare-weather-event-over-antarctica-drives-hot-outlook/11481498)

Interesting wording from the head scientist Not climate change but 'natural phenomenon’

[FenceFurniture]

Luckily they don't happen down here too frequently.
Interesting wording from the head scientist Not climate change but 'natural phenomenon’Well there are plenty of natural phenomenons in weather and climate (El Nino etc).

[NeilS]

I have a little information on what we are up against regarding the transition to renewables.

Thanks, Paul.

I found that to be very informative.

Can I presume that the two 'plateaux' of dispatchable power being generated by Tas that is well above their own demand is them turning on the tap to ramp up their hydro for export into the mainland states at peak demand times?

[NeilS]

Interesting article from back in September from the ABC

Rare weather event over Antarctica driving Australia's hot, dry outlook - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-06/rare-weather-event-over-antarctica-drives-hot-outlook/11481498)

Interesting wording from the head scientist Not climate change but 'natural phenomenon’



Thank you for posting that Beardy.

Interesting read.

Terms:
SSW - is a Sudden Stratospheric Warming over the poles.
IOD - the Indian Ocean Dipolar
SAM - the Southern Annular Mode
BOM - Bureau of Met

According to Dr Hendon, the BOM views "SSWs as a natural, internally-generated, phenomena," but "... very rare in the southern hemisphere."

Although rare, this particular SSW has had a measurable impact on our weather this summer.

What the SSW did this summer was to push the SAM further north, exacerbating our dry conditions.

Elders Weather (https://www.eldersweather.com.au/news/southeastern-australias-cold-start-to-summer/530596)

Dr Watkins (also from the BOM), said that cooler than normal water in the Indian Ocean, a phenomenon meteorologists call a 'positive IOD', has led to a lack of moisture drifting over the continent. "This has certainly been a big factor in why winter has been so dry in virtually all of Australia. On top of that, we have the likelihood of prolonged periods of negative SAM, which also brings drier conditions to New South Wales and southern Queensland

Both the IOD and SAM are understood to have been altered by CC.

Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode during the past millennium (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2235.epdf?referrer_access_token=I8vCTOmsGIGMouD-dzy5HdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N0uHd1iwp5OjWGgBVHFOwkhtd3czAW1ioLlM1TUcvjgh7kaS0_QcNyjwyFalWsNoWWPMdZrQ-lNfhB-k9QeXtimCOoV5hcmOTcjivXYPilIFLa88JRg-e7p0zSV4N9CCUNNFQZ0-WiVkL_pOGXozdG2VrvF90yawt8qGktuZVvqG7sgGYWw6mVy0VU7MWWQd8X4gGU8rkdD3B4VF50zyh_CwlsgDdAJ5J7cL6CKAiM9boNJxcNPrkRZQNmQ3NaxNjKvzjryF3NT5ZhX6Fdv91E&tracking_referrer=blogs.scientificamerican.com)

Increased frequency of extreme Indian Ocean Dipole events due to greenhouse warming (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13327.epdf?referrer_access_token=_6BT-rfRMRJZ2iZSHlSzQtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NrpOhLWTf7NLQI2QflLTTFR_mqm6Uo-W2FUdc0hsw8_Zjvg7cBOGpMJWGoK_wfqdwV6R3MI4TT58MN-ZZjJs6nitlv1U9yGCi911iMfnphOnnO6zxaNyVV0F1ImT3eiCiNeN74Y_GHpfH3xZq9g69hvCaQ4oMMZPSdYqk7O0SvW6Ike-t0unuAWpHG_SOL_gX2uXxvi8-wNjB-iiSVIA66BAqoku8QvMJOXfCAF-U6VUH6aNnfGFTeKpXlSc7tQU8IAcxicEPa0amupskZ7pjD&tracking_referrer=blogs.scientificamerican.com)

So, the long term trend in climate change has been disturbed this summer (negatively, from our perspective here in SE Australia) by an rare (only twice in sixty years) weather event that itself is not thought to be caused by climate change.

More here (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a035.shtml) on SSWs, if interested.

[Bushmiller]

Can I presume that the two 'plateaux' of dispatchable power being generated by Tas that is well above their own demand is them turning on the tap to ramp up their hydro for export into the mainland states at peak demand times?

Neil
The DC link under Bass Straight was constructed primarily forTasmania in case they had a dry spell and ran out of water and not so they could supply Victoria.

