energy sources

Damian started this thread with a quote "Why don't we ditch nukes and coal ?"

Come on you blokes - at the moment there is as much interest in this topic as two of the others together.

So how about it ?

Could we do a brainstorm ? - ie. make additive posts and comments - don't waste time argueing with somebodies point unless it seems absolutely necessary ?

So I'll stick my neck out.

I think the lesson we should have learnt from fossils and nuke is that we need a energy economy that won't run out.

So take carbon (dioxide or whatever) - they say it is jiggering the environment.

So how can we turn it around ?

You know, 30 million years ago the sun shone on the swamps - the trees grew and died - fell in the swamp - and there you go, coal and oil.

And now we are digging it up - burning it - and would you believe it - the CO2 is causing greenhouse.

So what if we collected the CO2 out of the air using solar power - that is exactly what was going on in the swamps - photosynthesis.

Then we could use more solar energy to convert the CO2 to either carbon or methane - technology exists to do that.

Carbon can become a coal replacement - methane can be converted into synthetic petrol.

So we can continue using existing infrastructure.

So that gives us a CO2 neutral setup. All powered by the sun - and/or wind and/or water, if you want.

Fixes greenhouse and gives us a way to store solar energy - as carbon - burn it when the sun doesn't shine - gets rid of the argument that solar is no use at night.

So we move our energy economy into the natural carbon cycle - objective is to keep it balanced.

Ok, come on - who'se got some ideas ?

Cheers,
Bob.

Woodbe:

This must be another of those instances where wikipedia is wrong.

Your right I was thinking of town gas, sorry. Of course natural gas is methane because it is drawn off coal mines. I don't think too clearly at 10 pm.

I am prepared to believe I am wrong about fusion, but the memory of finding out they'd done a positive energy run is clear because I was so shocked when I heard it. I can't remember the source but I accepted it as reliable and I remember wondering why it wasn't headline news around the world.

Citybook:

See above. Do they really charge you $152 for GAS ??? sugar. That's a terrible ripoff. Thats LPG ? Is that bottled gas ? I think piped gas is cheaper.

Aside on gas: For many years we had cheap gas in Australia because there wasn't the infrastructure and the business case to export it. That all changed a few years back as several big gas terminals were built and the gas tankers became more common. We are now ramping up to world parity pricing on gas which will do for your cost of living pretty much what globalization has done everywhere else on your weekly bills. Good eh ?

So how about it ?

Actually I have thought that this thread has developed really well. Everyone has been respectful and the usual religious wars just haven't eventuated. Many thoughts people have expressed have interested me greatly. Lots of positive comments.

So what if we collected the CO2 out of the air using solar power

We have another technology for doing that, it's called wood. We used to grow it and cut it and burn it. Clever stuff that wood....

I think the economics of the carbon -> solar -> methane system don't stack up. Many years ago people used to get excited every time they discovered you can run your car on hydrogen, ethanol or whatever. The often and repeatedly accused the oil companies of conspiracies to hide these technologies (200 mpg carburettor etc) to keep us dependent on oil. You see the lunatic fringe aren't a recent manifestation, go to a nexus conference if you really want to be scared. Anyway the point is that the reason we don't ditch oil is it's cheap and no one wants to pay double to drive their car, no one wants their electricity bill to double either. It all comes back to $. Fossil = cheap, everything else = dearer. Go ask your average punter what they choose. For that matter ask your electricity retailer how sucessful the premium "green" electricity option on your bill is. I don't know but I bet it's about 5%.

Like I said you don't need conspiracies, you just need to accept people would rather spend their money on beer, makeup, polished bullbars, pizza, beer than petrol or electricity, and corporations are reactionary psychopaths. McDonalds doesn't care if you order the burger or the salad, they just want your money. Origin doesn't care if your buying coal fired electricity or tofu derived gas from them as long as they get a markup.

Bushmiller:

Good thinking there. I did the sums during the height of the drought and found I could get by with 30,000 liters, but that was one person doing 195 kilo liters a year (as I recall). That would comfortable see me through winter at the height of the drought based on the amberly rainfall gauge which is the lowest within 50 miles of me and the one that dropped most during the drought.

My point is that perhaps every new home should be designed with solar panels and connected to the grid

We saw a few years back that spectacular discounts could be negotiated by communities who bought many identical systems and had them installed in a specific geographical area. Naturally the Qld state government killed off the community initiative by announcing a similar scheme which they ran for 5 minutes, stuffed up then dropped. At the time with federal rebates people were getting 1 kW systems for $500.

