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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well, given that Beardy has been in and out of the thread (looking) about 2-4 times today, and hasn't posted any evidence whatsover to support the following claims:



It would seem that this statement (wrt finding the evidence)
is not quite as straightforward as he says.
It may turn out to actually be impossible to find supporting evidence.

---

Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument :C

I am not here to argue with you, I am stating my point of views and opinions but you seem to take offence when others do not necessarily share your point of view.
I am not particularly a fan of the whole CC mantra / religion and how it has been sold to us from the likes of TF and numerous others and related media outlets. And to be absolutely fair the CC deniers do exactly the same thing for their camp but the difference is the CC guys won’t acknowledge it happens in their camp. Me I sit in the middle and try and look at things from a practical common sense point of view and try and decipher the truth which is usually somewhere in the middle of the two.

That article about Downer withdrawing from Australia written in Renew Economy and The Financial Review whilst both may be technically correct, the perception of one article is misleading is it not?
That is the type of thing I am referring to, you can see it happening in this thread with people believing that X or Y is the answer to our problems based on the spiel they have read from whatever source or from the pro CC camp and it gives the false impression that we have the solution and it is certain political parties or individuals who are stopping it from happening which isn’t the case. All of these options being bandied about are being trialled and not a proven solution yet but they don’t say that.

I could find some articles to post up and then you or someone will post up a counter one about the intent or the timeline of the statement and it was a longer timeframe and not immediately blah blah blah and then the thread will get derailed like it has before playing for points which I have no interest in.
Surely you can’t deny that at the time when Flannery and Gore were working the crowd the language was very alarmist and the intent was a scaremongering approach, the words were carefully chosen but the intent was clear

Why cant we just tell the truth and say this is where we are at?

I didnt get get to watch all of that Q&A show yet but saw about 3/4 of it. Maybe the critical information is in the last part of the show which I will get to but didn’t see the silver bullet to my earlier questions in the bit I watched yet. I was a bit surprised with some of the guests on the panel and thought there would of been some more suitable candidates but it was a good show just the same.
Maybe the balance of the show will tell me but I am still struggling with this notion that Australia can be the next superpower of energy supplier to the world. I get it if it is a product we are extracting from the land like we are currently doing with coal etc as it has to come from here but if it is manufacturing based I am so sure. We have already lost all our manufacturing to overseas markets as we can’t compete so why would this be different? It would be great if we could do it but I can’t see it.
I will watch the balance to see

Please keep it none personal. Blast away at the subject not the messenger.
I do not want to be forced to close this thread..

DavidG Moderator.


Remember - Subject, not person.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Would it be fair to say that fitting of panels to private homes has been good for the home owner and providing supply to the grid but the flip side is that it has been detrimental to the commercial ventures entering the market?

We are effed. Game over.

News | NASA Flights Detect Millions of Arctic Methane Hotspots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Would it be fair to say that fitting of panels to private homes has been good for the home owner and providing supply to the grid but the flip side is that it has been detrimental to the commercial ventures entering the market?

---

Beardy

That is partialy true. However, consider:

While ever solar panels were low volume they were always going to be expensive and would never become affordable. So the subsidy was required but as well as kick starting solar, unfortunately, also held the price up (the problem with subsidies). Today solar is relatively cheap. Subsidy is not unique to solar. Coal gets subsidies on their diesel fuel for example.

The solar farms had the opportunity to get in early but they didn't initially. Then they thought they saw money and jumped in. When they got there it dawned on them that there was no free ride and they had to actually compete. Did they forsee that in SA, for example, the whole sale prices would at times be negative for a extended period? Probably not. The gas people made a similar error. While the wells were being esablished ad the pipeline built there was no place for the gas to go. They built small power plants and gave the gas away. Once the pipeline was operational they could export the gas for elevated prices and the gas stations found themselves on a level playing field. They immediately screamed they couldn't make any money.

There is no milege in entering a market unless you can do it either better or cheaper or expand it. If you cannot do one of those things you are now sharing the bucket of money with the existing players and probably everybody ends up with less. Usually in the electricity market the newcomer has the hardest time as the investment costs are as high as they will ever be. The old hands have reduced their debt and have a distinct advantage. This is why in my post to which you have referred I suggested, for the time being, any further solar players are going to be disappointed if they believe there is pot of gold out there. We actually have an oversupply of power for the sector in which they can compete.

