as you rightly say -- who is going to lead us to a net zero emission future?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Printable View
as you rightly say -- who is going to lead us to a net zero emission future?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Yes well we tried that didn't we? As it turns out they burn really REALLY well back into CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Don't forget about the many emerging technologies to either provide power or capture CO2. The target date is actually 2050, so 30 years, not 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
I can see a possible situation where we might be better (at least for a while) at capturing carbon than we are at producing electricity without carbon emissions, so going back to what I have said a number of times before (in this thread) we may still have to be using coal for base load power (or some of it) in a nett zero emissions scenario, whilst we continue to develop and implement the carbonless base load technology.
Obviously it would be better to reduce the CO2 levels to 0.03% (1950 levels), but nett zero would be a very good interim achievement. It doesn't really matter how the "zero" is attained, and by that I mean if we are still putting out "X" tonnes of CO2 and capturing "X" tonnes, or putting out "Y" tonnes and capturing "Y" tonnes....as long as it's zero while we continue to develop carbonless energy. Then we start on reducing the CO2 component.
Sanders from next year? Albanese from the year after? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
We'll see.
I don't know if it's the case with current solar panels, but the earlier ones lost efficiency as they heated up. Hence, they were most efficient on cool sunny days, and days of light cloud.Quote:
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.
Ian, re your comment "What answer would you like?", if you trained at UNSW you probably remember Prof. Pilgrim. he gave us an assignment which he said he wanted us to answer in the form of a consultant's report. I asked him what answer he wanted.
Still the case Alex - panels are better suited to a cool climate than a warmer one. I just forget why that is the case, but summink to do with the voltages.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
How Does Heat Affect Solar Panel Efficiencies? | CED Greentech
So we only broke two February weather records in Katoomba this month: hottest day on the 2nd at 38.8° and the wettest day on the 10th at 226mm. That's in line with breaking two records in January: hottest day at 39.8° and hottest average for January (SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!) at 27.0°.
December, however, was a much better month for record breaking, with no less than 6 record breaking days: 4 hottest days (i.e. 4 days >=35.0° which was the previous record for Dec, hottest overnight temp, and the driest December at 1.4mm. I'd be pretty sure that another record would have been broken, had the records been kept: the smokiest month.
November was lousy for record breaking with just one miserable record falling for the hottest average November.
So with only 11 weather records broken in the last 4 months (and none at all for Aug-Oct!!!) I'm starting swing back to denial. I'll see how we go in March before I make a final decision. If we can break at least 2 records in March then I'll stay on as CC believer. :;
They exist. 50 watts per square metre, so it's not a lot, but it would suit us nicely.
New Research Explains How Solar Panels Could Soon Be Generating Power at Night
The ‘anti-solar cell’ that works at night developed
so on a very rough estimate, Australia would need about 100,000 ha of 50W panels -- say around 20% of the 500,000 ha burnt by the Gospers Mountain fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I did my degree at USyd. I don't recall writing any "consultant" type reports -- what we did write was much more factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
It's economics that involves "adjusting with the numbers" to meet the politically desired outcome.
I no longer maintain the data table, but by about 2006, the real -- inflation adjusted -- long term cost of money was around 2%, not the 7% typically required by Government. Since then the real cost of money has fallen to about -1%.
So if you want a project to die, discount it at 7%. Which just happens to be the rate required by the NSW State Government.
If you want a project to "get-up" try using the real discount rate -- currently around -1%. i.e. the benefits will grow with time.
There's a longish monograph from the Bureau of Transport Economics that concludes that "the widespread practice of adding a risk premium to the Commonwealth bond rate is hard to defend" -- in other words, while the practice makes life easy for the thumb-in-bum, mind-in-neutral brigade other much more difficult approaches to pricing risk are preferred.
link https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ysis_Transport
The actual crunch date is around 2022, when Liddell is scheduled to close taking 2000 MW of coal fired power out of the system. 2022 is less than THREE years away.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
To replace that amount of generation will require something like 3,000 wind turbines (at 2 MW each), each turbine running for around 8 hours per day and spread over most of NSW. (BTW, 8 hours is to allow for the intermittent nature of the wind resource.)
That's an $9 Billion investment over just two years. 3,000 wind turbines over 3 years equates to installing 20 wind turbines per week.
And then Vales Point is scheduled to close in 2028 taking a further 1300 MW out of the system -- that's another 2000 wind turbines requiring an investment of $6 Billion.