Rather than mandate it in new homes I would rather see a consistent and simple rebate on installation, then everyone could embrace it who wanted to.

I get stuff wrong sometimes, but at least I admit it when I do :)

This one is mainly in reply to Damian so I will try to comment starting with your last admission.

We have all fallen into the trap of believing a statistic which turns out to be a little less than true. Sometimes the misleading statement is deliberate and sometimes it is inadvertently untrue. As I mentioned previously you do have to look at the agenda of the individual or company making the statement.

It is a very human, very humbling trait to admit a mistake. All too often there is by others a tendency to home in and admisister the coup de gras:(. I find it difficult to admit I am wrong. It came as a terrible shock to me when my wife told me that although she loved me I wasn't perfect! I thought she had made a mistake:rolleyes:. Apparantly not:-.

What is making this thread interesting is that it is a reasoned debate rather than a ranting and raving match. Incidentally, it doesnt much matter whether fusion has produced positive power, or whether it was sustainable for 0.5 secs or 2 secs. It is clearly unsustainable and possibly the furthest away of alternate energy sources without an earth shattering discovery.

Now, a comment on methane which I understand to be one of the worst of the greenhouse gases. I am willing to be shot down on this as I have not done research and I am currently spreading soft mattresses around me!

My suggestion for solar panels on new houses was made because it is easy to do. (hence my water tank analogy). I did also say that I was in favour of retrospective installations encouraged by incentives, as indeed they are now. I would however like to see a more consistent and reliable offer on the board at least as a base line with companies able to offer better deals if they wished.

I bought a book a while back called Sustainable House, which was published first in 1998. It detailed the experience of a family in inner Sydney that wished to be sustainable. They did it and in that regard were a long way ahead of their time bearing in mind they lived in a terrace house.

They identified that they required between 5kw to 6kw per hour for their circumstances. I mention this because most of the solar schemes are for 1.5kw with an option to go to 3kw, but not always at the same beneficial tarrif. In the book the family only got their electricty useage down by using gas as much as possible.

Revisiting your original statement, "Why don't we ditch nukes and coal?" I don't see that we can cut them straight out of the equation. We have to enter the transition period that I mentioned and stop the further building of these type of installations whilever they compound out climate change problems. The ground rules will change if nukes can be made safe and their waste disposal issues resolved and for coal if so-called clean technology becomes a reality. Right now and for probably 10 or 20 years I don't see this as an option.

So back to Bob's brainstorming. I will stick to my domestic solar installation for the moment as the first stage of kicking away the energy reform. If a household makes a decision today, it can become reality within a few months, maybe less.

Lead time for a new power station is probably a minimum of 7 years with conventional stations and about five years for the alternate gas, solar, wind and other technologies as they are in principle more simple. That assumes an easy passage through the approval stages. Probably an assumption that shouldn't really be made.

It is one of life's ironies that the simpler something becomes the more expensive it is. Normally. In this regard it's a little like ladies' underwear. The simpler, and smaller it becomes, the more expensive:wink:.

Regards
Paul

First problem I see is that while a water tank adds $1000 to a house a solar system sans rebates is $8k plus. That's a signifigant imposition for someone hocked to the eyeballs to build the thing in the first place. I accept you may be able to soften that with various things from rebates to builders bulk buying.

By the way I looked into the bluegen gas consumption. 9.5 Mj/hr for 1.5 kW or 12.6 for 2. I don't have gas and don't know what piped gas costs but I found a price in the 2.1 - 2.7 c per Mj range. That makes bluegen barely better than break even on fuel consumption alone so a huge payback time on the cost of setup. Makes no sense whatesoever without generous feed in tarriffs. I am probably wrong as they have gone from 11 - 19c in the last few weeks. I am disapointed.

I am not going to argue the GW thing here. I don't accept CO2 and methane are a problem and I don't accept the catastrophy scenerio. I'll leave it at that.

I saw one of these lecture tours of sustainable people years ago and the most amazing thing to me was most of what they did I do as a matter of course and the rest various neighbours do. We don't do it for enviromental reasons but rather because it's cheap. I live on small acreage so waste water gets dealt with onsite and goes to help trees grow, all organic waste goes into the soil not the bin, that sort of thing. Just doesn't seem revolutionary to us but I suppose I don't live in a Mc Mansion on 400 sqm and spend $300 a time at Woolworths...

I am always happy to be corrected, but there is a condition. The correction has to be proven with hard data and repeatable methods. I don't buy "believe the expert", that's religeon not science.