While I am a strong believer in solar power, it still has a long way to go before it becomes the universal panacea some people would like it to be. While probably I am in that wishful group, I like to think I am also pragmatic.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument :C

---

Not at all - down the bottom of the thread is a list of who is currently looking at it. If a name comes and goes then they are obviously in and out of the thread. If a name stays there it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is constantly looking at the thread - they may be away from the computer or using other windows. Yesterday morning I challenged you to put up evidence to support some fatuous statements, so before I follow that with a second call of "Where's the evidence you speak of" I have to be sure that you have seen the original request, so I looked at the list of readers from time to time. In the ecommunity it is etiquette to allow enough time to respond because people have other things to do.

I note you still haven't supported any of those statements with links/quotes, despite being aware of the call for 24 hours or more..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I am not here to argue with you

---

Hmmm :think: I think that's debatable. :; Five minutes or ten?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I am stating my point of views and opinions but you seem to take offence when others do not necessarily share your point of view.

---

See, again you are misconstruing. It's not about different point of view, it's about supporting CC denial with proper evidence - it never happens (and for a very good reason). Outrageous statements/claims and other bomb throwing will always be challenged. Sometimes when a statement is absolutely ridiculous it might just get torn apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I could find some articles to post up

---

When it comes to the outrageous claims about Flannery then I think they really must be supported. Post away with your evidence that "you don't have to look to far to find". If it's that easy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Surely you can’t deny that at the time when Flannery and Gore were working the crowd the language was very alarmist

---

I never did see Gore's film, but I saw him in the media. I have to say though, if it took some alarmist language to kickstart the debate then that is not necessarily a bad thing, because we were sleepwalking towards this catastrophe. We needed to be slapped awake. As Neil and others have commented in here, if we were in the U.K. we would not even be having this debate because it has bilateral political support - there is no argument to speak of. Here in Oz though - probably the continent with the most to lose - we still have around 25% (IIRC) of the population who either don't care and think it's all bullsh. We have no political will, and certainly not bipartisan support for remedies. It's staggeringly disappointing. Bearing in mind that the U.K. was stupid enough to leave the EU (the next couple of years will be "very interesting" in the full Chinese sense), but smart enough to catch on to CC - doesn't really say much for Australia's collective nouse does it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I am still struggling with this notion that Australia can be the next superpower of energy supplier to the world.

---

Maybe you need more exposure to Ross Garnaut. In this interview you can skip to about 4 minutes to hear him touching on jobs in the future. There are other interviews where he goes into more detail, but there are so many hits in a search of "ross garnaut interview" that it is tricky to find the one that I saw in the last couple of months. Some of them are quite long too. Note that I have supplied two pieces of evidence to support my claim.

Solar by day, methane by night. Simples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Beardy

That is partialy true. However, consider:

While ever solar panels were low volume they were always going to be expensive and would never become affordable. So the subsidy was required but as well as kick starting solar, unfortunately, also held the price up (the problem with subsidies). Today solar is relatively cheap. Subsidy is not unique to solar. Coal gets subsidies on their diesel fuel for example.

The solar farms had the opportunity to get in early but they didn't initially. Then they thought they saw money and jumped in. When they got there it dawned on them that there was no free ride and they had to actually compete. Did they forsee that in SA, for example, the whole sale prices would at times be negative for a extended period? Probably not. The gas people made a similar error. While the wells were being esablished ad the pipeline built there was no place for the gas to go. They built small power plants and gave the gas away. Once the pipeline was operational they could export the gas for elevated prices and the gas stations found themselves on a level playing field. They immediately screamed they couldn't make any money.

There is no milege in entering a market unless you can do it either better or cheaper or expand it. If you cannot do one of those things you are now sharing the bucket of money with the existing players and probably everybody ends up with less. Usually in the electricity market the newcomer has the hardest time as the investment costs are as high as they will ever be. The old hands have reduced their debt and have a distinct advantage. This is why in my post to which you have referred I suggested, for the time being, any further solar players are going to be disappointed if they believe there is pot of gold out there. We actually have an oversupply of power for the sector in which they can compete.

While I am a strong believer in solar power, it still has a long way to go before it becomes the universal panacea some people would like it to be. While probably I am in that wishful group, I like to think I am also pragmatic.

Regards
Paul

---

Again Paul , thanks for the informative response.
So the pot of gold still sits on the mantle waiting for whoever comes up with a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Attachment 468601Attachment 468600


Something I neglected to mention before is that in the shot above and the earlier post showing those shots is that half the shot is what happened and the half to the right is the prediction for that period of time.

---

Yes, picked that up.

This morning I'm pleased to see that SA has the cheapest power again ($0.00) and that it is exporting to Vic, who in turn is exporting it, plus a bit, to Tassy. As usual, NSW is being carried by the other states. It being a Saturday will of course make it atypical.

Something that I couldn't work out from the above states distribution graphic was the numbers in the small boxes next to the inter-connectors. Perhaps not necessary to getting the overall picture.

