Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Described as the holy grail of electricity generation (probably owing to the similar mythical or unobtainable prospects of the ecclesiastical garment) nuclear fusion has been a carrot dangling on a line for fifty years of more and like BobL's finite oil reserves always twenty years away. So this is the latest from Oxford university:

Nuclear fusion is achieved through new projectile fusion technique (msn.com)

Interesting, but don't expect a 2000MW facility to come online anytime soon. They still have not reached the point where there is more output than input. That is not a reason to stop looking. I sometimes quote a line from a Thom Gunn poem:

"At worse, one is in motion; and at best,
Reaching no absolute, in which to rest,
One is always nearer by not keeping still."

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

During WW II ethanol was produced from sugar cane at Sarina in Qld.

---

Doesn't CSR still produce ethanol from molasses at Sarina?

I remember visiting Sarina in the 1970's; it is on the banks of a little river which was in quite disgusting condition because of the discharge of effluent from the distillery.

Quote:

---

https://www.woodworkforums.com/images/icons/icon1.png Fusion (Nuclear)

Described as the holy grail of electricity generation (probably owing to the similar mythical or unobtainable prospects of the ecclesiastical garment) nuclear fusion has been a carrot dangling on a line for fifty years of more ...

---

And their predecessors, back in the 1950's, were saying that nuclear fission was absolutely safe and that there would be plants evrywhere "in twenty years" producing electricity so cheaply that it would not be worth the costs of metering.

Note: fission is the reverse of fusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Doesn't CSR still produce ethanol from molasses at Sarina?

I remember visiting Sarina in the 1970's; it is on the banks of a little river which was in quite disgusting condition because of the discharge of effluent from the distillery.

---

Not sure if they still do, but the plant was certainly in existence in 1970 - not sure if it was working or not then.

I came across a few statistics in diagram form that I thought may be of interest: Basically the largest power installations around the world for various categories. Firstly, the largest power stations overall.

Attachment 510005

It should be noted that while the Three Gorges Dam has the potential to produce thee most power, in practice the Itaipu Dam in Brazil produces more MWs per year.

Hydro, Natural Gas, Wind and Nukes:


Attachment 510006

River Hydro, Pumped hydro, Solar and Biomass:

Attachment 510007

Shale Oil (yuk), Geothermal and Peat:

Attachment 510008

Australia, not unsurprisingly, does not feature anywhere in these stats, although if Hazelwood Power Station was still open, it could have been included under the Peat category (actually it burnt brown coal, which is not too dissimilar: It may be the same) and at 1600MW (8 x 200MW units) would have been the largest in the world. If there had been a "dirtiest category," it would have topped that list also.

Regards
Paul

whats a real eye opener is that the largest coal plant in china is probably chewing around 80,000 tons of coal a day if its running flat out, that's more then some coal ships can even supply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

whats a real eye opener is that the largest coal plant in china is probably chewing around 80,000 tons of coal a day if its running flat out, that's more then some coal ships can even supply.

---

Agreed

Regards
Paul

I heard a radio broadcast a few days ago, which I thought was mainly accurate (there were a few things I might contend, although not enough to go to war over), but I could not remember the title or who the presenter was so it took me a while to track it down. Matt Bevan is the presenter and early on in the podcast he quotes a man by the name of Professor John Bokris. Back in 1973 this man highlighted the issues the third rock from the sun was going to have in forty to fifty years regarding Carbon Dioxide: Fifty years ago makes that right now!

AUSTRALIA | S06 E8 - The 49-year-old energy prophecy that is finally coming true - Australia, If You’re Listening - ABC Radio

I don't know about Bokris being a professor. He may have been a prophet. The podcast moves on from there and the Bokriss mention is only a brief reference pointing out the relative timeframes for awareness of problem caused by CO2. Other people are also asked when they first became "aware."

I think it is well worth a listen.

Regards
Paul

Hazelwood Power Station was still open, it could have been included under the Peat category (actually it burnt brown coal, which is not too dissimilar: It may be the same) and at 1600MW (8 x 200MW units) would have been the largest in the world.
Although the well known authority Wikipedia advises peat is the origin of brown coal aka lignite, brown coal is a much higher grade fuel (still not very good though. ) Hazelwood was not a peat burning plant. Loy yang, also a brown coal plant, has 3.4MW capacity, but there are 2 lignite stations in Germany of higher capacity.
Russ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... I don't know about Bokris being a professor. He may have been a prophet. ...