Th bluegen could be good because you might replace or supplement an unreliable street power supply with a reliable one for not much of an overhead. Plenty of people in that boat. Even if you only got the standard 20c/kWh or whatever for feed-in, it might make sense to some people, but definitely not an option for all.

That you can generate power at home using gas at anything like the retail cost from the street. is pretty amazing.

As far as the solar option on new homes, its a nice idea, but until the price comes down it won't happen. What would be a great first step would be a building code requirement for roof aspect to maximise the solar potential on any new home.

I'm not going to argue the AGW thing either. If we engage in that it will only poison the thread. Same for name calling...

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

What would be a great first step would be a building code requirement for roof aspect to maximise the solar potential on any new home.

---

Excellent point. Probably a prerequisite for solar power, although a little difficult to administer. Possibly a rating system could be added to a new house, which would affect it's saleability.: A bit like electrical appliance efficiency.

Regards
Paul

G,day Bob. Thanks for your reply. I do know about building simple solar systems and about the flat black plastic pipe for pools. I have limited roof space and was wondering whether the evacuated tube heater is more efficient than the copper plate and pipe affairs.

I expect it will cost more but that may not , ultimately, be the point.

Hi Artme,
well I am a big believer in simple things.

Have you looked at Build it Solar ? Lots of stuff you could use there.

For instance
"http//www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/RenwMagLargeRoofCollector.pdf"
is the system John Hermans built in Victoria - pretty amazing.

There is a study from Glascow
"www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2001/dimitrios_panapakidis.pdf"
about different sorts of solar heaters - some good technical stuff, but not Australia.

There is a big debate about the relative efficiency of evacuated tubes and absorber plate.
"http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Column/2008/08/01/Competing-Collectors-Part-2"
and a bit in previous columns about construction.

Notice, the man says "...be sure to remember, the numbers don't tell the whole story."

And because I am not sure if you understood that I was saying before that the EPDM swimming pool heater pipe can compete with the copper and evacuated tube collectors - here is a study published by CSIRO on the subject.
"http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/79/issue/6345.htm"
The paper is at the bottom of this page, and you will have to download the pdf.

I do go off a little about this - O'Keefe and Francis did this work in the late '80s - published it - and it has been soundly ignored since then. It really riles me when Oz is described as innovative and clever - what we do best is ignore really interesting science like this. End of rant.


From what you say about space the Hermans thing may be too big - but he gives detailed construction information that could be used anywhere.

Again, Build it Solar has a section on studies and information, and you will have to make your own mind up on this.

For my own two bobs worth, the glass tubes are fragile. Technically that is not included in an efficiency calculation - but for me it's a biggie.

For those links - I put them in inverted commas because the Woodies computer tried to help and scrambled the URLs - I checked them - they do work - you may have to copy and paste the links though - take off the quotes, of course.

Anyhow, hope this helps.
Cheers,
Bob.

Bit more information on the BlueGen.

Harvey Norman is going to have an Australian agency, and the price is going to be around $45,000 - it only connects to piped natural gas - feed in tariff is not available.

It doesn't have the approvals yet to be connected as an appliance, but I gather that is in progress.

There is a website at
BlueGEN | Harvey Norman Solar
and they plan to post information there as they get it.

Cheers,
Bob.

Now if I can just get a little spin going here, we aren't talking about global warming...

There was a comment "...methane which I understand to be one of the worst of the greenhouse gases..."

If we are to suppose there is a greenhouse effect which says that the surface temperature of the earth rises in response to increasing concentration of certain gases in the atmosphere.

Very broadly, the process for this is by way of fiddling with the rate that heat comes to the earth compared with the rate that heat leaves.

It is worth saying that if this didn't happen there most likely wouldn't be much life on Earth.

Then the supposition also is that water vapour contributes roughly 70% - CO2 roughly 20% - and the rest all together about 10%.

Maybe methane makes up half of the "rest" - so in that regard it is not too bad.

The problem is, it is thought that volume for volume the effect methane has is between 20 and 70 times greater than carbon dioxide. Big range there, but I think basically we aren't sure. But it is a fair bit more.

So yes, methane does have a significant greenhouse effect.


However.

What could be an interesting problem is the presence of methane hydrates in large deposits, usually under ice and usually under pressure. It appears that most of this has been there quite a while.

And, even though the science is sketchy, it would appear that there is a hell of a lot of methane there. Some people think more than the rest of our energy deposits put together ?? I wouldn't know.

The Methane Gun is, what happens if this methane gets released.

The ABC did a Ockhams Razor program on it
"http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2577170.htm"

Cheers,
Bob.