One thing that has struck me from looking at the AEMO data is that the Tassies are using almost the same amount of electricity as SA, which has a population of 3-1/2 times it. Does that say anything about unlimited supply, demand and price? There doesn't seem to be a price signal down there on the apple isle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidG

Please keep it none personal. Blast away at the subject not the messenger.
I do not want to be forced to close this thread..

DavidG Moderator.


Remember - Subject, not person.....

---

Yes, please!

Eleanor Roosevelt has been attributed with the saying, paraphrased as I couldn't find the original source:
Good minds discuss ideas;
Mediocre minds discuss past events;
Limited minds discuss people.

or, paraphrased for Australia:

Let's play the ball, not the man/woman.

This is also why I haven't weighed in on the Tim Flannery assassination/defence (who btw I personally admire) or jumped at the opportunity to attack Andrew Bolt (who btw I do not admire). Or individual politicians; like everyone else I have opinions about them as people, but these are irrelevant to the ideas we are discussing here.


We all have good minds here. Let's focus them on a contest of ideas.

I agree, this thread was turning into a Spanish inquisition and actually works against the cc activists, as I have said twice before, there is a middle ground where we can all have a win win but it will take time, patience (sorry Brett) and technical progress and no histrionics.

More magic from the wizards in white coats: The catalyst that removes CO2 and produces hydrocarbons / News / SINC - Servicio de Informacion y Noticias Cientificas

Make ethylene, hydrogen and oxygen at MEGA VOLUMES from renewable sources.

Bingo! Base load SOLVED!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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?

---

Looking at the AEMO/NEM maps I keep seeing how critical the interconnector network is to the eastern states. The glaring gap is a connector between WA and SA.


https://www.energynetworks.com.au/as...oads/pic_2.jpg

A link between say Woodina in SA and Kalgoolie in WA is about 1,500km. The Bass Strait interconnector is only abt 200km, as the fish swims, so a SA-WA interconnector would be a much more significant undertaking.

Back in an earlier life I was involved with video and audio conference meetings of reps from all the states and WA was always the hardest to accommodate. They were still in bed when most of us wanted to get on with it.

My thinking here is that the time offset of 2-3 hours between the east and west of Australia is also a peak use offset. We in the east could be cooking their breakfast with solar in the mornings and they could be cooking our dinners in the east of an evening. Yes, only when the sun is shining. But a more widely located network would also allow for more distributed wind power to iron out wind variability across the continent.

It seems to me that network development is lagging behind and is becoming problematic (you Paul will know better than most about that). Do we need a Snowy-3? Snowy-1 included the network to get its hydro power to consumers.

The little I ever knew about about electrical engineering left me long ago, so I'm uncertain about the loss factor with such a long distance high tension interconnector, but expect that it may not be such a significant factor. The economics would be more of a determining factor.

A recent report looking at the proposed additional interconnectors between SA-Vic, SA-NSW and SA-Qld put the cost (as of 2018) at between $0.75m and 1.00m/km. So an above ground interconnector between SA-WA could cost about $1.5bn, not all that more than some of additional interconnector options currently being considered by SA.

https://www.electranet.com.au/wp-con...iew-Jacobs.pdf

So, not exactly an addition to base load, Paul, but more of a partial mitigation against the need for it.

It's good to see the contributions from people with expertise in lots of different fields, particularly power generation, transmission and pricing which is a black hole to me (apart from a theoretical understanding of hydro). Does anyone know if there is much research being done into tide & wave generation. It seems to me that this could be suitable for peak & base load generation, and wave generation would be close to where most people live, on the coast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Something that I couldn't work out from the above states distribution graphic was the numbers in the small boxes next to the inter-connectors. Perhaps not necessary to getting the overall picture.

One thing that has struck me from looking at the AEMO data is that the Tassies are using almost the same amount of electricity as SA, which has a population of 3-1/2 times it. Does that say anything about unlimited supply, demand and price? There doesn't seem to be a price signal down there on the apple isle.

---

Neil

Those small boxes relate to the capacity of the individual connectors (in MWs) and which way the power is flowing. I have to say that I find it a little difficult to follow at times, but usually the direction of transmission will be towards the state with the higher MW price. Having said that, with the two SA/VIC connectors, you will see that the arrows are going in different directions. I am am unsure of the reason for that, but it does highlight the complexities involved. It is not quite the same as our extension cord analogy in the shed. Also we have to be aware that the capacities for an individual line are not usually the same for both directions. One issue that frequently catches us out in the QLD/NSW interconnector is when the line is "constrained." The reasons for this (to us at any rate) are not always clear but the limitations rarely seem to come at a good time.