---

You may be prone to understatement, Paul! An extremely brief summary:

• Born in South Africa, 1923,
• Educated, Brighton technical School, Johannesburg,
• PhD, Imperial College, London, at age 22,
• DSc, Imperial College, London, at age 29.

On faculty of:

• Imperial College, London,
• University of Pennsylvania,
• Flinders University, South Australia,
• Texas A&M University.

Authored 700+ journal articles and 24 books.

Bernhardt Patrick John O’Mara Bockris (5 January 1923 – 7 July 2013)
John Bockris - Wikipedia

He apparently did some brilliant science earning a Faraday Medal (1981) and attracted controversy earning an IgNobel prize (1997)!

Graeme

Yes, PHD by 22 years of age means he was a clever lad and went on to be most prolific in his writings. Thanks for the extra info.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

Yes, PHD by 22 years of age means he was a clever lad and went on to be most prolific in his writings. Thanks for the extra info.

Regards
Paul

---

The DSc at age 29 is also very impressive, which are awarded in recognition of a 'substantial and sustained contribution to scientific knowledge' beyond that required for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)' and more typically granted mid career.

Only know about those because my FiL had one of them after his name.

Did have one ancestor who matriculated to university at age 12 then dithered while doing his Baccalaureate, Masters and PhD and wasn't appointed to a professorship until he was 20yrs old!

In comparison, his father was a bit slower off the mark not completing his two PhDs and being appointed to a professorship until he was 25... :rolleyes:

It's a shame how diluted DNA becomes many generations later...:U

About 7 years ago I met an Australian in America who had gained entry to Melbourne Uni to study medicine aged 15. His parents reckoned he was too young and made him take a gap year. When I met him he was a 'retired' professor in the USA, but was still involved with the childrens' hospital that was founded in his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

About 7 years ago I met an Australian in America who had gained entry to Melbourne Uni to study medicine aged 15. His parents reckoned he was too young and made him take a gap year. When I met him he was a 'retired' professor in the USA, but was still involved with the childrens' hospital that was founded in his name.

---

That is the problem with the precocious. They are ready for the academics but do not necessarily have the maturity to take on the responsibilities after graduation.

My own brother, also a retired professor now (a pioneer in transplant surgery), was too young when he first graduation and then had a year treading water before he could be registered to practice.

But, they still manage get where they are ultimately going ahead of their peers and we are all the beneficiaries of what they contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I heard a radio broadcast a few days ago, Matt Bevan is the presenter and early on in the podcast he quotes a man by the name of Professor John Bokris. Back in 1973 this man highlighted the issues the third rock from the sun was going to have in forty to fifty years regarding Carbon Dioxide: Fifty years ago makes that right now!

---

Yes, extraordinary that he had the measure of it so accurately, so early. What's even more extraordinary though, is that Bokris then floated off with the pixies. I didn't listen to the podcast, but I read Bevan's article on him. After moving to Texas he descended into Alchemy, trying to convert Mercury into Gold, along with much work on cold fusion which is still a non-starter – maybe it will remain that way (Mercury is still Mercury too). This is all covered in the last section of that article.

Perhaps he should have retired by 1980?

Brett

So many denialists have pointed out how good CO2 is and that plants consume it: True, but a bit like fertiliser, you can have too much of a good thing particularly if yesterday you removed the plants. This is what I extracted from lecture:

he explained that humans were now producing carbon dioxide at a faster rate than it could be absorbed by plants through photosynthesis, and so it was building up in the atmosphere.
"Now, it can be shown that that does unfortunate things to our atmosphere," he said.
<aside class="_2X-83 g1U-R _1VIKT" data-component="Pullquote" style="box-sizing: border-box; auto; font-size: 1.25rem; line- 2rem; margin- text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: abcsans, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, Roboto, &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, Arial, sans-serif;">"To put it very briefly, it makes the climate change."

This comment seems quite familiar and the conservative right (and others) have not learnt much in the ensuing fifty years.