The board is not "scrambling" the urls, it makes them a clickable link.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazo...09/2577170.htm


PS. Keep climate change and global warming out of this thread. It is about alternate energy sources.

Thanks for that Bob>

I agree with your rant wholeheartedly.

Jst trot off to Turkey and Spain and see the use of solar heating there!

PV panels are mandated in Spain and there is no gubment subsidy!!

I have a very efficient , and almost new, Saxon hot water system, but i am still looking at solar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by

PS. Keep climate change and global warming out of this thread. It is about alternate energy sources.

---

Well it is now. My origional post was about the total world energy requirments going forward.

citybook: It isn't a simple problem, which is why no one can offer nice neat answers to the many questions about climate and the effect of human activity. A big sudden release of methane may create a short term upswing in troposphere temps but other stuff will then happen to affect the longer term. EVERY question and EVERY issue in climate science is immensly complex and interlinked. There are already several threads on here where the issues was discussed. You could awaken one of those if you wish but I suggest you read over the old posts first.

Also I'd like to add to the praise of the idea about mandating north facing roof areas. Really good idea that. And thank you for the link to the solar projects.

The idea of north facing roof areas has played on my mind for many years.

It would seem obvious to all but the foolish that this is a great strategy. Not only do you gain access to FREE sunshine for heat and electricity but your house will be correctly oriented in terms of heat absorbtion as a means of heating in winter. With proper eaves and no windows in either western or eastern walls you also avoid excess heat absorbtion through these aspects in summer.

Of course this would require drastic rethinking on the part of all levels of government and town planners. More attention would need to be paid to street layouts so that the possibility for north facing roof areas exists with all houses, factories and shopping areas.

Solar powered fans could shift air around for heating and cooling at no cost other than for the initial outlay.

Resorting to strategies such as narrow distances between buildings also provides shade for walls and helps to keep buildings cool.

Building from Rammed earth is also a very effective means of cutting down on heating and cooling costs. Also a 12sqaure house can be built from the amount of soil excated from the floor area of the house to a depth of about 300mm. Added benefits of this type of dwelling are fire resistence and termite resistence.

I digress, but I think it is a worthy digression.:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

The idea of north facing roof areas has played on my mind for many years.

It would seem obvious to all but the foolish that this is a great strategy. Not only do you gain access to FREE sunshine for heat and electricity but your house will be correctly oriented in terms of heat absorbtion as a means of heating in winter. With proper eaves and no windows in either western or eastern walls you also avoid excess heat absorbtion through these aspects in summer.

This is what used to be called "passive solar." Maybe it still is.

Of course this would require drastic rethinking on the part of all levels of government and town planners. More attention would need to be paid to street layouts so that the possibility for north facing roof areas exists with all houses, factories and shopping areas.

This is a difficult one as effectively streets have to face exactly north south or east west. In practical terms only half the streets can face east west, which gives the best aspect. Until people can get their heads around the front of the house not facing the street we will not see houses that lend themselves to sustainability. (The north south streets would tend to have a blank wall facing the street. Poor street appeal?

Solar powered fans could shift air around for heating and cooling at no cost other than for the initial outlay.

Resorting to strategies such as narrow distances between buildings also provides shade for walls and helps to keep buildings cool.

Building from Rammed earth is also a very effective means of cutting down on heating and cooling costs. Also a 12sqaure house can be built from the amount of soil excated from the floor area of the house to a depth of about 300mm. Added benefits of this type of dwelling are fire resistence and termite resistence.

OK more passive solar stuff. Some of the possibilties include:

Adobe (mud brick)
Pise (Rammed earth)
Straw Bale
Earth Bermed (Earth to the windowsills)
Earth Sheltered (Think cave)

Unfortunately none one of these are well received in your average sub-division with spec-built homes. I know of an instance where a timber kit home was put up in a sub division and all the other owners (brick veneer) in the street complained:((. Such was the narrowmindedness. Can you imagine if a mud brick home was errected. Apoplexy overload. The hospital would have been unable to cope :rolleyes:.


I digress, but I think it is a worthy digression.:wink:

---

What's that noise?

It's OK: Only sharpening his double bladed axe:D.

Regards
Paul

Your assuming heat absorbsion and insulation are good things.

I remember vividly when I was a kid my parents built a new house. Some years later they got insulation installed. The effect was immediate and tremendous. In winter the house would stay freezing until 11 am and in summer it'd stay unbearably hot until very late at night.

Most of those building methods create thermal lag but also signifigant heat banks. My partners place for some obscure reason heats up every night at 10pm. She has a weather station in the bedroom and we have watched time and again as the temperature drops tehn just before 10 starts climbing again.

