Printable View
Now there's a chap who likes punishment. Lives through a Canadian winter with solid precipitation dropping down every other day, to come back here, just in time for a super-wet probably a little colder than usual winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
You forgot the bit about the end of his sojourn - he then goes back to another Canadian winter - even colder than Canberra.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
it's comparatively warm, at least for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
It's the wind that is currently concerning me.
It's rather blowy in Mosman tonight.
I'd say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Overheard in a local bakery "minus 35 is bit below my comfort zone"
The guy was heading out to do a bit of ice climbing and waiting for it to warm up to minus 29 [degrees C]
Today was awful up here. Much less rainfall than the previous two days, but it was fine rain which is so easily blown horizontal...and it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
A couple of weeks ago there was a crisis in the Electricity market, which resulted in AEMO stepping in and capping the maximum price. The strategy worked in the short term and gradually the cap was lifted. My colleague told me that a couple of days ago the spot prices again went ballistic and the cap ($300/MWhr) was was re-instituted. We are not out of the woods just yet.
Is anybody in the corridors of power listening?
Regards
Paul
If so, it's not capped now.
Price currently 460 (vic), and heading north. It's been quite high all day. I wonder if some generator is having difficulty. Again.
RussQuote:
Originally Posted by russ57
The truth of the matter is that the market is volatile to put it euphemistically. Have a look at this snapshot from today. QLD and NSW are not the only states to have issues and of course there is no coal fired generation resident in SA: Just courtesy of the interconnectors from NSW, without which they would be cactus.
Attachment 514208
Regards
Paul
Did I mention the market is volatile?
Attachment 514232
-VE $ in SA. Demand in QLD is low, which probably explains the price. Doesn't seem warm where I am!
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Well at face value that looks good, 20GWh over 20 hours, so it's producing at a rate of 1GW per hour. You need big mountains for that kind of thing to operate in abundance, and we don't have enough of them – they've all been eroded down. Switzerland has the advantage of a small population (consumption) in a small sized country which is damn near all mountains, although the cold makes up for some of that.
Paul what is the output per hour of your plant (assuming it's the latest, most efficient solid fossil fuel tech)?
Interesting analogy, FF; I did some googling:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
- Height of Mt Kosciusczko - 2,228 metres,
- Height of Lac du Vieux Emosson - 2,205 m,
- Height of Lac d'Emosson - 1,930 m
- Generating fall between the two lakes - 215 metres.
I was surprised by the 215 m generating head, but it probably makes sense when you remember that they have to pump the water back up top.
I guess it depends on how an increased fall affects efficiency – if it's the same or similar then it doesn't really matter, just whatever fits into the topography. Terminal velocity would probably come into it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Mt Victoria (~15km west of here) has a very steep drop away to the west, down Victoria pass (and if you don't follow the road it's even steeper). The drop is about 220m. We could use one of those here!
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Nominally the two units are rated at 425MW each, but ever since comissioning they have been run at 435MW each whenever possible. I say whenever possible because there are many factors that may reduce this output. For example I think I have already mentioned that on hot days ours turbine backpressure will limited our generation: Closely associated with this is our condensate temperature through the Polishers (the polishers maintain the demin water at a high level of purity) as they have a maximum we cant't exceed. Another limitation is through the Baghouse, which captures the fly ash and minimises visible emissions into the environment: This tends to occur when the coal is particularly poor quality with higher levels of ash. Any of these factors could result in decreased generation.
Also, in round figures, 5% of the generation is consumed on site by our auxliaries including pumps and fans etc.. So "over the fence" on a good day with everything running sweetly we can generate 827MW. We are a relatively small station compared to the NSW stations.
On the hydro aspect, the head pressure and flow rates are the critical factors. This article explains some of this and the beginning is quite general while it develops technical theorey later on.
Hydropower Head and Flow - Renewables First
It doesn't take into consideration pumped hydro and, as Graeme mentioned, this may be significant and I am sure there is an optimum head pressure for these installations. Many of the largest hydro stations are "once through" such as The Three Gorges and Itaipu. They rely on huge, consistent flows.
