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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

You should listen to me! I'm a profit!

---

That's what Rupert said to his fourth wife.



That's also one reason (profit) why I was somewhat sceptical about any news article in the Australian - even supporting alternative energy source breakthroughs. Such is the level of trashing that that fine newspaper has endured. I was/am kinda expecting somebody to say "Nah, that's all discredited crap" even though the research is at UNSW.

However, if it does have legs (and only needs some ball bearings yer mad bastard)...it sounds pretty good. How much helium would be produced and can it be captured and used for something else rather than just pushed into the atmosphere? At 0.0005% of the atmosphere, it is 1/60 of the natural CO2 component at 0.03% which makes it 60 times easier to disturb the balance of, and we now know how disturbing the balance of things can go.....even though He isn't a greenhouse gas (and neither is Him).

Helium is utterly inert, plus its a natural by-product of radioactive decay that occurs within the earth.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that it burps continuously and with some force from oil wells and other such holes we punch into the earth.

I was thinking capture myself, but the only real use I can think of, outside of party balloons, is for MRIs....

Though, speaking of which, the techs at my wifes quarterly MRI were wringing their hands at getting parts and a continued supply of helium for their machines here.... seems there is something going on in China....



Yes, heed my words, Ball bearings.

The Fat Profit. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Though, speaking of which, the techs at my wifes quarterly MRI were wringing their hands at getting parts and a continued supply of helium for their machines here.... seems there is something going on in China....

---

Or, in Qatar and the US.

How The Helium Shortage Will Impact Your Healthcare

Here is an article on China... 40% of all energy is now renewables. Offshore wind could ..."provide more than 6,000 terawatt-hours, or 200 percent of total energy demand"

Offshore wind farms could power much of coastal China: study

6000 TWh !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Offshore wind could ...

---

And, here is a wind map of Australia....from the earlier document I cited in support of my east-west interconnector idea. The warmer the colour the more wind available. Sorry about the resolution, the original was very small.

Attachment 468972

WA has abundant wind available waiting to be distributed as electrons to the east. The additional expense of offshore turbines may not be necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwbuild

.....A team of scientists at the University of NSW is developing the hydrogen-boron fusion technology, which is said to hold the promise of limitless, cheap baseload electricity with virtually no carbon dioxide emissions and zero radioactive waste. The only waste product is helium......

---

Oh, how I hope that comes to fruition.

But I am old enough to remember when the same things were said about nuclear power. It would be so cheap to produce that it would not be worth the cost of metering. Just a very low connection fee. And no risks....

Let us wish the team at UNSW all success in getting their project successfully completed, then out of the lab and into commercial reality.

Graeme

Hmm - Interesting - UNSW seem to have pulled down their newsroom page for that press release. I woder why??

You can see the cached article here:
Pioneering technology promises unlimited, clean and safe energy | UNSW Newsroom

But its no longer on the UNSW website.

Page not found | UNSW Newsroom

And it does not come up in any UNSW searches.

The HB11 website makes no mention of these patents or any details of imminent commercialisation. If the article in New Atlas is to be believed, HB11 are saying commercialisation is more than a decade away.

HB11 has published a paper in journal of High Energy Density Physics in Jan this year, but that seems to simply be a summary of prior published research from some years ago, nothing startling or new there.

It would be interesting if they do in fact have something in the pipeline for a proof of concept build.

I think Brett is maybe on the money - The Australian propping up Scotty from Marketing & his so called "Tech solutions" for addressing cliamte change. Watch out for more "clean cal"research, support for fracking and the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RossM

I think Brett is maybe on the money - The Australian propping up Scotty from Marketing & his so called "Tech solutions" for addressing cliamte change. Watch out for more "clean coal"research, support for fracking and the rest.

---

Ooooh! Are we suggesting that that this is a back door to fossil fuel subsidies? A scarcely disguised rort for industial "friends." Perish the thought or alternatively anybody who is party to such a devious and underhand sheme.

Regards
Paul

So a question for the more technically minded people: when they talk about fusion in that now-hard-to-find news release (:roll:), are they talking about the legendary (and so far mythical) "cold fusion" that has landed more than one scientist in, shall we say "hot fission"?