I think what you really need to design for is heat managment. The old timber queenslanders were built as they were for very good reason. They dump heat at night really effectively. They also remain acceptably cool in daytime due to teh big verandahs, or oversized eves with floors if you like :)

We have something similar to solar extraction fans, they are called whirlybirds and provided you get your venting right they can really hammer summer heat.

Perhaps if you designed the house to stay cool, installed a plastic tube heating system and a big concrete tank under the ground and pumped the hot water around some radiators inside you'd have a very low cost heat managment system.

Of course up here it's the heat that'll kill you. You can sleep in the lawn mid winter under half a dozen kleenex and not freeze :) (caveat: I carry my own "inbuilt" insulation, you skinny folks might not do so well).

Remember a lot of how building practise has developed is (upfront) cost driven, balanced against astetics and fashion. For most people ongoing costs don't get much thought.

If you are interested in the use of solar in a suburban house, have a look at this - better still, you could buy it...

Solar House 1a

Cheers,
Bob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

I think what you really need to design for is heat managment. The old timber queenslanders were built as they were for very good reason. They dump heat at night really effectively. They also remain acceptably cool in daytime due to teh big verandahs, or oversized eves with floors if you like :)

---

I suppose this is related to energy sources at least in so far as we are saving energy, but probably really requires as separate thread to do it justice. Just a quick comment therefore bearing in mind that Artme raised the subject with his reference to rammed earth houses and I contributed further.

Passive solar houses made from earth work best in the more arid regions. Inevitably this restricts to the inland regions. Brisbane for example will not provide a good result. Darwin would be a catastrophe.

It is essential for there to be a large range of temperature between day and night. The effect of the massive walls (commonly 300mm in mud brick) is to become a heat bank and even out the swings in temperature.

The essence of an earth sheltered house is that the ground 600mm to 900mm down remains fairly constant all through the year around 17 deg C.

You also have to differentiate between a thermal store (mudbrick, rammed earth, earth sheltered) and just insulated (strawbale).

Regards
Paul

Back in post No 182 Damian said
"I think the economics of the carbon -> solar -> methane system don't stack up"

No numbers, no sources, no reasoning.

Firstly, who said that dealing with carbon emissions was economic ?

Secondly, carbon emissions are not costed into the "economics" of the so called commercial operations that make the emissions.

Thirdly, there is a lot of research going on at the moment trying to work out processes that might recover carbon. One interesting paper is
wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/pdfs/CEIC_05_<wbr>05.pdf

They suggest at the moment recovery costs could be between $240 and $550/tonneC - that is around 2 to 3 times the cost of coal - so it is certainly reasonable to say this is getting close to doable.

Most importantly for me, change will only come if people think about and discuss new stuff.

It is comfortable to stay with things we have done and are familiar with - unfortunately it is things we are familiar with that have got us into a position where we may have to ditch coal and nuke.

So I would really like to know, exactly why doesn't solar -> carbon -> methane stack up ?

Cheers,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Google "DIY Solar Panels" Mic. There are a number of sites that teach you how to solder small Solar Cells into full size functioning panels. Solar panel cells are a fraction of the price of constructed panels. Broken cell pieces are even cheaper. That auction site had plenty of very cheap cells last time I looked.

I think are right in that an electrician is needed to verify the functioning of your inverter if you are going to claim a feed in tariff. Its a matter of how much time and patience you have. Currently the price of solar installations is vastly inflated due to lack of competition and a local manufacturing industry.

---

Haven't followed the forum much recently and haven't kept up with this thread, some late night reading ahead, no doubt:) I just wanted to pull this quote out and say that I made a start on collecting the ingredients for a small 50W trial panel. Have the cells, just have to get the casting resin, aluminum extrusion etc to build the panel. If I feel it can be scaled up to a full system and I can jig it up to make it efficient then I might give it a go. The trial panel can then go to augment the small panel at swmbo's shed. I called my sparky about the prospect of wiring system in but he's quite negative about solar - said I should have an OS holiday instead:). He reckons the payback is much longer than claimed and the only person he's seen who's on the claimed payback curve is a sparky mate who switches off the house during the day, apart from one fridge, so most of his solar electricity is exported. He is right in a way, since I work at home, I will be using most, all or even more than I generate and not selling any back so my payback would be extended. DIY seems a good option for me because it reduces payback time, I'm reducing my power bill and reducing my load on the system (environment, grid etc etc). Progress will be glacial at best as there is loads for me to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citybook

Back in post No 182 Damian said
"I think the economics of the carbon -> solar -> methane system don't stack up"

No numbers, no sources, no reasoning.