Those numbers are not insignificant -- and are one of the reasons the Federal Government is talking about using tax payer's $$ to keep Liddell running after it's scheduled closure. AGL doesn't care if the lights go out when they shut Liddell -- they still will be paid.
Indeed Ian, which is why the lost decade is going to bite the bum of the Federal Govt. AFAIK there is absolutely no plan in place to cover these output losses. I seem to recall that AGL took a record short time to tell The Fizza "NO!" to keeping it running. The only delay was waiting for the AGL Board to convene.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Paul, what's your take on Liddell closing/being replaced? Doesn't matter what is decided, it is going to be too late.
With 2022 being the next Election year (by May/June) it will be interesting to see how Liddell affects the election. If it is closed before the election the results of the Govt's lack of leadership may well be rammed home to the voters, and if it is closed after the election, and Labor wins, then the Libs will no doubt try to blame Labor for whatever happens to our power supply.
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
As it happens I have just in the last twenty four hours been looking at the AGL website to see what other interests they have and to get more information on Liddell.
It is an inescapable fact that Liddell is at the end of it's life and it would only be kept running if it was economic to do so. AGL have clearly assessed that they can't make money out of it as they have to undertake too much expense in up grading it and they won't get their money back. The schedule according to their own website is that:
"AGL in August 2019 informed AEMO that the first unit at Liddell will close in April 2022. However, following an independent engineering assessment, AGL has determined that the remaining three units will close in April 2023, supporting system reliability throughout the 2022-23 summer months."
More detail on AGL's interests from here:
https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy
I would be most interested to know if the government has offered any "inducements" to keep Liddell running and whether that has influenced the "engineering assessment" despite being independent.
I noted in particular that AGL wishes to open a gas fired station in the Newcastle area and I would see Liddell remaining open being a distinct barrier to that. It would be a competitor once the gas station was built. Gas however is still a fossil fuel and I am not convinced by the long term economics for such a station. It may not happen. I suspect that is why Liddell will close and the government has pleaded for a delay to gain some "wiggle" time in the lead up to the election. The government has correctly recognised they are in a bad place. In the past new stations would have been already been designed and be under way.(It probably takes up to ten years for design, approvals and build to be completed even with the reduced times for bringing units online. It used to be one a year, then it was one every six months and by the time of Millmerran our two units were commissioned about three months apart.)
In today's market with virtually no contingency for the older stations closing down there is nothing to take their place and like it or not the juggernaut is teetering at the top of the hill and on the verge of rolling.
Once this starts to happen the government of the day (whoever it is) will be up to their eyeballs in it.
For example, the brown coal station of Yallourn could be under a cloud:
EnergyAustralia forced to reaffirm its plans for Yallourn, amid media coal panic | RenewEconomy
Probably Yallourn's best hope of remaining viable is that there is just nothing to take the place. That is not really a satisfactory solution for pollution.
So to return to your original question, I think Liddell will close in the time period stated and for a while that will place upward pressure on prices, particularly if it coincides with other stations, even in other states, closing. The potential to increase prices would be a very compelling reason for AGL to close Liddell and refuse to sell it to anybody else. AGL also own Loy Yang in Victoria.
Regards
Paul
Thanks Paul. What do you think will happen to the availability and reliability of base load supply once Liddell is closed?
However, investment in large-scale clean energy projects plunged 56 per cent in Australia in 2019.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
We are heading in the wrong direction!
Angus Trailer (leading from behind) will no doubt be pleased to see that. Having created enough uncertainty for investors in large scale renewables, the gov might now just have to step in to correct that 'market failure' by subsidising new or existing coal fired generation. SloMo to the rescue!
Am I being too cynical?
Yet, Australian households continue to install rooftop solar at record rates. Last year they invested way more than large scale wind or solar. Households are voting for renewables with their pockets (yes, in part, for the sake of their pockets, but not only). And, who knows, they just might start voting with their ballot papers in increasing numbers.
Although, it is not yet clear if Albo is going to be up to the challenge before the next election (or still their leader by the next election). Besides the need for clear policies that are easily understood, one of his biggest obstacle will be the less than 40,000 (overpaid, IMO) thermal coal miners, their regions and, more particularly, their militant union within the Labor camp.
Sorry for being a little bit negative today.
Relative to a previous post I made
Shell Signs PPA With Largest Storage Battery In Europe | CleanTechnica
In a previous incarnation I worked as an economist; a very simple economic rationalisation of what is happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
The power companies' sole reason for existance is to make money. It is not in their financial interests to keep Liddel operating. It is not in their financial interests to build a replacement for Liddel. The more the Governments dither, the more the power companies profit.