The transport minister at the time, Peter Nixon, said Professor Bockris's proposal was not viable.
"It's just not clearly possible to find the sorts of money that Professor Bockris would like for solar energy at this time," Mr Nixon told the ABC's AM program.
"Professor Bockris is pushing his own barrow.
"I doubt the feasibility of Australia to take the lead over countries such as the United States in the area of solar energy."
John Bockris responded angrily, accusing the government of only being interested in talking to fossil fuel lobbyists, and taking a "supine attitude" to solar research.

It is a shame his later career fizzled in comparison.

Regards
Paul


</aside>

I was a student at Flinders Uni (Earth Science) at the time Bockris was there. I don't remember him, but they did develop an electric car at that time. I'm pretty sure they didn't have an engineering faculty at the time, so as a chemist, he may have been involved in its development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

<aside class="_2X-83 g1U-R _1VIKT" data-component="Pullquote" style="box-sizing: border-box; auto; font-size: 1.25rem; line- 2rem; margin- text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: abcsans, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, &quot;Segoe UI&quot;, Roboto, &quot;Helvetica Neue&quot;, Arial, sans-serif;">
It is a shame his later career fizzled in comparison.

---

As the saying goes, there is only a fine line between genius and madness...

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/only-a-fine-line-between-genius-and-madness-study/articleshow/5071954.cms

</aside>And, while off on this tangent, a little dyslexia might be safer. Some well known dyslexics include Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs.

https://www.smartcompany.com.<wbr>au/people-human-resources/<wbr>linkedin-dyslexic-thinking-<wbr>official-skill-richard-<wbr>branson/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

... Some well known dyslexics include Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs. ...

---

Interesting, and there is certainly a lot of information on this topic.

When my wife was a graduate student in the States in the 1980's she had a part time job in the University Library and for three years she was one of the curators of its Einstein Collection. She says that Einstein's hand writing, in both German and English and a little in Yiddish, as the neatest that she has ever seen. She describes his personal letters as extremely caring and very nuanced, though in English he occasionally used German grammar and spelling conventions. She says that she detected no lingering signs of dyslexia. But then she only has doctoral level knowledge in behavioural science, and is very careful to note their "late diagnosis" and that he may have overcome the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Interesting, and there is certainly a lot of information on this topic.

When my wife was a graduate student in the States.... she was one of the curators of its Einstein Collection...She says that she detected no lingering signs of dyslexia....

---

Thanks Graeme.

Yes, this is the nub of the problem with trying to retrospectively diagnose someone with what is a 'clinical diagnosis' that hadn't even been developed during Einstein's lifetime.

If anyone wants to go off on this tangent to the Electricity Market topic of this thread (yes, I know, I'm the culprit), according to Fernette Eide, co-founder of Dyslexic Advantage, the short answer to whether Einstein was dyslexic is "we really don't know".

For more on this see her post in the following link and in particular her inclusion of material about his style of visual thinking from an Orton Society paper.

Dyslexia: Was Albert Einstein dyslexic? - Quora

Apologies for taking this thread further off topic... so I will leave it at that and if anyone wants to pursue it further perhaps they can start a separate thread...:)

I suppose that with the forthcoming general election and the populace demanding statements on climate change as well as security in the region, the subject of electricity supply and cost was bound to rear it's ugly head. This article outlines some of the issues:

Slow move to renewable is spiking power prices for households (thenewdaily.com.au)

I have some questions and concerns about this but before I get into that, the premise is that wholesale prices have averaged a 141% increase for the first quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021. I wouldn't dispute that. I did find it strange that when questioned the Prime Minister blamed the situation in Europe for the price spikes (actually SWMBO thought the comment had been made by the Labour party), but I fail to see the relevance. Solar, wind and hydro do not have a fuel that is dependant on Europe. Coal fired stations burn rubbish quality coal mined in Australia that is never ever exported. The only possibility that I can see for a European influence is if gas prices have gone up because there is more of a demand for our product overseas. If that were the case, and I don't believe it is, it would be the last nail in the the already fully constructed coffin that gas is a way to clean energy.

Even more surprising is that nobody has apparently called this one out!