The Tassie load might (I stress "might") be explained by two factors. One is that SA could have had or be having mild temperatures. The other issue is that they are exporting power to Victoria. probably both combined accounts for that apparent discrepancy.

Thirty years ago the seasonal peaks occurred in winter, but with air conditioning becoming more commonplace summer peaks have easily taken over that position. A heat wave get the populace cranking up the air cons and the system becomes severely stretched.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Looking at the AEMO/NEM maps I keep seeing how critical the interconnector network is to the eastern states. The glaring gap is a connector between WA and SA.

My thinking here is that the time offset of 2-3 hours between the east and west of Australia is also a peak use offset. We in the east could be cooking their breakfast with solar in the mornings and they could be cooking our dinners in the east of an evening. Yes, only when the sun is shining. But a more widely located network would also allow for more distributed wind power to iron out wind variability across the continent.

---

Neil

While the time differences could be used to advantage in staggering the peak demand periods (I think daylight saving already assists with that to a lesser extent) I suspect WA will continues to be on their own for a long time to come. The reason we bump up the voltage on transmission lines is to minimise the transmission losses. Most of the power is used at about four voltages 11KV, 6.6KV, 3.3KV and 415V. However the most modern and longest lines are now up to 500KV. 330KV used to be top of the line :rolleyes: .

I am not an electrical engineer, but I would hazard a guess that the cost of a line of 1000km is more than double the cost of a line of 500km just to take some hypothetical figures. We often use the garden hose analogy for losses. If you connect enough garden hoses together nothing comes out the end in a useable flow. If you have ever had to connect power to a shed over an extended distance you would be aware that the cable dimension have to increase proportionately. These lines have to be maintained. The cost there would balloon I suspect.

The other problem is who wants to build it? The private companies do not have the desire or the money. We know where the government stands. All mouth and no money.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Does anyone know if there is much research being done into tide & wave generation. It seems to me that this could be suitable for peak & base load generation, and wave generation would be close to where most people live, on the coast.

---

Alex

I don't know, but there is clearly such a reluctance to research any of these new technologies (actually, not so much a reluctance but more a lack of funding) that I doubt there is significant development. My quick take is that there are some places where there are huge tidal variations (up in the far North?) but possibly the communities are too small to justify the investment. The economic laws of supply and demand are as relevant here as anywhere. It is in particular an Australian problem of vast distances and a small population (The Chinese city of Shanghai has the same population as Oz).

Wave just does not seem to have been pursued. Geothermal, which I think Tim Flannery was keen on, has fundamental issues to my mind. I am not an expert in this field, but anything that is three or four kilometers down in the ground and relies on some pipework has some potential for unreliability. Having said that, how deep are oil wells? I don't know.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

My quick take is that there are some places where there are huge tidal variations (up in the far North?) but possibly the communities are too small to justify the investment.

---

My understanding is that the generators must be in areas where there is significant flow from the tide to make it work. This means shallow water where the depth variation is a significant percentage of the average water depth. they do not work offshore in deep water because even with a 10 metre tide that is only a depth change of 10 metres over say 100 metres depth is only a change of 10% over 6 hours which is pretty insignificant and probably almost no movement near the bottom. Also deep water tends to be further offshore which increases the cost of transmission lines,making it less economically viable.

This means that all the good spots for tidal generation are close to the coast in shallow water. These are also often the places that need to be preserved as marine habitats or are used for recreational purposes. I can see a lot of kickback from a lot of concerned citizens if a tidal generation facility was proposed for a marine park or a popular Gold Coast beach. Other places with high tidal flow such as the mouth of Sydney Harbor (large body of water passing through a small gap creates a strong current as the tide rises and falls) could be ruled out due to obstruction to shipping and habitat destruction.

Maintenance costs could also become an issue in a marine environment due to rust etc and the general wear and tear of the ocean and weather.

How deep are oil wells? I have no idea how credible that site is.


RE wave power, I wonder what impact soaking up all that mechanical energy would have on the various micro environments. It may be none but I would doubt that - I'm thinking water flushing in and out of rock pools and the like. I imagine it would be different to taking mech energy out of wind because wind is so widespread over much greater travelled distances (not breadth), and I'm trying to think of how it might benefit an environment - nothing comes to mind. Anyone?

On the cost of connecting WA to the Eastern States I would have thought that money would be better spent on some solar farms or similar for the two sides of the country.

You would think tide movements and wave action would be a good source of energy and consistent as well
They set up a trial unit at Port Kembla that eventually was damaged from a storm.
My understanding was it was cost prohibitive and was shelved but don’t know the details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

On the cost of connecting WA to the Eastern States I would have thought that money would be better spent on some solar farms or similar for the two sides of the country.

---

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue of base load that Paul has raised.