The reason is very simple. Wholesale power prices are market determined based on supply and demand. Retail prices are wholesale plus a healthy margin. Reduce the supply and wholesale prices will go through the roof. AGL and its competitors must be salivating at the thought of the closure of Liddel. They know that the governments will not facilitate more supply in a timely manner.
Think this is far fetched? It has already happened in California.
Cheers
Graeme
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
The reliability won't change. The availability will of course depend on demand. Is there sufficient supply? My guess is that during the day the renewables will easily take up the slack as they are already doing that. Nominally Liddell was a 2000MW (4 x 500MW units) station although I doubt they were capable of full load. When I was there (1986) they were restricted to 470MW but there were some improvements made after that. The problem is when there is high demand and solar is out of the equation: So we are primarily talking evening peaks during hot summer days and to a lesser degree the same time slot during the winter. It will simply mean the peeking plants will kick in at elevated prices.
GrahamCooke has again explained the simple, but horrible truth, of supply and demand and that is why I believe AGL will close the gates at Liddell and leave it to become a rusting hulk. It can't even be used for spares as there is no other similar plant. The other major stations in NSW could be used for spares as they are progressively closed down ( 4 at Bayswater, 4 at Eraring, 2 at Vales Point and 2 at Mount Piper) with Vales being the oldest. They have similarities but are not completely identical.
Regards
Paul
Further to rwbuilds most excellent link is this great little company: Home | Highview Power
Here is a video of its tech. All rather obvious really, but they actually have working plants.... "CRYOBattery can deliver anywhere from 20 MW/80 MWh to more than 200 MW/1.2 GWh of energy and can power up to 200,000 homes for a whole day"
And a video! YouTube
What I like, is these things can be created and stored almost on a suburb or town scale. Sold as a trucked-in bolt-together and remotely operated, even by the big distributors or the green energy suppliers themselves.
...which pretty much brings it all back to the need for economically viable batteries for household or shared use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Am I right in thinking (ignoring economics, and ignoring industrial requirements for a moment) that batteries can reduce the % of Base Load power required from the current 40-50% (I think, isn't it?) to something more manageable as these power stations all progressively go offline? Following on from that in the ensuing years (say up to around 2035), one could expect that batteries would become more and more affordable as more of the power stations go offline, and also that more energy making technologies will be coming up to speed.
These two images of Eagle Island in Antarctica were taken 9 days apart (Feb 4th on the left, Feb 13th on the right)
Attachment 469137
Still think there's nothing to see here?
Then read on, but it will challenge your (dis)beliefs:
Antarctica's Eagle Island undergoes large-scale snowmelt as February sees new high temperatures - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Doesnt sound all bad to me, the article said we are moving 4 to 5 times faster per capita than China and America, cheaper materials was a major reason for the perceived lower investment although it did still say it was less than previous yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
Do you think the main driving factor is as Bushmiller alluded to that we have topped out with variable supply power and it is now base load that is needed and where the next wave of investment will come when the opportunity arises?
I think the key driver to household solar is financial, whether your a GW believer or not does not come into it for most. If you dropped the subsidies or the buyback I think you would see a massive decline in installs
Everybody follows the money
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
The answer to that is a resounding "yes." Consider that everybody currently off the grid has batteries. The barrier is the cost of those batteries and the reality that you need to generate three times as much power through the day to charge the batteries up for the night. It might give a warm fuzzy feling to deprive your service provider of his holiday money, but it means you are going to fork out yourself. You may be able to console yourself that you no longer get an electricity bill, but unless you disconect from the grid there will be a service charge and that will eat into potential savings. It will be marginal for a domestic system without batteries. With the cost of batteries too I don't see it being economic at all, although I like the concept.
I see commercial investment slowing as investors come to the realisation that there is no liklihood of an acceptable return. Ironically, domestic solar may be their biggest competitor.
Regards
Paul
Rightio then, we know the following (and please adjust/correct if necessary):Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
- We are staring down a shortage of base load power starting presumably from 2022 (supply falls, demand will obviously rise with population growth)
- We know when various power plants are scheduled to go offline
- As a result we can forecast how much Base Load supply will be tapering off, but we can't forecast other replacement technologies coming on stream
- In all likelihood, coal is political suicide, and for all the right reasons
- We have lost a decade due to political indecision and lack of leadership, and now the Gnats are rattling for a new CF power Station, because it is obvious we are running out of time to replace retiring assets
- It would cost $3b to build a new CF Power Station (? someone may want to adjust that figure). Would one CF PS be enough?