Back to the article linked above. These are the the flaws in the article I would point to:

1. There is an increase in price of ~ 141% compared to the 2021 quarter. It is still higher than Q1 2020, but not so much and it is less than Q1 2019.
2. It is the first time in years that I have seen QLD prices the highest.
3. QLD has more solar power than almost any other state, but not the most as a ratio to total demand. That falls to South Australia, but they would be in extreme difficulty if they did not have the Victorian interconnector.
4. The statement was made that we need more renewable energy and that is probably true, but not in isolation and not without sufficient corresponding storage facilities.
5. Blame was laid at the feet of the coal fired power stations for pushing the price up. What did these nut jobs expect when they went to a competitive market? If there is a dearth of toilet rolls the price goes exponential. Excrement is not the only "shirty" business.
6. "The best response to breakdowns at old coal fired generators is to replace them more quickly than planned," said independent economist and Climate Council member Nicki Hutley." Replace them with what? More renewables that don't function at night or in calmed conditions or during a drought?
7.Professor Mountain said " We only need one megawatt of storage for every megawatt of solar and wind." I would contend that it is the other way around and even that is a vast understatement. I would be most interested to know how that is going to work. Also we need to talk in megawatts per hour and not megawatts for one hour (or maybe two hours), which is the extraordinary small capability of the existing storage batteries.

There is probably a little more that has been spoken of that I might contest, but that will do for now.

We have to understand, and when I say "we" I mean "they", that the whole dynamic of electricity generation in Australia has turned on it's head. Peak demand has gone about face. Whereas high demand was once during the day with peaks at breakfast and in the evening, high demand is now at night time. But, the peaks of breakfast and early evening fall outside the prime sunlight hours. The wholesale price of electricity on a sunny day is negligible. It is virtually being given away. In fact, if the solar companies did not have some form of subsidy in guaranteed prices, they would have gone down the tube. New solar installations are probably not eligible for any guarantees so there is no real market for people coming to the grid for the moment.

There is now only one problem and that problem is how to store electricity. Until that problem is solved we cannot move forward and the continued installation of more solar power will cease.

Until that time the thermal stations have to continue unless the unthinkable happens and we are prepared to go without power from the grid for up to three quarters of the day (and completely on cloudy days).

A sobering thought for people and until a government is prepared to divert funds to R&D for this problem I don't see how it can be resolved.

Looking forward to people's thoughts on this.

Regards
Paul

Storage is certainly the problem of our time. In the longer term the solution will be driven by the market and mass production would makes batteries cheaper, I'm sure, because that mass production will inevitably lead to new discoveries and techniques. This is the sort of project that needs huge Govt backing to get it rolling, get past the current inertia. Perhaps put things like Sports Rorts etc on hold for a wee while, as we develop what could and should be a world leading industry. Some serious Govt backing would also push through some of the current boundaries in battery tech development – so many different projects underway that are showing real potential.

To say that one megawatt (per hour or otherwise) needs to be replaced with another is also a little short sighted by whoever it was. To mitigate global heating we need MUCH more electricity generated to electrify everything we possibly can. Coal burning is only part of the problem – a big part, to be sure – but cars and other transport, and other uses of gas are the elephant in the room. I don't know what the attributable figures are but they have probably been mentioned in this thread somewhere.

Question
Lets say the world turns to battery storage as the go to replacement for motor vehicles and general power usage. Can enough batteries be supplied and how long will this resource last?

Beardy

I suspect battery storage may only be an interim measure (say, twenty to thirty years?) and more likely hydrogen fuel will take over. However, that is pure speculation on my part and is not even close to viable until hydrogen is produced only from renewable sources. Once in place it could be used for many applications.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Lets say the world turns to battery storage as the go to replacement for motor vehicles and general power usage. Can enough batteries be supplied and how long will this resource last?

---

I don't think that batteries will be the total solution for transport because batteries of any kind are probably going to be heavy and/or bulky, and therefore somewhat self defeating. Also, in the period that we still have fossil fool vehicles (20 years until they have no resale value at all?? Less than 20??) there will be an increasing number of EVs of course, but also increasing tech to go with them. So presumably battery demand will increase while hydrogen is being sorted out, and then decrease. I suppose it's very likely that we might have a series of different hybrid vehicles for a while, to counteract vehicle redundancy. What I mean by that is engines that can run, or be easily adapted to run, on different fuels as they come into play. Similar to Gas & Petrol engines of the last 40(?) years. The last thing someone wants to do is to buy a vehicle that is going to be useless and therefore valueless 5 years after purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I suspect battery storage may only be an interim measure (say, twenty to thirty years?) and more likely hydrogen fuel will take over.