Firstly, who said that dealing with carbon emissions was economic ?

---

Who said dealing with carbon emissions was necessary ?

I accept I didn't expand on that statement. I don't have infinite time to research every idea that's put up here, but your quite right I offered no specific proof on that statement.

Quote:

---

They suggest at the moment recovery costs could be between $240 and $550/tonneC - that is around 2 to 3 times the cost of coal - so it is certainly reasonable to say this is getting close to doable.

---

Think about what you just said. 2 - 3 times the price. As I keep saying it's really easy for me and you to "volunteer" to double or triple our electricity and fuel bills. I can afford it. There are a LOT of people who can't/won't and I don't feel I have the right to impose that on them. Like it or not we are one adult one vote and people who don't share your views get to vote aswell.

This isn't a global warming thread, there are already plenty of those. I am really happy people are thinking about energy sources, but if you begin the case for an alternative energy option with the premise that we can impose tremendous costs on others against their will justified by the assumption that we are on the brink of terrible horrible doom than I'm afraid you've crossed that line. I don't accept the premise therefore I don't accept the justification for punitive impositions on peoples lives.

I brought up bluegen not realiseing there was no viable payback period. I accept that error. You can certainly offer up ideas on systems that are inherantly more expensive than existing options, but if you suggest they "should" be deployed because we "must" address co2 emissions I can not accept your premise.

To change the subject, what do people think about this:

So you run your plastic tubes over the roof and into an underground concrete tank to store heat. Circulate the water through radiators in the house to warm the house in winter. No worries. How about in summer you circulate the water at night to cool it and run it through the radiators on hot days to COOL the house ? Anyone ? thoughts ?

"Who said dealing with carbon emissions was necessary ?"

Well, I can give a list if you really want it.

Even though the US and China reneged at Copenhagen, those countries are actively fixing their emissions.

The US was the leader in investment in low or non emitting energy until recently - but China topped the list of investors in renewables in 2010 - construction worth $48.9bn - up 28% from 2009 (BBC News).

The fact that Australia spent almost nothing on renewables in 2010 doesn't mean much in the global scheme of things.

"Think about what you just said. 2 - 3 times the price"

I did think about what I said - the 2-3 times was not my point - my point was that it's almost doable.

How about the China People's Daily reporting a $30.8 million project in Ordos city - to capture 100,000 tons of CO2 pa at a cost of around $50 per ton ? Is that doable ? The Chinese think so...

The fact is a lot of people think recovery of carbon will happen - maybe not in Australia, but that doesn't matter.

My post is not about global warming - it's about a massive opportunity to adopt an energy source that almost fits our existing infrastructure. The fact that it would fix the carbon emission problem could be a springboard to the adoption of something like this because there are huge amounts of money available - eg. 2011 UK Budget provides almost $5 billion Aussie.

I don't think talking about BlueGen was an error - I also have been interested in them for a while - I also was interested in Allis Chalmers testing a 30hp fuel cell tractor in the UK around 1965 - it disappeared, but I'm still wondering where it went. Maybe I'm obsessive...

"To change the subject"

In post No 88 in this thread I included a link to work done by O'Keefe and Francis in the late '80s - specifically about using EPDM tubes to heat water - they say the efficiency is suprisingly close to copper - and the price is much lower - so yes, I think you are on a winner here.

I am planning to do the EPDM thing, hopefully later this year.

Along these lines - there are commercial hydronic heating outfits in the south - but none in Qld ? It gets cold here ...?

The key is solar power - cheaper than electricity or gas - and more importantly, the price has been the same for years...

But cooling is a little harder - need some more ideas on that one.

Cheers,
Bob.

Even solar power won't hack it at the rate of economic growth the planet has had for the last few hundred years (about 2.9% per annum); in just under 300 years we will need all landmass covered in solar panels; 100 years later we will need all solar energy hitting the planet (panels on oceans as well as landmass) to meet our energy needs.

A mere 900 years after that, we will need to capture the entire energy output of our sun; just over 1,000 years after that, we will need the energy output of our galaxy to keep us in the lifestyle that we want to be accustomed to!

And don't even think about global warming unless you mean 'hot enough to melt lead'!

Galactic-Scale Energy | Do the Math

Interesting - the problem is that all the energy we have comes from the sun - it's a bit academic to talk about exceeding that.

First comment about Tom Murphy's blog is his graph plots energy as watts - actually watts is a measure of power, which is different to energy.

Second comment I'm suprised Tom Murphy shows a straight line - I am pretty sure it should be exponential - for instance have a look at
Manicore - What is our present energy consumption like ?