Dispatchable electrons is the issue.

With enough batteries and other storage, maybe, but the magnitude of those that would be required to provide dispatchable power for any length of time and the economics of doing so has been questioned by Paul.

Is there much hope that batteries will come of age to provide base load power? I get the feeling that it won’t pan out that way except for vehicles etc.
When we do get to the EV being mainstream, our power requirements to charge them will ramp up the baseload too I would expect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Is there much hope that batteries will come of age to provide base load power? I get the feeling that it won’t pan out that way except for vehicles etc.
When we do get to the EV being mainstream, our power requirements to charge them will ramp up the baseload too I would expect

---

Beardy

Batteries are not the economic answer for the moment. Baseload power would only be affected if battery charging took place primarily when solar was not operative. At this stage we can only guess at how charging profiles will develop. The benefits of electric cars are diminished if fossil fired power is used to recharge them.

Regards
Paul

In an earlier post I referenced a newspaper article from WA regarding a feasibility study for a new coal fired power station in QLD. It appears that the location concerned was the site of Collinsville, inland from Bowen. This is my take on the porposal.

The old Collinsville power station was small. 4 x 31MW units and 1 x 66MW unit. It was built on top of a coal mine and had (still has) a good supply of coal. It was closed down in 2018. At least once during it’s operation they had to shut the station down when they ran out of cooling water. They used old style cooling towers rather than the huge hyperbolic towers, not that that would have made much difference.
Today there is a 42MW solar farm on site. Much has been touted about re-opening Collinsville. That is mis-leading and more exactly the description would be the creation of a completely new station. The indigenous company, Shine Energy, which has local connections is the interested party.

Back during the last Federal election there was a promise of $10 million to fund a feasibility study. Nothing happened to honour that commitment until recently when the Morrison government announced a $4 million grant for a feasibility study.

My impression is that Shine Energy is seeking significant funding if the project went ahead (and in that statement we are well ahead both of ourselves and the feasibility study). I don’t know who would be interested in putting up the $2 billion. The government has no interest in financing anything and has divested itself of much it used to own. I would be surprised if any bank was interested in today’s climate (pun intended).
The government is clearly keen to get onside with the marginal seat of Collinsville (or whatever the electorate is called) and they will no doubt point to the feasibility study as testimony to their commitment to coal. If challenged by southern electorates where there is less sympathy with fossil fired power, they will claim it is only a feasibility study and one they possibly already know is doomed to failure. The government will probably claim they sought an independent study, but the cynical among us might even claim it is a sly ploy to curry favour with zero responsibility and less intent.

One problem is that QLD is probably the worst state of all to contemplate such a venture even disregarding carbon emissions and a move that may well be seen as completely contrary to targets anyway. The last coalfired units built in Eastern Australia, six of them, are all in QLD. They will all last until 2050 if required. I was going to say the best location would have been Victoria, but they have brown coal and that is worse even than black coal for carbon emissions. QLD has, if anything, a surplus ofpower.

There is talk of an ultra critical boiler. Ultracritical is similar in concept to supercritical with the only real difference being that the pressures are higher again with 280bar to 300bar in an ultracritical compared to 240bar for supercritical. Traditional modern drum boilers are 168bar. The advantage of ultracritical is better efficiency, but this has to be balanced against greater strain on all components. This type of unit in the past has had to be around 400MW plus to be economic.

In a way that is the right way to go from a technology aspect, but not at all from the carbon reduction point of view. Time will tell where this will go.

Regards
Paul

[QUOTE=Beardy;2173838]Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument :C

I am not particularly a fan of the whole CC mantra / religion

The thing here is that religion is a belief system and science is not.
Science is a tool. Just like a shovel or rather the idea of of shovel. So if you know what a shovel is then you can adapt the design to suit what you want to shovel, like a super wide shovel for snow or an narrow shovel for digging trenches or a spade for garden work etc. (I should have said 'chisel') If you don't believe in shovels and you have to move a pile of horse manure then you will just have to use your hands.
And science is a unique tool in that it is self correcting. It is only when an idea has been tested thousands or millions of times that it is accepted. Everybody tries to find fault with every theory, every experiment, every set of data. That is how it works. When the scientists say that co2 is causing climate chaos they are not just making an ambit claim, they are stating the best picture of reality which we currently possess. That is why all these astonishingly precise and complicated things that make up global 20thCentury civilization work. All the medicine, communications, global travel, modern agriculture, computers...everything is because the science is right. Religion on the other hand is just what a bunch of people reckon...

Collinsville.... Imagine if they used that $2 billion for solar and battery .

I just happened to receive an investor pack for this.