---

For transport I think you are dead right Paul. There are too many parts of the planet where an EV would be useful for a few hours before you are buggered. Simpson Track, much of deepest darkest Africa etc. Then you have commercial airliners, sea freighters etc. They will have to be hydrogen powered (or nucular :roll:), I am sure.

However, is there any getting away from batteries for solar (et al) power? (maybe that's not what you meant – just vehicles) One way or another, renewables are all going to begin with solar, wind, wave and whatever else, so we can then produce green hydrogen which is far more compact for the purposes of fuelling transport in all its forms. Nor do I see getting away from household batteries for a good long while yet – not sure I want a hydrogen combustion engine banging away down the back!

All of the above is why I think manufacturers should be making hydrogen powered vehicles now, using Blue hydrogen, so that the transition into Green H is utterly painless for the vehicle owners, and the suppliers of fuel to the punters (Servos). I think I am correct in thinking that the only thing holding back Green H is investment? There are no big secrets to crack are there? How much worse is Blue H than using the same fossil fuel in vehicles? The pollution is at least all in a much smaller number of places for capturing, rather than spread out all over the place in billions of individual vehicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Beardy

I suspect battery storage may only be an interim measure (say, twenty to thirty years?) and more likely hydrogen fuel will take over. However, that is pure speculation on my part and is not even close to viable until hydrogen is produced only from renewable sources. Once in place it could be used for many applications.

Regards
Paul

---

So do you go down the path of battery with all its limitations, required infrastructure and perhaps short lifespan or head straight to hydrogen and reduce its emissions as we move forward?

I am on an American based car forum and EV’ s are discussed often. There is a very strong vibe coming from the yanks, particularly now with the Ukrainian events that they are not interested in anything that will make them reliant on other countries.
Fossil fuels are the way to go for them as they maintain control over the source, Germany has been put in a particularly vulnerable situation as an example

I don’t know how widespread that sentiment is though??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

There is a very strong vibe coming from the yanks, particularly now with the Ukrainian events that they are not interested in anything that will make them reliant on other countries.
Fossil fuels are the way to go for them as they maintain control over the source

---

Well they can only retain real control over the fossil fuels that they have within the USA. They have plenty of coal as I understand it, but I don't know about their oil reserves these days. I'd not be surprised to learn that they are importing a considerable amount.

Is there something about EVs or batteries, or components thereof that they are concerned about? Lithium supplies, etc? I can't see any reason at all why the USA wouldn't be able to jump into Blue and then Green H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well they can only retain real control over the fossil fuels that they have within the USA. They have plenty of coal as I understand it, but I don't know about their oil reserves these days. I'd not be surprised to learn that they are importing a considerable amount.

Is there something about EVs or batteries, or components thereof that they are concerned about? Lithium supplies, etc? I can't see any reason at all why the USA wouldn't be able to jump into Blue and then Green H.

---

As I understand it they have plenty of oil supplies but choose to use everyone else’s at the moment, lithium is a problem for them so are reliant on others for supply

China Dominates the Rare Earths Supply Chain - IER

Hmmm. Not so much oil in the USA.

Attachment 510895

They're pretty good for coal:
Attachment 510896

Lithium is not too good:
Attachment 510897

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

However, is there any getting away from batteries for solar (et al) power? (maybe that's not what you meant – just vehicles) One way or another, renewables are all going to begin with solar, wind, wave and whatever else, so we can then produce green hydrogen which is far more compact for the purposes of fuelling transport in all its forms. Nor do I see getting away from household batteries for a good long while yet – not sure I want a hydrogen combustion engine banging away down the back!

All of the above is why I think manufacturers should be making hydrogen powered vehicles now, using Blue hydrogen, so that the transition into Green H is utterly painless for the vehicle owners, and the suppliers of fuel to the punters (Servos). I think I am correct in thinking that the only thing holding back Green H is investment? There are no big secrets to crack are there? How much worse is Blue H than using the same fossil fuel in vehicles? The pollution is at least all in a much smaller number of places for capturing, rather than spread out all over the place in billions of individual vehicles.

