It's not costing us 4 times the amount to dig up coal or extract gas, but because of international pricing, the price is jumping. So somebody somewhere in this process is making some super profits.
ajw
Printable View
It's not costing us 4 times the amount to dig up coal or extract gas, but because of international pricing, the price is jumping. So somebody somewhere in this process is making some super profits.
ajw
50 more of these farms would be a good start!
MacIntyre Wind Precinct'''s construction begins, soon to be Australia'''s largest wind farm - ABC News
But I want to switch my lights on when it gets dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I think the usage charge is the "Welcome, come on in!" and the supply charge is "Here's the bill."Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Caveat emptor.
mick
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajw
yep, coal mines don't want to sell to the coal fired power stations as they can get FAR better money exporting it.
coal fired power stations have to roll back production to conserve coal, this creates demand... this drives prices up. the other side to that is that coal mines will sell to a power station but the cost is ALOT higher, so the power station either sells at a higher price (passed on to customers) or shuts down as they can't stay viable.
I would have thought that the power generators had fixed supply contracts with coal mines, so that they were guaranteed supply at a known price. The mines shouldn't be able to simply withhold confirmed/contracted orders just so they can sell to a higher bidder. I know it's likely to be much more complicated than that, but it needs to get sorted out somehow. If retail prices move to 50 cents kWh there will be a lot of people struggling to pay the bills. The flow-on effects through the economy of significantly higher power and gas prices will cause another spike in inflation. The outlook is quite scary for a lot of people, I'd imagine.
ajw
I know amber (my retailer) has insurance to cover their obligations to not exceed the default offer price and i would guess most do. But the premiums will no doubt be heading north at the next renewal.
Perhaps some retailers (and generators) were betting that wasn’t required. (higher profits higher risk).
But surprising never the less.
It is starting to sound like a re-run of the California electricity crisis of 20 years ago.
And for pretty much the same reasons.
[Close a dirty fossil fuel power station and the Greens are very happy, but an energy supply deficiency is created. No alternatives available so market forces push power prices up alarmingly, and the same companies make a killing wth their remaining dirty power stations. If the supply gap starts to narrow, then be very public spirited and close another dirty power station. Public Relations will massage the media!]
Graeme,Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
You may be interested in one of these mushroom burners:
12 Jet Mushroom Burner - LP Gas - Auscrown
I have got one of these and am in the process of building a cart on wheels to use it outdoors. I can't tell how hot it will get as I haven't fired it yet .
Cheers,
Yvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvan
Thanks, Yvan. The output of your 12 burner unit is given on page 11 of the specifications sheet as 37.5 mJ. This is a lot better than my 25 mJ, but well short of Kai Wings's 100+ mJ.
You really can taste the difference of the more mJ's, and he is thinking of changing to a 200 mJ unit. There are also legal and insurance issues in putting a commercial unit in a domestic kitchen.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I think the commercial stoves may not cut off the gas should the flame go out. While commercial stoves have a lot more "grunt" than domestic stoves, they are normally a no-frills type affair being quite simplistic. On the stove we had the smallest burner was about the same as the largest burner on a domestic stove. Having said that, my experience of commercial stoves dates from around 2000 so some improvements may have made since that time.
Regards
Paul
We have to start thinking BIG, really big....
China to double wind, solar energy capacity by 2025
TRILLION.....3.3 trillion....Quote:
In 2025, the annual power generation from renewable energy will reach about 3.3 trillion kilowatt-hours
Imagine if we could have used some of that Liberal Debt and built wind and solar farms?
HOOLEY DOOLEY!!!
Just this week I removed two AM125 gas burners from one of my kilns... they run at 200,00btu/200MJ a piece when on full bore... I shudder to think what they would do to a stir fry!Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
My immediate concern with that amount of heat in a domestic kitchen is the exhaust arrangements. Any domestic kitchen exhaust fan and ducting would be fried as quickly as the stir fry...:oo:
The large heavy duty SS canopies used in commercial kitchens with their equally expensive exhaust fan units and external ducting/flue arrangements are better able to cope with that level of heat.