Third comment - we get enough sunlight to keep us going for a while yet - for instance this bloke here thinks covering Spain with solar panels would do the trick at 199,721Twh
Land Art Generator Initiative

cheers,
Bob.

Running out of solar energy presurposes we will have enough food supplies to sustain the sort of population you must be talking about.

As a good proportion of the planet aready does not have enough food, I don't see that there will be a significant improvement in this area. That in itself may be self limiting. The need for power might not escalate quite as fast as is supposed.

The need to use landmass for food production is a reason I am not a fan of "growing" fuel. You can't eat fuel.

I don't mean to minimise the need to find more energy sources. It is incontestable that we will need more.

Regards
Paul

Paul:

Funny the conversation has come full circle for now.

The planet has enough food, what we have is a distribution problem. We throw away tonnes of it every year. Having said that your greater point is entirely valid.

The second half of your first paragraph is exactly what my origional post was about. If you can supply the energy to facilitate higher living standards then population growth tends to decline and you avoid a food crisis. Either way you get a problem to solve.

I cannot agree more on your seocnd paragraph. In the US a couple of years ago, supposedly a wealthy developed country, when ethanol production stepped up suddenly it drove massive and immediate increases in basic and processed foods, so much so that poorer people were suffering signifigant hardship buying food. If it happens there that badly and that quickly imagine if it were a worldwide problem.

Bob:

Well, I can give a list if you really want it.

Nope, already done that thread several times. Ain't drunk the coolade and not about to. I'll say it again and leave it at that. I don't accept the premise and I don't accept tipping a cost into energy production without a solid scientific reason. I don't care what politicians say and do and I don't care about overcredentialed scientists posturing. The only thing that will sway me is a solid scientific argument complete with data. Transparent and robust. Love to see it, love to be shown I'm wrong. Ain't seen it yet.

If I get time I'll run some numbers on cooling by circulating water through radiators. It won't be dramatic but it might be worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

The planet has enough food, what we have is a distribution problem. We throw away tonnes of it every year. Having said that your greater point is entirely valid.

---

Damian

Agreed.

Try getting those who have too much to give to those who have way too little! Even when the food is not of a nature to go off, there is very little interest.

Regards
Paul

Unfortunately there is a cost associated with moving it. Not just cartage. It doesn't seem to get much publicity but the cost of corruption and theft in those impoverished places is much higher than the cost of actually delivering aid. Usually the famines and such are brought on more by war than by drought. Natural disasters are much easier to deal with and the corruption is endemic.

At the risk of getting off topic I've always felt we would be doing those people a much greater favour by protecting them in their homelands than by relocating them to our or other western societies. Most genuine refugees would be happy to stay and work if they were safe. By bringing them here we make their lives hard in other ways. Unfortunately it's politicatlly incorrect to depose an african, arab or south american despot, and when the west does intervene it's usually more about money, religeon and power than altruistic intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

So you run your plastic tubes over the roof and into an underground concrete tank to store heat. Circulate the water through radiators in the house to warm the house in winter. No worries. How about in summer you circulate the water at night to cool it and run it through the radiators on hot days to COOL the house ? Anyone ? thoughts ?

---

Depends on where you live and your budget I think. If you have designed the building to cope with extremes of external air temps and radiant heat effectively, then you should need just a small energy input to tip the internal temperature to comfort - and yes, storing some externally heated/cooled water under the house would be one way of doing that. Your system sounds to me like a switchable thermal mass, I suspect a well designed passive solar home would achieve similar results for less expense.

Your point about insulation in Queenslanders is well made. It underlines the fact that this is not a cookie cutter problem we all face in keeping our homes comfortable, we need to take into account the regional and local climate, the house orientation and construction, and any thermal devices already in place such as shading and insulation etc. What works for one is no license to apply it to all.

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Depends on where you live and your budget I think. If you have designed the building to cope with extremes of external air temps and radiant heat effectively, then you should need just a small energy input to tip the internal temperature to comfort - and yes, storing some externally heated/cooled water under the house would be one way of doing that. Your system sounds to me like a switchable thermal mass, I suspect a well designed passive solar home would achieve similar results for less expense.

---

something similar was done in the USA in the 60's. One wall of the house consisted of 44gal drums on thier side filled with water. The outer wall was all glass and the inner was brick.
The idea was that the sun warmed the drums in during the day and the heat was released via vents top and bottom of the inner wall into the house and I guess they reversed the process come summer by dropping a blind down the window etc.