---

Brett

While I was primarily thinking in terms of mobile transport for hydrogen power and in particular larger machines such as ships and planes, I also see that the H2 fuel could power the grid generators at night (not so much your 3KVA beast down the back of your block). :)

The types of hydrogen or rather their method of production has become quite controversial and the pollies seem to delight in trotting out "colourful" catch phrases. I suspect you may actually be thinking of "grey" hydrogen :rolleyes: ! grey H2 is produced by using natural gas, which those of us that have been following this thread know is a fossil fuel with a carbon intensity of between .6 and .8 depending on how efficiently it is utilised (modern coal fired stations are between .9 and 1.2 depending on their age and level of technology, which is pretty much a euphemism for efficiency). Blue hydrogen goes a step further and captures the CO2 emissions from the natural gas as the hydrogen is produced. Unfortunately the process of CCS (carbon capture and storage) emits even more CO2 gases than if the gas had just been burnt. As such it is a nonsense of the first order. Carbon Capture and Storage is being trialled n many places (including at my own power station, Millmerran) to prove the technology, but that does not mean it is a viable option unless something dramatically changes. For the moment all these installation are pilot plants.

I do agree that one of the keys to the energy issue is investment in research, which has not only been not been forthcoming in recent years, but has been calculatedly scaled back. In fact I would argue that not only has encouragement into new technologies fallen down, it has been actively discouraged. That is at least partly a consequence of the privatisation of the industry (even the government owned stations have to abide by the commercial regulations, theoretically at least) and something of which both sides of politics have been guilty. If it seems that the liberal party is more guilty, and they do seem to be that way, it is really only because they have been at the helm more often. If I may continue the nautical analogy, it seems quite obvious they have not noticed the wind has changed.

They are heading for the doldrums.

Regards
Paul

Edit: a link to the "shades" of H2:

What is green hydrogen vs. blue hydrogen and why it matters (cnbc.com)

[QUOTE=FenceFurniture;2278506]Hmmm. Not so much oil in the USA.

Attachment 510895

They're pretty good for coal:
Attachment 510896

Lithium is not too good:
Attachment 510897[/QUOTE

One of the issues not so often mentioned is exactly how accessible these reserves are. Early oil drilling may have cost one barrel of oil for every hundred barrels obtained. Today oil is not found so easily. The other extreme is shale oil where it may cost one barrel of oil for every three won. Even coal has a ratio of overburden excavation compared to tonnage recovered irrespective of whether it is underground or open cut.

This is not quite the comparison I was searching for, but maybe explains why some countries import despite having their own reserves.

What it costs to produce oil - CNNMoney

Regards
Paul

Edit: changed the typo of ration to ratio and added overburden: previously confusing.

I feel green hydrogen is huge. Tech to rip it from the air and tech to hydrolyse water are super advanced.

I saw one tech that did both of these things with amazing efficiency (I think I posted some of these above)

Rolling these out bigly will mean stupendously huge storage for our after-hours doings.

As oil prices climb due to war, depletion and chaos, these solutions become vastly more economical.

Fancy a country, blessed with abundant land, sun and ability getting stuck on something like solar power!


edit - on Lithium, I read an article about the Salton Sea in Calif recently that I cant find now. Apparently the resources there are MINDBOGGLING.

This isn't directly related, but it's highly tangential...

From seawater to drinking water, with the pus | EurekAlert!

20 watts of power per liter and it's self cleaning.

This unit is designed for portability and produces 300ml per hour using a tiny portable solar panel. The paper and discussions with the guys shows this thing can scale up to city desal size and use a fraction of the power....

This is excellent. Factor this into the "where do we get all the fresh water for...." Storage/farms/humans/hydrolysis/etc.... This might form part of that puzzle.

Edit - the paper Just a moment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I feel green hydrogen is huge. Tech to rip it from the air and tech to hydrolyse water are super advanced.

I saw one tech that did both of these things with amazing efficiency (I think I posted some of these above)

Rolling these out bigly will mean stupendously huge storage for our after-hours doings.

As oil prices climb due to war, depletion and chaos, these solutions become vastly more economical.

Fancy a country, blessed with abundant land, sun and ability getting stuck on something like solar power!


edit - on Lithium, I read an article about the Salton Sea in Calif recently that I cant find now. Apparently the resources there are MINDBOGGLING.