If that is what they mean, then I am very inclined to say "pfffft, dream on a bit more".

They were using two lasers that are chirped (pulsed) at very high frequencies to drive hydrogen atoms into Boron. They start with a golf-ball sized chunk of this. One laser holds it all in place magnetically, the other gives it a razzle to excite the process.

It is really a fusion-fision reaction.

Boron 11 (5 protons, 6 neutrons) and Hydrogen 1 (a bare proton) fuse to form Carbon 12. This is the fusion reaction.

Carbon 12 is the commonest carbon isotope (98.93% of natural carbon). Normally it's rock-stable. But the newly fused nucleus is in an excited state. It quickly (at nuclear reaction time scales) springs apart into a Helium 4 and a Beryllium 8. The Beryllium 8 then (also nuclear-reaction fast) springs apart into two more Helium 4s.

The flying Helium 4s share 8.7 MeV of energy as kinetic energy. The first one comes off with a well defined fraction of that energy. The other two split apart carrying the rest - but its distribution between the two varies somewhat, depending on the angle of their split versus their line of flight.

Nevertheless, you can collect something near 90% of the fusion energy as DC electricity, just by decelerating the flying helium nuclei with positively charged electrodes and then letting them grab electrons from the electrodes (at positive voltages in the ballpark of DC interstate transmission lines) and wander away as helium gas. From there it's stock electronics to shove it into the grid or otherwise make use of it.

I'll find another place I saw the article.

@Ilya would know all this stuff. I was also under the impression that this would create a fair bit of heat.


edit: tradaa! Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech

Well it all sounds wonderful....so why isn't all over mainstream news all around the world? It sounds like it is the most important scientific discovery in perhaps 100 years or more - surely that would garner enormous attention.

A search of HB11 only brings the sources we have discussed and linked to in here, so not passing the sniff test yet (especially with the original UNSW Newsroom link having been taken down).

I read that their predictions/simulations gave them one set of expectations... but the actual results were a BILLION times greater.

Yes, a billion. This is obviously not good. There are a few science places I haunt that are discussing this.

Here is a Wiki discussing the processes. It is far from new, or novel, or no-understood. Im curious why this chap thinks he has now "cracked it"....

The take-down is intriguing. Maybe its BS hokum, or a guy fishing for research denero.... Hydrogen Boron Fusion | HB11 Energy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I read that their predictions/simulations gave them one set of expectations... but the actual results were a BILLION times greater.

Yes, a billion. This is obviously not good. There are a few science places I haunt that are discussing this.

Here is a Wiki discussing the processes. It is far from new, or novel, or no-understood. Im curious why this chap thinks he has now "cracked it"....

---

I don't know enough to comment, but here is their paper that was published in the journal High Energy Density Physics.

https://aca3d9dd-3b9c-446b-8797-0ba1...05895197cb.pdf

They will soon be discredited if they have got it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

And, here is a wind map of Australia....from the earlier document I cited in support of my east-west interconnector idea. The warmer the colour the more wind available. Sorry about the resolution, the original was very small.

Attachment 468972

WA has abundant wind available waiting to be distributed as electrons to the east. The additional expense of offshore turbines may not be necessary.

---

some comments

off shore wind turbines are scaleable -- 2 MW, or thereabouts, at a time -- at a cost of $4 to $5 M each.
an east-west inter-connector is not scaleable. A suitable sized inter-connector is an upfront investment 3 orders of magnitude (1000 times) greater.

Tassie has a wind resource as good as, perhaps greater than, that in WA.
The distance of an undersea DC connector from Tassie is an order of magnitude shorter than that required for one connecting WA with Victoria or NSW.



Do we need both?
You betcha, PLUS Snowy 2.
Where's the money to be sourced from -- now there's the rub.
No private sector entity is going to invest in a WA wind farm to export power to NSW/QLD/VIC as the cost and risk is far far too great.

Government -- despite all it's faults and the current dolts in power -- is really the only source of long term finance at the level of risk involved.
Unlike coal and gas based generation, 100% renewable electricity means investing in 4 to 5 times the generating capacity we currently have.