Battery isn't trivial. It is the future .


https://thehub.agl.com.au/articles/2...t-on-batteries

Also ESCRI-SA - Dalrymple Battery Project

[QUOTE=Toymaker Len;2173978]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument :C

I am not particularly a fan of the whole CC mantra / religion

The thing here is that religion is a belief system and science is not.
Science is a tool. Just like a shovel or rather the idea of of shovel. So if you know what a shovel is then you can adapt the design to suit what you want to shovel, like a super wide shovel for snow or an narrow shovel for digging trenches or a spade for garden work etc. (I should have said 'chisel') If you don't believe in shovels and you have to move a pile of horse manure then you will just have to use your hands.
And science is a unique tool in that it is self correcting. It is only when an idea has been tested thousands or millions of times that it is accepted. Everybody tries to find fault with every theory, every experiment, every set of data. That is how it works. When the scientists say that co2 is causing climate chaos they are not just making an ambit claim, they are stating the best picture of reality which we currently possess. That is why all these astonishingly precise and complicated things that make up global 20thCentury civilization work. All the medicine, communications, global travel, modern agriculture, computers...everything is because the science is right. Religion on the other hand is just what a bunch of people reckon...

---

Len you have misunderstood me
Maybe that is my fault for not elaborating on the comment.
I am not referring to the science I am talking about the cult like following that has emerged as a result where people cannot even have a rational discussion on the topic without vilification, children have been denied their innocence and are being used as political pawns. In a broad sense the public has been led to believe that we have the answers and the right wing and Murdoch are preventing it from happening. You hear the touts of solar, wind, thermal, nuclear, hydrogen, batteries mung beans or whatever else is out there like we have a solution in waiting, it feels like everyone is hysterically running around in circles waving their hands ( and placards) in the air saying do something, children are crying and suffering mental health issues because they have been told they have no future.

That is not the scientists doing that is it? I saw a program were a leading scientist said a particularly finding had been taken out of context and the information being circulated is not correct/ misleading he was asked why then don’t the scientists step up and set the record straight to which the reply was to the effect of “We are scientists, our job is to report our findings not how the information is disseminated ”

If I look at how this thread has developed ( assuming the information is correct given this is a woodworking forum lol) in summary, we have basically already gone as far as technology can allow us to with our green energy uptake and the next phase will develop when the technology allows.

I believe that regardless of who the political leader is of the day and what Murdock thinks, when a viable solution comes to light there will be no stopping it as it will be a huge money trail that even Gina would put her shovel down and follow it.
Everyone needs to put down their placards, take a deep breath, calm down and stand back and have a rational look at where we are at.
We spent too much time focusing on things like the percentage of the reduction of our emissions over the next X years. Realistically we are arguing over 10 or 20% of 1% :?

As Ray said earlier, there is a sensible common ground in the middle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Realistically we are arguing over 10 or 20% of 1% :?

---

¿Que?

Some great footage here from Vic Parks of the fire damage

YouTube

I've never seen burnt landscape where it is just sticks that are left - usually brown crowns, but at the two minute mark the landscape is just bare earth.

"because of Climate Change and it's impact, so this is not normal bushfire - it's beyond that"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I've never seen burnt landscape where it is just sticks that are left - usually brown crowns, but at the two minute mark the landscape is just bare earth.

"because of Climate Change and it's impact, so this is not normal bushfire - it's beyond that"

---

Yes it is crazy looking with the scour marks on the ground from the fire tornadoes that developed. It was good to see the pockets that were unaffected and still intact, they appeared to even be surprised at that.

[QUOTE=Beardy;2173987]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toymaker Len

I am not referring to the science I am talking about the cult like following that has emerged as a result where people cannot even have a rational discussion on the topic without vilification, children have been denied their innocence and are being used as political pawns.

The science is clear. Now, the only worthy discussion is what do we do about it. It should be about transitioning to a near carbon free future with the least effect on people and the economy.

In a broad sense the public has been led to believe that we have the answers and the right wing and Murdoch are preventing it from happening.
And they would be right; along with Rupert's son, James.

You hear the touts of solar, wind, thermal, nuclear, hydrogen, batteries mung beans or whatever else is out there like we have a solution in waiting, it feels like everyone is hysterically running around in circles waving their hands ( and placards) in the air saying do something, children are crying and suffering mental health issues because they have been told they have no future.

Beardy, you're using very perjorative language. The frustration stems from powerful people who are busily protecting their own interests and often disguising their actions as protecting the interests of others. They are preying on the scientifically uninformed. About children, I was 13 in 1961 when the world was on the brink of thermonuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. My American friends were practising classroom drills in the event of missile attack. The kids are tougher than you think.

