Watch Q&A from last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Printable View
Watch Q&A from last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Tennis!? When there is Union or League? Blimey, when I started High School I thought I could walk on water.
I will tonight, I hope my questions are answered but I am not confidentQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I never did try playing Union in summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
Or winter.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
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.
Even if it was possible to switch off all coal-fired power today, it would still be necessary to mine coal.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
There is currently no practical way to manufacture steel without it.
One of the new technologies is based on hydrogen and it is already well developed as a technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
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 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
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
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
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!
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:
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.Quote:
even it is only a perceived crisis such as the Y2K scenario
After the weekend storms, I think we've become a marginal electorate - there are unwanted pools everywhere!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
first://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
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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.
Ain't that the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
Morse Code has been invented? We're all screwed then. All the Semaphore flagmen are out of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
AlexQuote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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.
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
"We'll all be rooned" said Hanrahan.
What about high carbon steel and alloys? Only having low carbon steel would be very limiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toymaker Len
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
I was just about to respond to your post but Bushmillers post # 461 since probably did it better than I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toymaker Len
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?
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):
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?).Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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):
....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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
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"?)Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Personally, I'm taking away many positives from this discussion, and learning stacks of stuff that I didn't know about.
As for this........that's just an emotive exaggeration, and quite unproductive to what is generally a very informative discussion, despite some occasional white noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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.
[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
Agree 100%, part of the problem is there are so many issues within the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
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
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
Well Brett, from where I sit that describes your own behavior, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
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.
As soon as I saw who the publisher was I thought it best to get the whole storyQuote:
Originally Posted by rwbuild
Downer EDI profit falls 35pc on '''risky''' construction
The Fin Review is paywalled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Hopefully this worksQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
“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.”
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.
Brett, et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
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.
If that includes me, I'm sorry you feel that way Doug.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
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.
Attachment 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
Attachment 468553
QLD: Similar peak period and pricing (but not identical). Max demand 8,500MW. Min demand 6,500MW
Attachment 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!
Attachment 468555
TAS: Max demand 1200MW. Min demand 900MW. Max price $400.00 Minimum $-30.00. More negative prices
Attachment 468556
VIC: Similar pattern to NSW and QLD prices $265to $20. Max demand 6250MW. Min demand 4000MW.
Attachment 468557
If you would like any further information, please say.
Regards
Paul
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
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