I think the term is "nation building" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Here is an article on China... 40% of all energy is now renewables. Offshore wind could ..."provide more than 6,000 terawatt-hours, or 200 percent of total energy demand"

Offshore wind farms could power much of coastal China: study

6000 TWh !!!!

---

the longer quote

The researchers estimated that if electricity prices are high, offshore wind could provide more than 1,000 terawatt-hours, or about 36 percent of all coastal energy demand. If electricity prices are low, it could provide more than 6,000 terawatt-hours, or 200 percent of total energy demand.

Based on the numbers quoted, that "200% of total energy demand" should be 200% of current (2018) coastal electricity demand.

And, here is the Wiki page on Emeritus Prof Heinrich Hora. No slouch when it comes to high energy physics, having worked at both the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics and CERN, and recipient of a number of honors including the Edward Teller Medal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

....Tassie has a wind resource as good as, perhaps greater than, that in WA.
The distance of an undersea DC connector from Tassie is an order of magnitude shorter than that required for one connecting WA with Victoria or NSW.......

I think the term is "nation building" ?

---

So true, Ian

And Tassie also has hydro power that can, and is, instantly adjusted to cope with vaguaries in the wind supply. Get a gust, the computer narrows the sluice gates, get a lull in the wind and the hydro production ramps up, virtually instantly. This cannot be done with coal fired power plants that take several hours to steam up.

This then creates the opportunity for Tasmania to sell electricity to the mainland in hours or minutes of high prices. When prices are very low, it can also close down the hydro plants and buy electricity from the national grid up to the capacity of the cable. Remember, the coal powered plants cannot ramp down production quickly!

But there is only one BassLink cable of dubious quality and sale or purchase of electricity from the national grid is impossible during its periodic outages. Too many eggs in one basket.


Cheers

Graeme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I read that their predictions/simulations gave them one set of expectations... but the actual results were a BILLION times greater.

Yes, a billion. This is obviously not good.

---

Why is this not good? Because the predictions were so far out? :?

From Ray's quote:
"The company will seek $1m for preliminary testing over 12 months. A further $5m would be needed over two years for international research collaborations to achieve experimental proof of concept. A pilot fusion electricity generator would require a further $80m."

They aren't seeking a lot of money in the short term ($6m over 3 years), and even the $80m isn't a crazy amount - the total is less than what Tim Flannery supposedly ripped off Gillard for. :roll::doh::no::~ (and less the price of inflation too...). You'd have to think that someone like Twiggy Forrest would be good for the first few years financial requirements. Or Mike Cannon-Brookes. One of the American billionaires recently pledged a huge amount of money to fighting climate change...hang on....yes, Bezos pledged $10b. In short, the money they are seeking short be VERY easy to raise.

As Neil points out, Prof Hora has the credentials in spades, and at 88 he has no need for wealth (because he'll be dead - or as good as - by the time it is commercially operational), so why is my Murdoch BS Detector red-lining? Too much previous MBS conditioning me - the boy who cried "WOLF!" and all that? ("sniff sniff - nope, not smelling right..."

I wonder what that well known seeker of truth and exacting commentator Andrew Dolt thinks of it.

Yes, with the way this government pisses money up the wall, a bit of money on Science wouldn't be too bad.

Perhaps some of that $200 Mil they blew on sports grants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

I think the term is "nation building" ?

---

Yes, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

But there is only one BassLink cable of dubious quality and sale or purchase of electricity from the national grid is impossible during its periodic outages. Too many eggs in one basket.

---

True
But I understand that following the fault/failure of the initial cable, there are plans to install a second one -- mostly to achieve redundancy.


If we're serious about sourcing power from Tassie as part of a "water battery", I suspect there will a need for 5 maybe 6 "Basslink" cables

On the 7th February I posted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

We have four quite distinct seasons up here, and the change from summer to autumn is usually the most noticeable of them. There is usually a period of a week around end of Feb to early March when it is quite apparent that Summer is over. (quoted some temps etc...)