- After our world famous Black Summer, Australia would be a ridiculous laughing stock if it were to build a new CF PS, and we would have lost any chance we may had to galvanise global action
- We know that Solar has reduced the demand on Base Load, and so we don't need as much Base Load these days (there must have been quite a drop in the last 2-3 years with so much Solar going up onto the roof)
- Not hard to imagine that the remaining players in fossil fuel power are fairly pragmatic about the demise of that part of their business
So why not get that $3b and use it to subsidise batteries? At $5,000 subsidy per battery, that translates into 600,000 batteries which would surely go a helluva long way towards allowing the ever-diminishing supply of Base Load to still besufficient for the country to function properly. Not forgetting too that there will be very significant tech advancements by 2035 in both battery storage and large scale power generation.
It seems that a Tesla battery is about $12,500 or so, so at a reduced price of $7,500 you'd have to think they would be extremely popular amongst people who already have panels.
Now I know that the existing poles and wires grid is having trouble with the rising amount of power coming into it from the burbs because it was never designed for it, but the point of batteries is to stop/diminish that anyway by holding the stored power for local use at the source of generation.
I've some further expansion on this to make, but we'll see how this flies so far.
I may have posted this link previously, Navigant: 'Risk of slower than expected price declines' for lithium batteries but prices will fall | Energy Storage NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
As of 2019, Li-ion batteries cost about USD $139 /kWh. So a 600 kWh battery (good for powering a "typical" 3 person home for about 40 hours) might cost somewhere north of USD $80,000 -- which, in AUD terms, is well into super luxury car territory. In that context, an AUD $5,000 subsidy is just a drop in the ocean -- besides doing nothing for the 50% of Australians who rent or live in unit blocks.
By 2030, Li-ion batteries "could fall to as little as USD $76 per kWh". That amount for 600 kWh storage is around the price of a new BMW X3 in the states.
But the area of solar panels required to recharge the battery would be around 20 times the size of your typical 5 kW solar system.
Firstly, Li-ion batteries are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of battery storage - they are just what we are using right now. There are very significant developments in other battery techs coming along, particularly what Monash Uni is developing with Lithium Sulphur.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
"I reality, we shouldn't invest in any new coal fired (or gas fired) power plants as we're really trying to get to a future where allowed CO2 emissions are "reserved" for steel production. And a new fossil fuel fired plant, once built, will have a life well beyond 2050. "
Agreed, which is why I'm trying to nut out a possible alternative...because we need something! (Ian, you may wish to edit your post and bold/colour your comments within my quote - even I had trouble spotting them at first...)
However, I don't understand why you are talking about batteries at a cost of USD80k powering homes for extended periods, when what is being installed is the typical Tesla battery at AUD12,700. People may still end up drawing power from the grid (esp. in off peak times), but my point is to reduce the base load demand overall. An example of drawing off the grid would have been the superwet weekend up here (and Sydney, down the coast) in early Feb. There would have been precious little solar generation then, so because the weather was very forecastable a smart owner would have stocked up their battery during off-peak to use during peak. In fact a Smart Grid could have directed all batteries to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I think that is the crucial issue, FF; but battery technology is just not there yet.
There may be a ray of hope, though. Porsche have just released an all-electric super car - "Ferraris will chase it.." - and journalists criticised it on the grounds that its hyper performance was hamperred by the weight of the batteries. The CEO responded about the necessary trade off between range and performance, and then stated that it was likely that "solid state batteries would be introduced within 4-5 years and they would take 400 kgs out of the weight of a car...." I know nothing about solid state batteries or their likely economic performance.
Meanwhile we are stuck with existing batteries lead by LiON. But there are three main problems with LiON batteries:
- Cost over their lifetime; they are expensive.
- Safety; they catch fire! Just check the airline safety rules about carrying LiON batteries, and Toyota still use NiMH batteries, on safety grounds.
- Environment. According to the CSIRO only 2% of LiON batteries in Australia are actually recycled, and about 6,500 tons will go to land fill this calendar year.