If you do really like the idea of doing some cooking on a flame thrower at home... perhaps outside next to the barby. with the fire extinguisher close at hand...:U
PS - I'm not sure about commercial kitchen gas burners, but those gas burners of mine (see attached) have an automatic cut off should the flame go out. A kiln full of gas that suddenly ignites is a frightening prospect.
These things are ferocious! I've had one for about 15 years, and I use them when I do a soup run for which I need to make about 25 litres or more of Vege Stock. My biggest pot now is a 25 litre jobbie, but ozhunter bought my 77 litre monster a while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
Precisely; that is why I said there may be legal and insurance issues with a commercial stove or cooktop. But I cannot remember the details so I said nothing else.
Some 20-25 years ago I was at an auction and bought an almost new stainless 6-burner commercial gas stove quite cheaply, and felt very pleased with myself. We did not have a gas connection then, so I rang a gas fitter friend and asked if he could convert the stove to bottled gas and install it for me. He came round, looked at it and shook his head. He mentioned the "blast furnace heat" that it could produce and the need (and legal requirement) for adequate clearances to inflamable things. Basic problems then in my kitchen included:
- Inadequate extractor,
- Wooden floors,
- Wooden window frames,
- Pine cabinet next to stove alcove,
- Pine doors on ther cabinets and drawers,
- Melamine bench tops and cabinet carcases, etc.
I sold the stove quite well.
Here is a cool thing.... stretchable fabric that generates electricity!
The PDF --> https://www.ntu.edu.sg/docs/default-...rsn=869781be_1
A short article: New 'fabric' converts motion into electricity | NTU Singapore
Quote:
As a proof of concept, the team showed that tapping on a 3-centimeter by 4-centimeter piece of the fabric generated enough power for 100 LEDs.
If simply moving and stretching produces energy, some quick thinking invents quite a few opportunities :)
Are Nukes back on the table?
Peter Dutton hints at controversial shift towards nuclear power (thenewdaily.com.au)
I did take this extract from the article in particular:
"Tony Wood, who heads energy and climate policy at the Grattan Institute, says nuclear energy could make a contribution to Australia’s transition from fossil fuels if public concerns could be overcome and the technology became economically viable."
I don' think these aspects can be stated enough, plus it may be ten years before the first MW is generated: No quick fix here amongst all the other isues.
Regards
Paul
Looking overall at this period in time and our attempts to deal with climate change I think in 50 years time people will look back and wonder where some of the looney ideas came from and why they were seriously considered.
Curious they talk about this one week after being SLAIN from government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Didn't mention it previously.....
Again, the stinking remains of the Liberal party are still throwing dead cats around. They should be solidly ignored for 3 years.
I personally think nuclear is a big part of the answer, but getting everyone else to think this way is a mighty big ask. Ten years will be too late... wind/solar/hydro/sea current/thermal and storage will make it a total economic failure if it ever starts.
Having the largest deposit of uranium in the world up at Olympic Dam we have a big incentive to take advantage of that resource here in SA and we looked at it in detail but the economic arguments for it just don't stack up for electricity generation here in Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
The cost of decommissioning a NPP, let alone building it, is staggering. For example "in Slovakia, a detailed case study showed a total cost of €1.14 billion (A$1.7bn) to decommission Bohunice V1 (2 x 440 MWe) and dismantle it by 2025." Source: World Nuclear Association
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
AhhQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
but don't forget that in 2021, the Australian Government cancelled their contract to buy 12 French nuclear subs -- the French subs were to be reconfigured so that they are powered by diesel engines.
What does that decision (nuclear powered submarines) mean in terms of the future of nuclear power for Australia.
The current research reactor at Lucas Heights doesn't cut it.