This is not really available in Australia. Pumped hydro requires two dams, which increases the construction cost considerably.
Regards
Paul
So is that 827MW per hour? If so then the Swiss jobbie can put out about 21% more than your station, which I guess is pretty good for pumped hydro. I have no idea what our current and future pumped hydro put out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
But remember, pumped hydro is intended as a battery, not to run all the time, but to supply electricity when the sun ain't shining and the the wind ain't blowing. Methinks it ultimately comes down to the costs and reliability of the sources of power for the pumps.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Yes , that is close. In the article they actually say the six turbines are capable of 900MW at a time which I make closer to 10% more than us. It is unlikely they are able to completely drain the dam so there would be some constraints compared to the theoretical maximum. It also assumes the dam is full and the holding dam downstream of the turbine/pumping station is exactly matched to the storage dam. I noted too that it has taken 14 years and almost A$3 billion to build. Our station cost A$1.4 billion back in 2003 when commisioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I was mentally comparing it to the Snowy 2.0 scheme, which also involves a lot of tunneling, and is already behind schedule.
Absolutely. It relies heavily on other sources of power to pump back up the hills when the cost is cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Hydro can also be activated very quickly and is a good source of stablising power.
Regards
Paul
Yes of course, but my point was that it can produce electricity on demand at a slightly higher rate than the Millmerran station for up towards 20 hours, which is pretty impressive, even though Millmerran is smaller than other ff stations.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Wonder on the crude mechanical efficiency of the system? How much more energy is needed to pump the water up hill than is generated by letting in flow down hill?
Always amuses me when you see on other websites, repeated suggestions that pumped hydro utilises free wind or solar electricity. Presumes no capital or maintenance costs!
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
While I am not decrying pumped hydro in any way, there is another issue that we have not addressed. The turbines in a pumped hydro station double as pumps and are used to send the water back to the top dam. They can't, of course, do both at the same time and as pumps I don't know how efficient they are compared to a dedicated pump, but like any compromise machinery they are probably not as good as they could be. Neither do I know how quickly they can change from generating mode to pump mode or vice versa.
With six turbines available at the Swiss plant, some could be generating while others are pumping, although the scenario most of us visualise is pumping through the day utilising cheaper power and generating at night when solar is non existent and wind may have subsided. However, once renewables become dominant there will be, say, sixteen hours of darkness to generate, but only eight hours during the day to pump back up the hill. While those figures of generation/ pumping could vary (summer to winter) and could certainly be challenged, it is clear that the full potential may not be available at all times. I would also say this is true of most forms of generation as I pointed out in post #773 at my own station. Potential generation and actual generation may not always be the same and when this occurs at times of crisis we end up with a crisis unless there is a sufficient amout of reserve power.
As you say, not very much comes for absolutely free! There are always costs or breakdowns.
Regards
Paul
Here is another component for the melange....
Porsche-backed HIF Global wants to build an e-fuel plant in north-west Tasmania. So what are e-fuels and what could it mean for Burnie? - ABC News .... "100 million litres of e-fuel each year"
While not directly attached to the primary job of Electric Generation, it is tangential, as the facility will use power to make biofuels.
I wonder if such a thing could also be used like a dam? Use low-cost excess electricity to generate masses of biofuels and simply burn them in generators when peak demand or emergencies occur?
Seems to me that if it can be "manufactured" in Burnie Tasmania, it can be manufactured on smaller scales locally to the towns/cities that may need it, when the peaks occur.
Another part to the puzzle?
It seems to me the answer is HHUUGGEE solar facilities and a wide range of storage options.
Edit - this is 1660 of these tankers. I had trouble picturing 100ML....
Attachment 514312
edit -- BINGO! Its an all-in-one standalone gas pump, just plonk it down where there is wind and water.... Haru Oni
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
With utmost respect, Paul, I absolutely disagree. This does not make sense in economic or engineering terms.