However, human nature reared it’s head and the Tasmanian power companies saw an opportunity to cash in on higher prices in Victoria. So, they supplied Victoria and bought in power when required at lower prices. That all worked well until they had significantly depleted their dam supplies and the DC link broke! Then they were paddleless in that well known polluted creek.

You may remember they were shipping every diesel generator they could find over to Tassie as the link was not easily repaired and was, I think, unavailable for about nine months.

Consequently, they are a little more circumspect nowadays,but are still driven by “commercial considerations.” So I don’t know exactly but I think your surmise is probably correct.

Regards
Paul

[Beardy]

Thank you for posting that Beardy.

Interesting read.

Terms:
SSW - is a Sudden Stratospheric Warming over the poles.
IOD - the Indian Ocean Dipolar
SAM - the Southern Annular Mode
BOM - Bureau of Met

According to Dr Hendon, the BOM views "SSWs as a natural, internally-generated, phenomena," but "... very rare in the southern hemisphere."

Although rare, this particular SSW has had a measurable impact on our weather this summer.

What the SSW did this summer was to push the SAM further north, exacerbating our dry conditions.

Elders Weather (https://www.eldersweather.com.au/news/southeastern-australias-cold-start-to-summer/530596)

Dr Watkins (also from the BOM), said that cooler than normal water in the Indian Ocean, a phenomenon meteorologists call a 'positive IOD', has led to a lack of moisture drifting over the continent. "This has certainly been a big factor in why winter has been so dry in virtually all of Australia. On top of that, we have the likelihood of prolonged periods of negative SAM, which also brings drier conditions to New South Wales and southern Queensland

Both the IOD and SAM are understood to have been altered by CC.

Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode during the past millennium (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2235.epdf?referrer_access_token=I8vCTOmsGIGMouD-dzy5HdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N0uHd1iwp5OjWGgBVHFOwkhtd3czAW1ioLlM1TUcvjgh7kaS0_QcNyjwyFalWsNoWWPMdZrQ-lNfhB-k9QeXtimCOoV5hcmOTcjivXYPilIFLa88JRg-e7p0zSV4N9CCUNNFQZ0-WiVkL_pOGXozdG2VrvF90yawt8qGktuZVvqG7sgGYWw6mVy0VU7MWWQd8X4gGU8rkdD3B4VF50zyh_CwlsgDdAJ5J7cL6CKAiM9boNJxcNPrkRZQNmQ3NaxNjKvzjryF3NT5ZhX6Fdv91E&tracking_referrer=blogs.scientificamerican.com)

Increased frequency of extreme Indian Ocean Dipole events due to greenhouse warming (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13327.epdf?referrer_access_token=_6BT-rfRMRJZ2iZSHlSzQtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NrpOhLWTf7NLQI2QflLTTFR_mqm6Uo-W2FUdc0hsw8_Zjvg7cBOGpMJWGoK_wfqdwV6R3MI4TT58MN-ZZjJs6nitlv1U9yGCi911iMfnphOnnO6zxaNyVV0F1ImT3eiCiNeN74Y_GHpfH3xZq9g69hvCaQ4oMMZPSdYqk7O0SvW6Ike-t0unuAWpHG_SOL_gX2uXxvi8-wNjB-iiSVIA66BAqoku8QvMJOXfCAF-U6VUH6aNnfGFTeKpXlSc7tQU8IAcxicEPa0amupskZ7pjD&tracking_referrer=blogs.scientificamerican.com)

So, the long term trend in climate change has been disturbed this summer (negatively, from our perspective here in SE Australia) by an rare (only twice in sixty years) weather event that itself is not thought to be caused by climate change.

More here (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a035.shtml) on SSWs, if interested.

I am surprised it has slipped under the media radar without more commentary, you would of expected the denier camp would of been all over it.

[FenceFurniture]

you would have expected the denier camp would of been all over it.Maybe there is less of them these days.

[Bushmiller]

A link to AEMO for those of you who are interested in the prices and demands for each state. It is right up to date all the time.

AEMO | National Electricity Market (NEM) (https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem)

Click on the data dashboad as you scroll down the page.

Regards
Paul

PS: Actually, if you go to "Fuel Mix" there is even more information. Under that you can select the cursor to see the breakdown between coal, hydro, wind, solar etc. at any moment of the day.