That is not the scientists doing that is it? I saw a program were a leading scientist said a particularly finding had been taken out of context and the information being circulated is not correct/ misleading he was asked why then don’t the scientists step up and set the record straight to which the reply was to the effect of “We are scientists, our job is to report our findings not how the information is disseminated ”

The scientists don't control the media. They have stepped up, but they don't control the mass media.

If I look at how this thread has developed ( assuming the information is correct given this is a woodworking forum lol) in summary, we have basically already gone as far as technology can allow us to with our green energy uptake and the next phase will develop when the technology allows.

I cannot agree with this. Solar, wind, pumped hydro, electric cars, eating less red meat, air and discretionary sea travel etc. are all existing remedies which are available for both investment and for the market to embrace for the sake of our descendants. I don't want to change, but I know I have to.

I believe that regardless of who the political leader is of the day and what Murdock thinks, when a viable solution comes to light there will be no stopping it as it will be a huge money trail that even Gina would put her shovel down and follow it.

Spot on. And do you think they'll give a stuff about working people?

Everyone needs to put down their placards, take a deep breath, calm down and stand back and have a rational look at where we are at.
We spent too much time focusing on things like the percentage of the reduction of our emissions over the next X years.

No way, mate. This is too important. People are dying. My wife lost her 1865 farm house near Bodalla and $100k worth of fences in the worst spread of bushfires in living memory. Climate records are being broken every month. The speed at which it's happening is frightening and it's even surprised the experts.

As Ray said earlier, there is a sensible common ground in the middle

In 1974 the ozone problem was identified by Rowland & Molina, two researchers at the University of California. Their results were based on no more than a computer model. The world banned fluorocarbons in aerosols and refrigeration. Problem solved, not without some pain I might add. Here we have incredible amounts of supporting data from a myriad of scientists worldwide supporting man's deleterious contribution to the greenhouse effect. But only a few industries were badly affected. Now it's everybody.

The problem is that people are not sufficiently informed and they're being manipulated. And those self same people are trying to tell scientists how to do their job! OK, let's all express our opinions on doctors, airline pilots, engineers etc. and tell them that they don't know what their doing. Does anyone here like people telling them how to do their job?

It's way past time we all stopped with the "opinions" and started to pull together. The science was established 124 years ago Arrhenius' formulas were developed in 1896 and they still work today. Nothing new to see here.

---

mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Yes it is crazy looking with the scour marks on the ground from the fire tornadoes that developed. It was good to see the pockets that were unaffected and still intact, they appeared to even be surprised at that.

---

Yes, when I looked at the video I certainly got the impression the makers were expecting it to be a lot worse than what they found. In fact they seemed optimistic of a good recovery excepting a few of the worst areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toymaker Len

... science is a unique tool in that it is self correcting. It is only when an idea has been tested thousands or millions of times that it is accepted. Everybody tries to find fault with every theory, every experiment, every set of data. That is how it works.

---

Excellent description of the scientific process, Len.

Living knee deep in scientists as I do in both my wife and my family, I know close up that the prize goes to the scientist who challenges the current thinking with a new explanation that can't be disproved. The process is one of attrition. Put forward a new theory and it will attract vigorous attempts to discredit it. A theory only lasts until it is disproven. That is why Einstein's theories are accepted, at least for now!

As far as I can see, none of the participants in this thread are calling the science into question (am I wrong about that), just what should be done about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Geothermal, which I think Tim Flannery was keen on, has fundamental issues to my mind. I am not an expert in this field, but anything that is three or four kilometers down in the ground and relies on some pipework has some potential for unreliability. Having said that, how deep are oil wells? I don't know.

---

The most useful document on that is the International Geothermal Expert Group's Report to ARENA

The one page of Key Findings summarises it quite well.

Drilling multiple 4km deep wells at an average cost of approx $15m (back in 12014) is the limiting factor along with the remoteness of the best geothermal areas from users. Just one successful well can establish the economic viability of an oilfield. The stakes are much higher for deep geothermal energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Does anyone know if there is much research being done into tide & wave generation. It seems to me that this could be suitable for peak & base load generation, and wave generation would be close to where most people live, on the coast.

---

Or on a remote island.

Full steam ahead for King Island wave power trial - Australian Renewable Energy Agency

[QUOTE=Toymaker Len;2173978][QUOTE=Beardy;2173838]Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument :C

"I am not particularly a fan of the whole CC mantra / religion"
Well if you accept the science and understand what science is, then you should understand why people (children included) are getting pretty upset. The planet is plunging into runaway climate chaos and the biosphere is taking a hit so big that it qualifies as an extinction event on par with an asteroid strike or having a super vulcano blow up. It is not a theory, it is actually happening. Meanwhile our political system has been pretty much bought up by the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby supported by a massive media disinformation campaign.(see what the Koch brothers have done...“Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial | The New Yorker) Not one single politician from either Labor or Liberal will stand up and lead a transition to a zero carbon economy despite the rest of the world heading in that direction as fast as it can.
Who wouldn't be upset?