It takes a lot of energy to pump water up hill, a lot more energy than is generated by it flowing back down hill. I very much doubt that those Swiss pumps could pump water vertically 215 metres - surely their must be a series of pumps up the pipe?
If we assume that the net efficiency of the pumping system is 80%, then this means that it takes 125 kWh of pumping to supply enough water to generate 100 kWh of electricity. [calc = 100/0.80 = 125] If you have 125 kWh of wind/solar electricity available then surely you would pump it straight into the grid rather than use it to make 100 kWh of hydro electricity. If prices are so low that you can take electricity from the grid to pump water, why waste precious water simultaneously generating hydro electricity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I saw that and other press reports that are so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Time will tell.
Interesting that they are using the Porsche label, when Porsche is a wholly owned brand name of the Volkswagen Group. Wonder why they chose not to use the Skoda or VW name. But Woody and I would probably prefer a Lamborghini model?
We are a Formula 1 family. Porsche is interested in getting a team going.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
The F1 group have been talking this year, non stop, about going back "to its roots" of V10's with turbos and the fuels that run them. The battery storage is nifty, but it weighs a ton.
The BIG part of that discussion is wanting to appear as a Good Corporate Citizen. Using Fossil fuels just won't do.... and methanol is a disaster as it burns invisibly (VERY bad!).
So, they have been working on synthetic fuel replicas. The cars will use those.
If these are made with the formula of --> Sunlight/Wind electrons + Atmospheric CO2 + H2O = Magic Fuel.... then nobody will complain.
Hence, I believe, the Porsche tie-in.
Personally, I like the idea. Imagine popping up a turbine + solar panels and have some mini factory burp out a small lake of spare fuels for the power turbines "when the wind isn't blowin'", then it goes part way to solving the nay-sayers arguments.
(I'm an optimist).
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
That is absolutely fantastic.
Porsche will mix atmospheric CO2 with ordinary H2O and get a magic fuel.
Last time I mixed CO2 with H2O I got H2CO3 which is known as carbonic acid and also known as soda water. I thought there was a bit a detail missing from the media reports.
The H2O is hydrolysed you numpty :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
It also needs a palladium catalyst, or even a titanium dioxide photocatalyst under UV light and 6 atmospheres of pressure.
For those interested: E-diesel - Wikipedia
I think SOME these will prove to be good investments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I am not as mega-optimistic as you!
Less than 1% of research ever results in a succesful product - but VW think this is worth a punt.
How excellent would it be if one could buy a little "Brew Factory" for the home. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Plug in in, power it with the solar and wind off the roof, pour in water in one end and out trickles High Octane Rev Juice :)
Max Max averted!
Yes, Im overly optimistic on tech. Im very pessimistic about humans though. I personally feel we are doomed as a species... we can't seem to stop ourselves.
When we talk of nuclear power the subject of initial cost is often a party pooper. Two aspects that are not so frequently raised are the decommisioning cost and the cost if something goes wrong.
This judgement in Japan over the Fukushima disaster may give the proponents of nukes a little cause to re-think:
Fukushima nuclear disaster: ex-bosses of owner Tepco ordered to pay ¥13tn (msn.com)
£80billion is a lot to split between five directors! In Australia directors have ultimatel liability for the company they represent and any or all of their assets can be requisitioned to pay an adverse decision.
Regards
Paul
£80billion is a serious amount for sure but will it ever be actually paid.
I am cynical enough to think that all this is a symbolical gesture to allow these bosses to apologise by simply bowing...
What is far more worrying about Fukushima is the 1.25 MILLION TONS of contaminated water to be released - read dumped - into the ocean sometimes in 2023. And the number is growing by the day....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I'm not sure about Japanese corporate law, but here in Australia, company directors are fully insured for this sort of potential payout.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvan
And, again using Australia as a "model", no actual liability payment will be made till all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
I believe that in Japan there are TWO levels of appeal above the Tokyo District court. So there's a ways to go yet.
What will be interesting is the impact the judgement has on reinsurance rates for company and director's liability insurance.