[FenceFurniture]

Neil you forgot one other group.
Those that don’t trust the mistruths and scaremongering that constantly comes from the pro CC camp ( just like they do from the denialists) The likes of Tim Flannery have done the cause no favours.
If they were honest and upfront of the real state of play they could gain more trust and traction
Unless there is some kind of evidence shown (here) supporting statements like that then they are just bombs thrown into the debate, and that's one very good reason why matters get heated from time to time. How about a link or two to some articles that support that point of view? That way, readers of your post can make up their own minds after reading at least some supporting evidence. My point being that I'll be damned if I believe that TF has done the cause no favours and not been honest and upfront, just because someone (who most often disagrees with my point of view anyway) says so, without evidence supporting it.Is there a response with supporting evidence coming, or are you just going to throw the bomb into the debate and leave it? It's the second time you've had a crack at Flannery without supporting your argument.

This was the first:

I recall Tim Flannery getting a 90 million dollar grant from Gillard for his thermal rock energy that he said was very straight forward and an easy form of energy, well after the money was gone guess what, it was too hard.See, I find it difficult to think of a more honourable Human Being than Tim Flannery. It's not that your statements upset me, I just find that without any substantiation whatsoever - just your word for it - that your statements on TF lack credibility, so I think it's time to put up....

[Beardy]

Is there a response with supporting evidence coming, or are you just going to throw the bomb into the debate and leave it? It's the second time you've had a crack at Flannery without supporting your argument.

This was the first:
See, I find it difficult to think of a more honourable Human Being than Tim Flannery. It's not that your statements upset me, I just find that without any substantiation whatsoever - just your word for it - that your statements on TF lack credibility, so I think it's time to put up....

Well there are the dams will never be full again statement about two years before they were breaking their banks, so we spent how much on Desal plants and their horrendous standby costs for the last 10 years and the energy required to run them V building dams
I recall the other statement of the sea level rising 25 metres and Parramatta would be the new Sydney waterfront for a start.
You don’t have to look far to find them.
Flannery is just one example, there are plenty of misleading reporting by certain media outlets that are not being honest

[Bushmiller]

May I briefly hark back to the base load situation and I am going to throw out a statement for discussion.

It is that we may have completed the first stage of renewable energy and for the moment we have gone as far as we can go in economic terms. By that I mean that any additional power sources of any type will from now on make the market uneconomic. Let me suggest that during the day renewables on a good day can replace or supply around forty percent of the market. By a good day I mean that the sun is shining well, the wind is blowing well and the dams have plenty of water. If any further players enter the market they are only competing for that 40% and as a consequence will drive down the wholesale price in total.

On the face of it that makes it sound good for the consumer. Short term it is, but long term companies go out of business. Bear in mind that none of these renewable are in a position to replace that 50% base load.

What do you think is the way around this? Firstly that an economic plateau has been reached and secondly what will replace the fossil fired base load?

Regards
Paul

[Toymaker Len]

May I briefly hark back to the base load situation and I am going to throw out a statement for discussion.

It is that we may have completed the first stage of renewable energy and for the moment we have gone as far as we can go in economic terms. By that I mean that any additional power sources of any type will from now on make the market uneconomic. Let me suggest that during the day renewables on a good day can replace or supply around forty percent of the market. By a good day I mean that the sun is shining well, the wind is blowing well and the dams have plenty of water. If any further players enter the market they are only competing for that 40% and as a consequence will drive down the wholesale price in total.

On the face of it that makes it sound good for the consumer. Short term it is, but long term companies go out of business. Bear in mind that none of these renewable are in a position to replace that 50% base load.

What do you think is the way around this? Firstly that an economic plateau has been reached and secondly what will replace the fossil fired base load?

Regards
Paul

Have a look at this Paul, Innovation - Sundrop (https://www.sundropfarms.com/innovation/) I am no expert but I have just read Tim Flannerys' latest book ( and yes I do find it a bit disgusting that such an honorable man (Australian of the year 2007), brilliant academic, great writer, thinker and leader is senselessly slandered by the ignorant) It seems that this system of concentrated solar mass is low cost, reliable and makes baseload power far more cheaply than any other system. This is probably what we should be building. Also here NoCookies | The Australian (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/this-is-the-future-of-farming/news-story/99fd0a207d8b6aa0768c32fd61b3d00e) and here World-first solar tower powered tomato farm opens in Port Augusta | RenewEconomy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/world-first-solar-tower-powered-tomato-farm-opens-port-augusta-41643/)