Right now it's a little too early to tell but we may well be going through that period from last Monday through to the end of next week - which would make that seasonal change 3 weeks early.

---

Since then we have had 1 day >25° and only 4 days >23°. On the other end of the scale we have had 7 days <20° for Feb.

The monthly average is currently 0.4° lower than the long term average, and in fact if the first two days of Feb are taken out, the the current monthly average would be more than 1.5° lower than the long term.



So this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

FenceFurniture, those low temperatures are from Mother Nature to lull you into a sense of summers completion. She will come back in a fortnight and brutally mug you with cudgels. You will rue those words of finality :)

---

....didn't happen. No cudgelling :D

It's a very early Autumn, and thank gawd fer that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markkr

Brown Brett, utterly brown.

---

Mark, I imagine that has swung back t'other way again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Tassie has a wind resource as good as, perhaps greater than, that in WA.
The distance of an undersea DC connector from Tassie is an order of magnitude shorter than that required for one connecting WA with Victoria or NSW.

....

Do we need both?
You betcha, PLUS Snowy 2.

---

I expect we will eventually have elements of all of the options we have raised. The cost-benefits will sort that out, skewed as always with a dose of political and other self interest.

I expect Tassie's 'water batteries' will be the impetus for an upgrade to their interconnector(s), but doubt that their wind resources will be a factor in that.

Yes, their west coast has one of the best wind potentials.

Attachment 469067

But, that west coast is also where there is the greatest density of wilderness and a world heritage listing.

Attachment 469070

The inland ridges along that west coast are never going to be available for wind farms. Unless located offshore, it is never going to happen.

Whether economic or not, the coastal strip along the south coast of the mainland has the most potential for the further development of wind power. An east-west interconnector would be necessary to unlock the WA end of that.

I see us getting a little starry eyed over Tasmanian Hydro power. These are a few details on the DC link from Wikepedia:

Basslink - Wikipedia

and a bit more information about DC links in Australia including the Basslink line.

3 awesome HVDC projects in Australia you should know about | EEP

It occurs to me that we have discussed the cost of transmission lines on this thread and whether that was a relevant issue to consider. When Basslink was commissioned in 2005 the cost was in excess of $800m,a blowout from the original estimate of $500m. Interesting to note how much it costs to use the services of the line. Remember this is just the line and represents more than half as much as it would cost to build a power station of the same capacity.

I would also repeat that the connector was designed to supply security for Tasmania in case they suffered a drought more than to export power to the mainland. The fact that they can, and do, export power back to the mainland is a side benefit, but not it's primary purpose.

It also seems to me ridiculous to consider extra DC interconnectors unless similar quantities of dam storage were built or at least similar dams were available. I had not realised, until I read the articles above, that the existing line is privately owned. So that again begs the question of who would put money up for a new line particularly bearing in mind there may be no water to go with it?

I believe it is a mistake to fancifully state we will just put something here or there without examining the practicalities. Sorry to seem negative, but we had an extremely stressful day at the office yesterday (nearly losing the unit on several occasions) and my pragmatic side has aligned with the new moon.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

we had an extremely stressful day at the office yesterday (nearly losing the unit on several occasions)

---

:? Please explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It also seems to me ridiculous to consider extra DC interconnectors unless similar quantities of dam storage were built or at least similar dams were available.

---

Having lived through the resistance to a Gordon below Franklindam, I'm confident that no further dams will be built anywhere in the wilderness west coast area of Tasmania.

Pumped hydro may still be a possibility with the existing dams, if the economics of that stacks up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

:? Please explain?

---

Brett

Glad to explain. This region has been in a drought for at least two years but in the last month it has rained at last. Some areas have had up to 200mm in this period. This is not drought breaking rain as the moisture levels are not more than 100mm down in the ground in most areas, but it is enough to disrupt coal supplies to our boilers.

The first potential disruption is to delivery of the coal from the mine up a steep incline coal conveyor to the coal silos located inside the boiler structure at the very top of the station. During heavy rain the coal slides back down the belt or alternatively belt can slip on the drive roller. In either instance there is an interruption to coal supply and eventually we have no fuel. However this was not the problem yesterday.