Cost - Yes I agree that the technology isn't as economically attractive as we would like it to be, but in a choice between an internationally embarrassing CF PS (or two), and subsidised batteries for the same Govt spend I think I know what would pass the pub test. Certainly there is buyer resistance at their current price, but if discounted by 40% ($5k) there would definitely be vastly increased take-up. They would pay for themselves in 6 years instead of 10 (depending on numbers for the individual) which is far more attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Safety (catching fire) - do we have any stats on Tesla et al batteries catching fire? We're not going to fly them around the country either....:q
Environment - household batteries are far too big too dump in the bin (yes, I know they are just 100s of Panasonic cells, but disassembling...:no:), and it wouldn't be hard to get some laws into place so that these large batteries are properly recycled (make it part of the purchase package - govt agency collects the battery at the end of life)
Have a look at those Lithium Sulphur batteries. If this link doesn't work then put Monash lithium battery into a search.
My overall point is that whilst batteries still have a way to go, they are usable right now.
Sorry, FF, but I think you have a bad case of rose coloured glasses. I would love to agree with you, but the economist rationalist in me says.... what about the hard evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Costs: Amortising the costs of a LiON battery unit over "...6 years instead of 10...". would be great if we could be confident that the batteries would last six years. What percentage of LiON drill batteries last six years?
Safety: Two separate responses. First because of the issue of fire, the manufacturers have kept LiON batteries very small - comparable to a "D-type" torch battery. This reduces the scope to scale up production. Simple production costing - easier to produce a smaller number of large items than heaps of little ones. A built in cost inhibiter.
Second, all large scale LiON installations - Teslas, PowerWalls, etc, - have active thermal management sytems to minimise the fire risks. These also are not free. Teslas are rather expensive!
Environment: Anything is possible, but can you imagine ScoMo or dutton organising something like that? The simple facts are:
- 2% of LiON batteries are recycled,
- 98% of lead acid batteries are recycle.
Lithium sulphur batteries. These look promising, but less than 1% of university research ever gets to commercial reality. I cannot go down to Bunnings, Repco or Woollies and buy a LS battery.
FF, I fully agree with your sentiments, but you are a true believer, and I have yet to find the light !
Before everyone starts ripping off heads, I'm aware of (and seen) a growing movement of people who make themselves "power walls".
These things are open source (everything is openly documented), parts are available and an entire community of power nutters are there to help. Parts are 3D printed. Management and temperature circuits are super cheap off AliExpress.
They use 18650 batteries, which can be obtained for $2 : Facebook Marketplace: Lithium ion batteries
(ha! look what just popped up!) and here is a starter kit on Gumtree for $260 = Power Wall starter kit for 18650
This tech is quite open, plus the community is fervent to the point of a religion.
Example of this nutteryness.
Edit - here are his costs, broken right down: https://www.diypowerwalls.com/attachment.php?aid=411
Not that these are an industry solution., but it shows that IF companies like EverGen take off and become plentiful, then having these large solutions on the side of every home is a reality.
The alternative? There is none.
With a vengeance Brett. From nine weeks between mowing (November to February), to probably six days this week. Looks like a park again.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Just to throw in an alternative to battery storage, over the last 8 years I have been running a 4.2 Kw solar array linked to the grid.
I store excess solar electricity in two systems. One is as a booster for my solar hot water and the other is to boost my wood heater powered hydronic heating. Both of these are run by a diverter that only heats the water when there is power to spare.
This is mainly in winter. In summer the air con is on nearly all day. Any excess is fed back to the grid and over the 8 year period this has averaged 1.288 kWh per day. Enougth to run a couple of light bulbs and maybe the TV at night.
So from this you can see that I am using nearly all of my solar electricity. My only regret is that during power failures I have a total blackout.
My average daily power consumption from the grid during this period was 10.65 kWh on top of the 16.38 kWh ave daily solar generation.
To run on batteries I would need at least to triple my solar installation and if I did that the return that I would receive from my feed in power would more than cover the cost of any power that I consumed off the grid. I could not justify batteries on economic grounds as I still have a year to go to cover the cost of my initial installation.
Ian, my latest electricity bill lists 15.74 kWh/day as typical three person home consumption. This would equate to ~ 25 kWh/40 hours. Where did the 600 kWh figure come from? Allowing say 70% drawdown as feasible for Li-ion, I would have thought a 40 kWh battery would suffice, an order of magnitude lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Looking here (half way down in the bright green section) they say a Tesla Powerwall 2 has 13.5kW usable in the battery, which to me would indicate that that is what you can draw out of it. Whether or not that is enough for most families is unknown (to us, as non-users), but I still don't understand the need to cover 40 hours usage, be it at ~16kW/day or several hundred. There would be a point of diminishing return on a having a battery that covers such long periods, as opposed to drawing some power from the grid occasionally (especially if there are FITs going on as well).