The real question should be "what is the concentration of the radiation in the contaminated water?"Quote:
Originally Posted by yvan
If it's 1.25 million cubic metres (tonnes) at 10 x background, there is no real reason to worry,
if it's 1.25 million cubic metres (tonnes) at 10,000,000 x background -- the situation is very concerning
Home battery sales are rising with volatile power prices and some owners are installing several to make more money - ABC News
Edit - I'm curious, given how conspicuous/expensive/useful these things are, how long will it be before they are knocked off in a series of heists?
Attachment 514471
Are you sure, Paul?Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Most, if not all, public companies insure their directors and senior management against all liabilities arising from their positions. However, I doubt that any company has $80 billion in coverage.
In fact, world wide, could the industry handle an $80 billion policy?
Now, here is a thing!
PG&E announced that more than 1,500 Tesla Powerwall owners have already decided to joined the new virtual power plant it launched in partnership with Tesla in California.
"Enabling Powerwall customers to support the grid and their community is a necessary and important part of accelerating the transition to sustainable energy," said Drew Baglino, senior vice president of Powertrain and Energy Engineering at Tesla. "We seek to partner with utilities and regulators everywhere to unlock the full potential of storage to bring more renewable, resilient, and less costly electricity to everyone."Quote:
Electrek reports: A virtual power plant (VPP) consists of distributed energy storage systems, like Tesla Powerwalls, used in concert to provide grid services and avoid the use of polluting and expensive peaker power plants. Last year, Tesla launched a test VPP in California, where Powerwall owners would join in voluntarily without compensation to let the VPP pull power from their battery packs when the grid needed it. Last month, Tesla and PG&E, a large electric utility company in Northern California, announced the launch of a new commercial VPP where homeowners with Powerwalls would get compensated for helping the grid with the energy in their battery packs.
PG&E has now released an update on the virtual power plant and said that more than 1,500 Tesla Powerwall owners have already joined the program: "On June 22, Tesla invited approximately 25,000 PG&E customers with Powerwalls to join the VPP and help form the world's largest distributed battery. In the first two weeks of the new program, more than 3,000 customers have expressed interest in enrolling, with more than 1,500 customers officially in the program." With an average of two Powerwalls per customer, the VPP most likely already has a 13 MW load capacity. PG&E says that if all eligible Powerwall owners join, the VPP would have the available megawatts equivalent to "the energy generated by a small power plant." Tesla Powerwall owners can join through the Tesla app and receive $2 per kWh that they send back to the grid during emergency events.
Well I'll just bet they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Attachment 514489
This is global heat yesterday.
Source: Climate Reanalyzer
As we were travelling home form NSW yesterday I heard on the radio that Southern England was being decalred a disaster area as the temp was exceeding 40°C. I lived in the UK for thirty years and never ever saw any temp close to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Regards
Paul
World's first ''sand battery'' can store heat at 500C for months at a time. Could it work in Australia? - ABC News
Quote:
The idea of storing heat in sand to warm homes through winter may, on the face of it, seem too simple to work.
The world's first commercial "sand battery" stores heat at 500 degrees Celsius for months at a time.
It can be used to heat homes and offices and provide high-temperature heat for industrial processes.
Thermal storage could displace gas in industry and remove up to 16 per cent of Australia's emissions, experts say.
Drop a load of cheap builder's sand in an insulated silo, heat the sand with renewable electricity, and then tap the stored thermal energy for months on end.
Quote:
Hot air blown through pipes heats the sand in the steel container by resistive heating (this is how electric heaters work).The sand is able to store heat at around 500–600 degrees Celsius for months, so solar power generated in the summer can be used to heat homes in the winter.
It can store up to 8 megawatt-hours of energy, which is the capacity of a large, grid-scale lithium battery.
Maybe hook it up to the houses of Parliament?Quote:
Hot air blown through pipes heats the sand in the steel container by resistive heating (this is how electric heaters work).The sand is able to store heat at around 500–600 degrees Celsius for months, so solar power generated in the summer can be used to heat homes in the winter.It can store up to 8 megawatt-hours of energy, which is the capacity of a large, grid-scale lithium battery.