The silos capable of holding in excess of 600 tons each, feed coal feeders which deliver coal to the mill at a measured rate. In our case at up to 65 tons per hour. We have five mills for each unit, but usually run with four mills only. Yesterday we had five mills in service for extra security. The problem is that our coal has a high ash content and a a large clay component. During wet conditions the coal becomes sticky and hangs up in the tubes that run to the feeders. Now there is no coal to that mill.

This happened to us on my unit several time yesterday and on one occasion we lost three feeders in quick succession. This disrupts everything. Fuel/air ratios go ballistic, we are unable to maintain load of course and the unit starts throttling itself back (runback). In short the unit becomes unstable and may trip. If that sounds dramatic, a similar scenario about ten days ago caused us to lose this same unit (tripped on high steam temperature, which had become uncontrollable). Last Friday another wet coal event caused the other unit to trip. We took extreme precautions yesterday and lived to tell the tale without the associated red face.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The problem is that our coal has a high ash content and a a large clay component.

---

So at a guess, it wasn't a piece of Millmerran coal that SmoKo and Banarnaby Beetrooter were tossing around the Parliament? More likely it was a piece of the (apparently) world renowned Tahmoor Steaming/Coking Coal from the Southern Highlands (NSW). Closer to the Canberra Bubble too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Having lived through the resistance to a Gordon below Franklindam, I'm confident that no further dams will be built anywhere in the wilderness west coast area of Tasmania.

Pumped hydro may still be a possibility with the existing dams, if the economics of that stacks up.

---

Neil

I am pleased you have referenced the economics as that is so important in today's electricity market. In fact my command of the language is unable to stress sufficiently the place it occupies since privatisation of the industry has progressively taken place.

Pumped hydro still comes at a price. If a daytime average price is $70/$80 per MWhr and the night time average may be $40 per MWhr the revenue is potentially back to $40 per MWhr. However that assumes you can pump back up the hill at an economic rate. I don't know the detail here and would be glad to take advice from somebody who knows but I suspect that it takes more than 1MW to pump 1MW of water back to the storage dam. If that is the case, and I am almost certain it would be, it is only during really elevated prices that it would become economic to release water. In a way that is exactly the intent, but the power plant owners wish to make money. They can only do this with a continued supply of electricity. The occasional high price does not keep you in business.

Something else that comes to mind that I have probably touched on before is that all the fossil fired stations enter into contracts for fixed prices with the major players. They can do this because their supplies are reliable. Major players do this so that they are not hit with astronomical bills. However, this may not be available to the "renewable resources," or at least to the same extent. The reason is that if you are unable to supply the power you have to buy it in at the market price, which may be extreme (maybe enough to bankrupt you). At any one time the "spot" price, which is the one that everybody quotes, only reflects a percentage of the demand. How much is that percentage? Nobody knows because it is confidential. Even at our station I don't know how much is contracted, although I can make an informed guess.

I would guess that in the general market at any one time up to 30% or even 40% could be under contract.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So at a guess, it wasn't a piece of Millmerran coal that SmoKo and Banarnaby Beetrooter were tossing around the Parliament? More likely it was a piece of the (apparently) world renowned Tahmoor Steaming/Coking Coal from the Southern Highlands (NSW). Closer to the Canberra Bubble too.

---

Brett

You are correct. I have no idea where Smoko and Beetrooter's coal came from but, despite not being a gambling man (don't bet even on the Melbourne Cup) I would lay my life on the line that it was not our coal. Power stations burn rubbish coal. Export coal is good quality stuff.

As this thread has morphed into a significant information site, this is a link to coal qualities (an Indian ref)

Coal Grades | Ministry of Coal, Government of India

I think our coal is about 32% ash at best and sometimes a lot worse, but I just burn what they give me. :)

Regards
Paul

It must have been the Coalitions mythical Clean Coal, as it left not a single black mark or speck of dust on a single hand.