So will Australia be supplied with highly enriched uranium to run the new [US or, more likely UK designed and constructed] subs? The basis being that highly enriched uranium allows the sub's reactors to be fuelled for life.
HOWEVER, note that supplying Australia with highly enriched uranium would seemingly violate the wording of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Australia is a signatory. However, I'm not sure that leasing the subs, and their uranium filled reactors, to Australia would necessarily violate the wording of the NNPT. If Australia were to only lease the nuclear subs, would the highly enriched uranium fuel still be technically under US or UK control? If that were the case, the reactors, once their cores were depleted, could be returned to the US for NNPT verification.
Alternatively, Australia might need to develop their own nuclear industry so that they can operate the planned nuclear subs independently of the US's and/or UK's nuclear industry.
That would be an argument to develop a domestic Australian nuclear power industry that does not require any rational economic evaluation.
Alternatively, Australia could return to the, now cancelled, contract to acquire eight or so French nuclear subs. Australia's decision to adopt nuclear power for their new subs would mean that the design delays associated with attempting to shoe-horn a diesel engine, and the large fuel tanks required to attain the operation range desired, into a space designed for a nuclear reactor would no longer be an issue.
Note that although the French subs need refuelling every ten (?) years, they run on low enriched uranium so don't violate the NNPT.
And if a Los Angles class or an Astute class nuclear sub were redesigned to accommodate refuelling, there is no guarantee that the design delays experienced with the French subs would not be repeated.
It would need a very special negotiator to go have a chat with France. One that can, and be willing, to hear from some rather cranky people with a legitimate grievance.
I'm pretty sure we are at the top of their $hit-list right now.
The last two posts have brought up some of the very real problems with nuclear... Implementation is long, nobody wants this beast in their back yard, it requires a level of expertise to run we simply don't have natively (??) and decommish is a pretty penny. Then there is the fuel and disposal.
If these could be solved, cool.... but ...
For the same money we could build quite a juicy renewable solution?
We are going slightly off track here, not that this is enought to halt our conversations :) .
WP:
Your comments are right on the money and I don't see these issues being resolved in the forseeable future; Just the lead time alone is mind boggling.
"The last two posts have brought up some of the very real problems with nuclear... Implementation is long, nobody wants this beast in their back yard, it requires a level of expertise to run we simply don't have natively (??) and decommish is a pretty penny. Then there is the fuel and disposal."
Ian:
I am not really familiar with nukes in subs, although a brief look seems to indicate that some may be using uranium at a higher level of enrichment. However, this thread is about land based nukes for electricity generation and the level of enrichment for those is in the range of 4% to 7%. This is a long way from weapons grade material that is enriched at >97% and a big step in technology. While there are huge issues around nuke power before it becomes acceptable I don't see the transition to nuclear armament as being at the forefront: Arguably, a long way down the track some power hungry nutter may see an opportunity, but that could be a subject for a separate thread.
My understanding of the Lucas Heights reactor is thatit has a nominal capability of 5MW, but that is just a power rating as it is not used to generate electricity. I believe the primary use is for medial supplies and some element of research.
Regards
Paul
As an aside and to give some insight into one operation of the Lucas Heights which is close to me, when they are transporting used material for export all the roads south of the reactor are closed to all traffic between the reactor and Port Kembla. I have been caught twice by this in the last few years and it lasts for the best part of an hour and there is no advanced warning of it happening until just before they do it.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Sorry, Woody, but you lost me.
Are you really advocating solar powered submarines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
This lead time really puzzles me with respect to submarines, whether French, USA or UK. Delivery will be in 2040 or later. 20 years in the future.
Just imagine if we had ordered a bunch of submarines in 1930 to be delivered in 1950. They might have missed something significant!
The complication in modern defenses is amazing and if another intense fight action like the Battle of Britain were to happen they would be back to flying Spitfires and Mossies within a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Awesome, post of the thread!!Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Not solar, but you've started me on a dangerous thought process.... renewables!Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
They could be run on bio-diesel, corn syrup, compressed air, or even hydro.