Tesla batteries have a ten year guarantee, which I think works along the lines of diminishing power available over the years.
I like the definition of baseload on Wikipedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
The baseload on a grid is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants, dispatchable generation, or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources, depending on which approach has the best mix of low cost, availability and high reliability in any particular market. The remainder of demand, varying throughout a day, is met by dispatchable generation which can be turned up or down quickly, such as load following power plants, peaking power plants, or energy storage.
It seems to me that the demarcation between baseload and dispatchable power is becoming less of a distinction. So, I hope that the focus is not restricted to the traditonal baseload components of the grid for the long term solution. The winning mix may also come from the the dispatchable components on the grid.
Just a comment on batteries. LiFePO4 is now something like 10 years in active use around the world in solar off-grid scenarios and has good cycle life (the killer in this scenario). They are not just available in 18650 format but also in other sizes (eg 38120) and cubic forms and are also coming pre-made into 12v or 24v replacement units to replace your common lead acid car battery. These are a specific chemistry that has been used in deep cycle solar scenarios and are not just your everyday "Li-Ion" that you'd get in your 18650's from China.
NeilQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
I had been giving this some thought and I am probably as guilty as any in my perception of exactly what constitutes "baseload" or a "base load station." Your Wikepedia definition nailed "baseload," but a station's role is slightly different and I think you are right in that it is changing, albeit slowly.
If you went back to the turn of the century the stations that delivered the base load tended to be large coal fired power plants. They tended to be large and they tended to be modern. It was simply that the most modern and largest had efficiency and economy of scale on their side. Back in 2000, 34% efficiency was considered good. Today 38% (Millmerran is around that figure) holds that position and there are talks of more modern plants exceeding 40%, although I don't know how many of those are actually around. I just did a search and the most efficient is the John Turk Jr plant in Arkansas: A 665MW ultracritical coal fired at 42%.( America's only ultracritical plant. Australia doesn't have any.)
Today any power plant that can produce cheap power at any time of the day could occupy this position irrespective of size. And there's the rub. For the moment there is nobody that can do this. Wind power can, providing the wind is blowing. You could argue that similar restraints apply to fossil fueled stations too. The rain could bring us undone as WoodPixel so irreverently suggested :wink: and restrict coal supply, but in principle that is under our control while the likes of wind and the sun are beyond our control.
Hydro storage and battery storage could meet the requirement of power at any time but fall down on the cost requirement. So for the moment we are back to solving that issue or......doing without :( .
No, I don't think that is going to be well received. Have a power cut once a year and the country is up in arms about how they had to go without a cooked tea (always happens at tea time: period of high demand that tests the system). One area that has fallen from grace in recent times is the subject of carbon capture. There is a big argument that even if it was possible at an economic rate (and that is impossible for the moment) it could not be scaled up and retrofitted in time to be of use: The damage would have been done.
Millmerran is toying with a carbon capture plant, but it is a toy or a pilot plant if you prefer. Our owners already have carbon capture plants in service, but those too are pilots. This article is a doom and gloom type appraisal of where we are really at, but to my mind it lacks the same factual detail for which we are so critical of the CCDs.
Carbon Capture Tech (NETs) Won't Save Us From Global Warming Extinction - Job One for Humanity
Keep the "solutions" coming.
Regards
Paul
Crikey, they ain't cheap though! Still looking, but $480 for 12v 105aH multiply by minimum 20...is $9600 just for the battery without installation or anything else. You can pay as much as $2158 just for one 12.8v 150aH!Quote:
Originally Posted by poundy
Question: At 240v, is 105 amp hours the same as 25.2 kilowatt hours? (i.e using formula P=VxA, 240x105=25200. If so then that is nearly double the Powerwall storage of 13.5kW.
From the 11th Feb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
This is Sophia Wang's company:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Mineral Carbonation International
(keep in mind that the launch video is now 6-7 years old)
Why you no wissen? :D (and with thanks to Benny)
Graphene enhanced batteries are apparently arriving now:
YouTube
(vid from 6 days ago)
and his vid on Samsung Graphene battery:
YouTube
(and take note of 3:10)
The producer of that vid is Dagogo Altraide who, judging by the comments, has a lot of cred. I've subscribed to his channel now, and also to notifications from MCi (last post).