Perhaps it was coated in shellac or a polyurethane from a spray can (propelled by CO2! hahahah! The irony).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The silos capable of holding in excess of 600 tons each, feed coal feeders which deliver coal to the mill at a measured rate. In our case at up to 65 tons per hour. We have five mills for each unit, but usually run with four mills only. Yesterday we had five mills in service for extra security. The problem is that our coal has a high ash content and a a large clay component. During wet conditions the coal becomes sticky and hangs up in the tubes that run to the feeders. Now there is no coal to that mill.

This happened to us on my unit several time yesterday and on one occasion we lost three feeders in quick succession. This disrupts everything. Fuel/air ratios go ballistic, we are unable to maintain load of course and the unit starts throttling itself back (runback). In short the unit becomes unstable and may trip. If that sounds dramatic, a similar scenario about ten days ago caused us to lose this same unit (tripped on high steam temperature, which had become uncontrollable). Last Friday another wet coal event caused the other unit to trip. We took extreme precautions yesterday and lived to tell the tale without the associated red face.

---

(I am being a bit facetious here :) )

Base Load Coal that can be stopped when it rains... 'cos wind, hydro and solar are stopped by their own lack of inputs :)

The last para sounds a bit like Fukushima or Chernobyl :)



(Sorry, I'm feeling rather jolly today!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

(I am being a bit factious here :) )

Base Load Coal that can be stopped when it rains... 'cos wind, hydro and solar are stopped by their own lack of inputs :)

The last para sounds a bit like Fukushima or Chernobyl :)



(Sorry, I'm feeling rather jolly today!)

---

WP

I accept your facetious comments in the vein they were intended. A jolly good tale. :)

It is in some respects the result of privatisation of the industry. I had better elaborate on that before Brett chips in with a Pauline Hansonism (please explain?).

Millmerran power station while being the second most efficient (and consequently second cleanest too, albeit still dirty) was built on a budget and cost $1.4b back in 2002. There were many, many aspects that had been cost cut and millions were spent in the early days to upgrade the station to a workable level.

One of the early problems was this issue of the tubes connecting the coal silos (also referred to as coal bunkers) and the coal feeders. In those early days when the coal hung up in the feeder tubes we rushed out to the feeder and flogged the proverbial excrement out of them with sledge hammers until the coal fell. At times we actually employed people on contract to do only this if we had been able to predict the likelihood of rain. That was OK as it kept us online. Problem was we dented and damaged the tubes and the coal sliding past the dents over long periods of time wore holes in the tubes.

So a number of devices were trialled to free up the coal during these wet coal events. We now have two sets of vibrators ( I realise the opportunities that this opens up, but perhaps comments could be restricted so the thread is not closed down :D ). We have one knocker ( more opportunity :rolleyes: ), which is just an air driven hammer, a jack hammer (common all garden purchased from a hardware store and attached to the feeder tube with tie down straps)) and water jets which are only the choice of last resort. All these can be operated from the control room. In addition to these "coal flow aids" a larger valve was incorporated at the outlet of the coal silo and an expansion box inserted just before the coal feeder (the coal feeder is a short conveyor belt that measures out quantities of coal).

So why have I laboriously mentioned all this? At Bayswater power station in the Hunter Valley we had the same problem. In fact we used to get up on a scissor lift with the sledge hammers there: Quite scary. The feeder tubes like ours at Millmerran were 600mm diameter (made of stainless steel). They were replaced with 900mm tubes and larger valves. Bayswater was a Rolls Royce of stations from the old government days when continuity of supply was the prime concern. Bayswater has four units, eight mills per unit and two feeders for every mill. This meant they replaced sixty four tubes.I don't know what the cost was: Huge. We virtually eliminated coal hang ups overnight.

We did not do that at Millmerran: Too expensive by far and we only had ten feeders to modify.

On the baseload comment I am be bound to point out that we still produce power on rainy days and in this neck of the woods they are not frequent. I don't know that solar and wind can produce power on cloudy and and calm days respectively. :q

As to Chernobyl and Fukushima most of the workers at those plants would have settled for just a red face.:(

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

It must have been the Coalitions mythical Clean Coal, as it left not a single black mark or speck of dust on a single hand.