Since they are so deep, they are effectively IN the "dam". They could build a small turbine, let the outside water in via that turbine and generate power like that. The deeper they go, the more pressure and therefore power they have!
Once the sub is full, they could surface, let it all out, then sink to the bottom again to generate more power.
:2tsup::doh:
get a bunch of nuclear subs
when not needed for war
throw a couple of extension cords out of them and plug into the grid
island nations have been known to just ram large ships into shore and use the diesel generators on board to power the local town.
The person who put Australia on the French $hit list was replaced on May 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
There's a whole new lot in power now -- reactivating the French nuclear sub deal could be a possibility.
It will all depend on how the new lot view the previous lot's attempted wedge on nuclear power.
Not exactly Scomo's Finest Hour......:((Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Now we start reading that Defence will need a bridging capability between existing Collins Class subs and the vapourware that is our nuclear (sorry, "nookular" for our US readers) submarine fleet....gosh, what a surprise !
Defence procurement in Australia is a shambles. I wouldn't trust them to go down to the local corner shop and procure me a litre of milk.
There was something else that was? Musta missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
Edit: WAIT! I remember it now. His finest hour was between 10.30 and 11.30pm in May 21.
How quaint; expecting politicians of any genre to act intelligently.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Not exactly a deterrent is it? Just telling the enemy "You better watch it - in 20 years we're going to have the most amazing shiny nuclear subs, so back off" :rolleyes:
Gentlemen
I am loathe to issue any restrictions on this thread, particularly as I started it and more importantly because I see electricity generation as one of the crucial issues of the future, but, we need to keep the specific political comment to a minium other than factual documentation of policy or the lack of it. I know it is extremely difficult to separate the politics and the science here and given a free reign I would probably be the worst offender. However, there has been no intervention in any way whatsoever by the moderators on this thread. I am grateful for that, because the Forum rules are "No politics" and I would like to keep the thread as apolitical as possible.
Most contributors here have acknowledged that previous governments could have and should have done more and did not. We really need to focus on the remedys and see if the new government can step up to the task. I take on board that all politicians of all persuasions can be slippery. We need to give them a chance to do the right thing and then lay into them if they fall short on the task.
So, what is the right thing? The latest comments that the coal fired stations need to get back on line and the gas companies need to assure continued supply is a defining acknowledgement that we cannot do without either for the moment. Here on this thread we knew that. The chorous of the market finding the solution is rubbish. The problem is that market is primarily privatisied and even the government stations are obliged under the competitive market regulations to act as if they were private companies. The problem is that the industry has been privatised and their focus is the bottom line: There is no going back from this position so the only option I see for the moment is for the government to pursue research into solutions. I heard even today of restoring coal and gas fired power so the renemables could be further developed. They still don't understand the issue. The issue is the night and other "sunless" hours. Also "windless" hours and maybe down the track "waterless" hours should drought strike again (it will).
The effect of more renewables though the day without that generation channeled into storage would mean the coal and gas fired units either would not generate at all or would have to go to their absolute minimum loads and probably not only run uneconomically but more likely at a huge loss. The problem there is they are needed for the time when the renewables cannot deliver. It may be that generation through the night is insufficient for them to be viable. If they close down prematurely because they are unviable the country has a big problem.
Storage is the crucial issue that must be solved and that needs to happen sooner rather than later: Everything hangs on it. More renewables before storage is solved will actually only exacerbate the problem.
Regards
Paul
:whs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
ChrisQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
You do realise that the unannounced road closures around Lucas Heights have nothing to do about the safety or otherwise of the reactor at Lucas Heights?
Their purpose is to make it difficult -- if not impossible -- for anti-nuclear protesters to disrupt the shipment of the nuclear waste.
The reason becomes unimportant when I am stuck in the middle of it late at night. The root reason is they are moving export material and everything revolves around that.