---

Hydrogen to point of storage is one thing, Hydrogen distribution and storage in use is another ball game not yet resolved in an economical manner when applied to transport. When it comes to Hydrogen in transport there are two different methods at this time in history, use it to fuel current ICE technology which is already low efficiency losing about 65% of the fuel used to heat and mechanical inefficiencies or using it to power fuel cells which then means the vehicle is a BEV so why go to all that bother when electricity is far easier to distribute and can largely be obtained via known and easier to manage methods such as hydro, solar etc. TTTT I doubt if any of the boof heads in Canberra understand Hydrogen at all and think of the fuel as they do LPG or natural gas as do a lot of people who listen to them and believe what they hear. Hydrogen has a lower calorific value than petrol and add that to the inefficiencies of an ICE and things don't add up at all when compared to batteries in transport, cars or trucks using ICE technology. Stored and used without having to distribute it appears to have some potential according to some pundits out there but at this point of time I am not sure what. I am sure things will change for all the alternative sources of energy for transport but that is a few years ahead yet. The biggest problem using BEV and static storage is the battery manufacture, sourcing of materials and the end of life disposal methods and that is going to be a huge issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... I have some questions and concerns about this but before I get into that, the premise is that wholesale prices have averaged a 141% increase for the first quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021. I wouldn't dispute that. I did find it strange that when questioned the Prime Minister blamed the situation in Europe for the price spikes ...

---

That article was also run by the ABC.
Wholesale power prices soared 141 per cent, year on year, and households should brace for more - ABC News
It didn't seem to make sense as renewals production should be at a peak in the March quarter - nice and sunny - so I put on my economists hat and tried to analyse the figures. This raised so many questions that I initially dismissed the article as inept journalism - a non-numerate journalist writing about something that they did not understand. Later I went back to the source ducumentation - and could not find it! The smell increased.

The Australian Energy Regulator publishes a lot of reports on the energy markets, but intriguingly have not yet published the first quarter of 2022; their stats stop at the end of 2021.
Quarterly volume weighted average spot prices - regions | Australian Energy Regulator
The wholesale prices increased dramatically between Q1 and Q2 of 2021 in Queensland and NSW - no idea why - and do not yet have data for 2022 Q1.

Attachment 510948


But there is an election in the air; is there a correlation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

... I feel green hydrogen is huge. Tech to rip it from the air and tech to hydrolyse water are super advanced. ...

---

I beg to differ. Hydrogen is an odourless, tasteless, colourless gas; how the hell are you going to paint it green?

Had an interesting discussion on this topic recently with a bunch of engineers - all solar energy zealots - and they were all unimpressed with the future of hydrogen unless there is some radical discovery. Their arguments basically come down to some simple points:

1. Production of hydrogen by electrolysis is extremely energy intensive meaning that it is expensive.
2. Hydrogen does not liquify like LPG and it does not disolve into another substance like acetylene. It is thus very bulky to store and transport.
3. It is very volatile.

SUMMARY, at existing levels of science and technology:

• Hydrogen is to expensive to produce,
• It is to expensive and too dangerous to ship, and
• It is to expensive and too dangerous to store.

Is the hydrogen debate yet another political diversionary ploy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I suppose that with the forthcoming general election and the populace demanding statements on climate change as well as security in the region, the subject of electricity supply and cost was bound to rear it's ugly head. This article outlines some of the issues:

Slow move to renewable is spiking power prices for households (thenewdaily.com.au)

I have some questions and concerns about this but before I get into that, the premise is that wholesale prices have averaged a 141% increase for the first quarter of 2022 compared to the same period in 2021. I wouldn't dispute that. I did find it strange that when questioned the Prime Minister blamed the situation in Europe for the price spikes (actually SWMBO thought the comment had been made by the Labour party), but I fail to see the relevance. Solar, wind and hydro do not have a fuel that is dependant on Europe. Coal fired stations burn rubbish quality coal mined in Australia that is never ever exported. The only possibility that I can see for a European influence is if gas prices have gone up because there is more of a demand for our product overseas. If that were the case, and I don't believe it is, it would be the last nail in the the already fully constructed coffin that gas is a way to clean energy.

Even more surprising is that nobody has apparently called this one out!