Perhaps it was coated in shellac or a polyurethane from a spray can (propelled by CO2! hahahah! The irony).

---

Probably washed coal :wink:

Regards
Paul

So our glorious $1.2B plant is kept operational by a few Bunnings-bought kango hammers strapped down with Occy's?

And when that didnt work, we hit it with sledge hammers?

Sounds almost Russian :)

(Imagine the wonders we would get if we spent 1.3B! :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

So our glorious $1.2B plant is kept operational by a few Bunnings-bought kango hammers strapped down with Occy's?

And when that didnt work, we hit it with sledge hammers?

Sounds almost Russian :)

---

WP

Correct!

However, in Russia they probably take to you with sledge hammers if the unit trips! :(

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I don't know that solar and wind can produce power on cloudy and and calm days respectively. :q

---

Solar can produce on cloudy days, but significantly less of course. If it couldn't it would never be installed in the UK. I may have some vague memory that there is a type of solar panel that is better to use in overcast weather, but not at all sure about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

I expect we will eventually have elements of all of the options we have raised. The cost-benefits will sort that out, skewed as always with a dose of political and other self interest.

---

Perhaps I should "volunteer" that I trained as a civil engineer who spent the last 15 years of my "career" playing with economics.

The one takeout I took away from those years -- apart from the honorary degree awarded by my BEc colleague -- was that economics was the art of supplying a "creditable" answer to the question: "what answer do you want?"


Current real interest rates (the RBA official rate minus inflation) are less than -1% (i.e. strongly negative), but businesses still look to an internal rate of return greater than 10% (and preferably better than 25%).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I would also repeat that the connector was designed to supply security for Tasmania in case they suffered a drought more than to export power to the mainland. The fact that they can, and do, export power back to the mainland is a side benefit, but not it's primary purpose.

---

whilst exporting power back to the mainland may not be the HV DC line's primary "purpose", it is how the line has been operated for most -- nearly all? -- of it's existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I believe it is a mistake to fancifully state we will just put something here or there without examining the practicalities.

---

I have to respectively disagree.
If we are to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040 -- which is only 20 years away -- as a nation we have some very very difficult choices to make.
Assuming that by 2040 we are still operating fossil fueled transport vehicles -- cars, trucks, trains -- do we say "stuff it", "we all be doomed, Hanrahan" or do we start to act now to change the status quo?
There's only so many trees that can be planted to soak-up CO2 -- it should be done, but it's hardly practical on the scale that would be required.

Which really only leaves "fanciful" schemes that have no "commercial return" because they are only really needed to keep the lights on for two or three days each year.
To date that function [keeping the lights on] has been provided by vast quantities of base load coal fired power -- but in a no coal, no gas future what are the options for those calm nights when there is no solar (because it's night time) and no wind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

whilst exporting power back to the mainland may not be the HV DC line's primary "purpose", it is how the line has been operated for most -- nearly all? -- of it's existence.


I have to respectively disagree.
If we are to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040 -- which is only 20 years away -- as a nation we have some very very difficult choices to make.
Assuming that by 2040 we are still operating fossil fueled transport vehicles -- cars, trucks, trains -- do we say "stuff it", "we all be doomed, Hanrahan" or do we start to act now to change the status quo?
There's only so many trees that can be planted to soak-up CO2 -- it should be done, but it's hardly practical on the scale that would be required.

Which really only leaves "fanciful" schemes that have no "commercial return" because they are only really needed to keep the lights on for two or three days each year.
To date that function [keeping the lights on] has been provided by vast quantities of base load coal fired power -- but in a no coal, no gas future what are the options for those calm nights when there is no solar (because it's night time) and no wind?

---

Selling power back to the mainland was why the Tasmanians were caught out. No water left and no DC link and no power for the Hydro companies to sell to their own people. Send in the clowns, ahem! I mean the Diesel generators.

I don't disagree that something has to be done, but the problem around the world is that insufficient people or organisations are putting up their hands for this and in Australia we can't even get the government to agree there is a problem. So really, who is going to do it and make a spanking great loss?

Regards
Paul