And if you can't understand that there has been a huge propaganda effort to protect fossil fuels have a look at this...New IMF study says the 'true cost' of fossil fuels is actually about $5 trillion.
The basket of money they are protecting looks to be over $5trillion. And think of the poor old Saudis, what would they do for folding money if the world transitioned to what is essentially free energy.

Raising here a different perspective: Micro generation.

Most of our discussion so far has been on the big picture; where will the base load come from to power Australia through the evenings when the sun goes down and the wind has dropped.

From what I can see, big industry has accepted the science on CC and its impact on the economic environment in which they will operate and is ready to take on that challenge. They are the big users of power so will no doubt find solutions.

Enough renewables to meet SA’s needs five times over: Sanjeev Gupta’s plan | Repower Australia

Access Denied


Leaving that challenge aside for big industry, I would like to give a little focus to micro generation.

In 1918 my grand uncle returned from the war in Europe with a small hydro generator in his luggage. He installed it in the creek on his dairy farm and he was one of the first in the district to have domestic electricity. It ran the milking machines in the dairy and the lights in the dairy and house (32v DC) and it worked for decades before a flood washed it all away. It paid for itself many times over in that time.

At about the same time, on a different family property, an hydraulic ram pump was installed at the bottom of a waterfall and that pumped water many hundreds of feet up the hill to the house for countless decades. It never cost a cent to run. It didn't generate electricity but could have done so if a return pipe with generator was installed back at the bottom of the hill.

I have some friends who live in a remote area on Kangaroo Island (not the bushfire end) and they chose to go with their off-grid setup because the cost of running the connection to the grid was going to be prohibitive. Many decades on they are still self sufficient (and comfortable so) with solar and old style battery storage. They have a backup generator but it has rarely been used. They are well ahead on cost and their carbon footprint is very low.

Rooftop solar across Australia is in essence micro generation. As I write (1:45pm) it represents 20% of the total generation. Adding small domestic battery storage to that (micro storage) when it becomes economical to do so will offset some of the demand for base load for domestic use.

What we seem to be missing with micro generation is other sources than rooftop solar. With many people owning their own bit of rooftop real estate it is understandable that is where it has happened so far. The missing sources seem to be micro wind and micro hydro generation.

Discussion some time ago with a company that specialised in small scale wind generation (mainly for off grid use) made me aware that one of the issues is the reluctance by grid operators to connect such a variable source of generation to the grid. Unlike solar that has a relatively smooth output, small scale wind in domestic settings is highly variable. Paul has raised the challenges from instability in the grid. The grid managers just don't want to know about any generation source that is going to add any further instability.

Anyone who has added a large domestic rooftop solar lately will know that retailers are also adding smart meters at the time as well as real time communication back to their control centres to monitor solar exports. I presume that is to do with the retailers optimising the sale of their excess into the spot market.

If pumped hydro is an economic proposition at a macro level, it seems to me that pumped hydro at a domestic micro level may also work. Around our way everyone is required to have a water tank for fire fighting purposes that is never grts used for anything else and is never required for most of the year. We are also quite hilly here (Adelaide Hills) so most properties have a drop from one end to the other. Adjoining properties can when combined have a significant elevation drop. I'm sure that various systems could be put together that pumped water up to a holding tank with whatever power source made sense, eg traditional wind mill, wind turbine or ram pump, or even solar if that works out on the sums. With a smart meter and comms connected, the retailer could then switch on your hydro generator to deliver a steady kW feed into the grid for a period of time, presumable at peak use periods. Then your system would prime itself for the next time.

Once proven as an off the shelf and workable system, local councils, schools and community groups could adopt it where suitable in the same way that they have adopted rooftop solar.

As rooftop solar has proven, micro generation can make a difference.

Any further brain waves on micro generation out there?

NeilS, you are exactly right: Evergen Energy System and a pricing model: Evergen Battery Only Price Guide ACT

One generates local power via Solar, wind and hydro. The batteries store it. One uses their own storage first, then the grid, or alternatively (or in parallel) feed it back in when price is high.

It charges the battery when price it low. It uses a smart pricing/charging/release system that talks back to Evergen constantly.

An example of hyper-local hydro: The gravitational vortex water turbine puts small hydro on the map - EE Publishers

It works. Its a thing. Its real and it pays handsome dividends.

IF EVERY NEW HOUSE HAD ONE..... and 10 or 15 solar panels.... well, it changes things.