Back to the article linked above. These are the the flaws in the article I would point to:

1. There is an increase in price of ~ 141% compared to the 2021 quarter. It is still higher than Q1 2020, but not so much and it is less than Q1 2019.
2. It is the first time in years that I have seen QLD prices the highest.
3. QLD has more solar power than almost any other state, but not the most as a ratio to total demand. That falls to South Australia, but they would be in extreme difficulty if they did not have the Victorian interconnector.
4. The statement was made that we need more renewable energy and that is probably true, but not in isolation and not without sufficient corresponding storage facilities.
5. Blame was laid at the feet of the coal fired power stations for pushing the price up. What did these nut jobs expect when they went to a competitive market? If there is a dearth of toilet rolls the price goes exponential. Excrement is not the only "shirty" business.
6. "The best response to breakdowns at old coal fired generators is to replace them more quickly than planned," said independent economist and Climate Council member Nicki Hutley." Replace them with what? More renewables that don't function at night or in calmed conditions or during a drought?
7.Professor Mountain said " We only need one megawatt of storage for every megawatt of solar and wind." I would contend that it is the other way around and even that is a vast understatement. I would be most interested to know how that is going to work. Also we need to talk in megawatts per hour and not megawatts for one hour (or maybe two hours), which is the extraordinary small capability of the existing storage batteries.

---

Paul
I have a slightly different interpretation of most of what you say.

With the influx of renewables onto the Australian electricity market, the price of renewable (solar and wind) electricity has fallen to near zero -- during the main sunlight hours -- which in turn is making coal based electricity generation uneconomic. Your power station has to burn coal at near full capacity for around 10 hours per day, and loses a boat load of money while doing so, and then in the morning and afternoon peaks, those gas burning "bastards" -- aka peaking generators -- jump in and run their gas turbines for a couple of hours per month stealing what little profit you might otherwise make.

So coal is rapidly exiting the market place -- what you expect in a privatised competitive market -- and being replaced by gas fired stations.

But there's a war between Ukraine and Russia -- oops my mistake, Russian has a "special military operation" underway in Ukraine.

The "war" has driven up the oil price -- it's now north of USD $100 a barrel.
The spot market for gas is based on the spot market for oil -- but gas is priced in Giga Joules (energy delivered), while oil is priced in terms of volume (barrels).
It is the spot gas market that is important as no gas powered electricity generator is going to enter into a long term gas supply contract -- aka take or pay -- if they only need the gas supplied for a couple of hours per month. So the gas required will be purchased on the spot market.
The current spot gas price is about 2.5 times what it was 12 months ago. (USD $2.996 vs USD $7.244)


So straight off there is part of your answer.

The war in Ukraine has driven oil prices northwards and they have dragged the spot gas price with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I beg to differ. Hydrogen is an odourless, tasteless, colourless gas; how the hell are you going to paint it green?

Had an interesting discussion on this topic recently with a bunch of engineers - all solar energy zealots - and they were all unimpressed with the future of hydrogen unless there is some radical discovery. Their arguments basically come down to some simple points:

1. Production of hydrogen by electrolysis is extremely energy intensive meaning that it is expensive.
2. Hydrogen does not liquify like LPG and it does not disolve into another substance like acetylene. It is thus very bulky to store and transport.
3. It is very volatile.

SUMMARY, at existing levels of science and technology:

• Hydrogen is to expensive to produce,
• It is to expensive and too dangerous to ship, and
• It is to expensive and too dangerous to store.

Is the hydrogen debate yet another political diversionary ploy?

---

without directly addressing your last point, I say "piffle" to your three main summary points.
and as a consequence, who really who cares about whether hydrogen is "another political diversion"


For me the main issue with establishing a large scale hydrogen economy is a smallish thing known as "hydrogen embrittlement" of carbon steel piping and the fact that most steels will leak hydrogen.
Using existing natural gas infrastructure to distribute hydrogen -- is for me more than a little bit of wishful thinking -- I have not heard a peep about the risk of hydrogen embrittlement in high pressure gas lines.
And thinking back to 2nd year uni, I seem to recall that the toughness requirements for the steel used for high pressure gas supply pipes will not work high pressure hydrogen supply lines.


Not that I would ever accuse an Australian politician of not telling the truth, especially during an election campaign.