Hughie

The concept of an absorbent thermal wall, very similar to your 44gal drums, was developed by the French association of Michel and Trombe who were an architect and engineer, although it was not their original idea. You can follow up a little more on this link:

Trombe wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modified wall was always the idea that interested me as it is used for both heating and cooling. It uses a wall of glass with a dark thermal mass about 300mm behind it and probably 300mm thick too. The thermal wall has vents top and bottom and according to the season there is a sequence to opening them.

I believe it works very well. The problem is that your north facing wall is black. Many people would find this difficult both aesthetically and in practice. It is another difficult home to incorporate into the mindset of a typical brick veneer suburb, particularly if you ever want to stand achance of selling it.

I think perhaps one of the biggest barriers to coping with neccessary change in energy is convention. We are so locked into a stereotype pattern of living that we tend to dismiss many alternatives.

Regards
Paul

Anyone watch Insight on SBS 1??

Good forum on eletricity generation, supply and costs.

A thumbnail summary is:

*Cost of electricity will rise for some years to come
*Cost of PV Panels is decreasing down to half what they were 2 years ago.
*Baseload still presents problems . What happens when the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow?
*How do you store energy generated or collected hrough the day so it can be released at night.
* There are some innovative thinkers and entrepenuers out there.

I wonder if the carbon tax will eventually force electricity prices down/ As PV becomes more efficient and affordable how much less electicity will be provided by burning coal?
Less coal derived electricity should mean lower carbon emissions. How will that be factored into the cost equations?

The problem is that people who can take up PV will buy it and probably save. People renting (the landlord does not pay the electricity bill) and those who barely manage week to week will miss out. Meawhile the coal power stations will buy their credits overseas for half what the Australian government expects to get for them, so there will be no money to fund the compensation nor the research projects they have promised.

Perhaps this is a dire scenerio, I'm known to be cynical, but as I say over and over - I am financially ok, they really can't hurt me, but I am loath to infict signifigant, likely and demonstrable economic hardship on others not well equiped to deal with it.

Socialist intent by conservative means perhaps :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

The problem is that people who can take up PV will buy it and probably save. People renting (the landlord does not pay the electricity bill) and those who barely manage week to week will miss out.

---

Depends on your worldview.

There are plenty of people who could buy, but still choose to rent. There are advantages to renting that people who buy cannot access. Renters miss out on PV, sure, but they also miss out on paying the capital up front to install it. We know that even with feed in tariffs, payback is 5+ years (probably double that or perhaps never with no FIT) People who rent are not investing capital in the property, possibly they wouldn't be very interested in investing capital in PV either...

People who have insufficient income to make a rent/buy choice miss out, yes. They also feel the pain of cost increases that are coming down the line because of a lack of investment in energy infrastructure for many years now. We are locked into an expensive catch up mode that will see heavy increases regardless of the new tax. Hopefully, the government is as good as its word and will support them adequately. (probably won't happen but we can only hope)

woodbe

There is little doubt that energy prices will rise for years to come - the interesting question is what to do about it.

It has been true in the past that solar doesn't work at night - but now the pressure has come on to develop renewables, it is obvious that there is a huge resource in the air - carbon.

You can use solar to gather carbon from the air during the day and use it for fuel at night.

Sandia Labs is doing "Sunshine to Petrol" - Los Alamos Labs has "Green Freedom" to convert CO2 to fuel - the ELCAT (several European Universities) project is a catalytic process to convert CO2 to hydrocarbons - University of Nottinghan is converting CO2 into natural gas.

I have heard that UQ wants to build a Lackner tower to generate solar methane.

So carbon is the storage.

And of course the Solar Tres in Spain will run all night - base load - storage is molten salt..

So right now we do have technology to do solar base load.

Cheers,
Bob.

Renters need not miss out. Wewere told when I brought up the subject of putting PV on a rental house that I would, as the owner get the initial cost outlay off sets but, naturally, the benefits for the use of the system would go to any tennant.

Seems to me that many of us- self included - have not been smart when it comes to installations and their cost. I will bet London to a brick that if a group of owners were to approch the various suppliers of PV they would do better than each acting individually. For owners of investment properties this would provide extra incentive to invest in PV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

Anyone watch Insight on SBS 1??

Good forum on eletricity generation, supply and costs.

A thumbnail summary is:

*Cost of electricity will rise for some years to come
*Cost of PV Panels is decreasing down to half what they were 2 years ago.
*Baseload still presents problems . What happens when the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow?
*How do you store energy generated or collected hrough the day so it can be released at night.
* There are some innovative thinkers and entrepenuers out there.

I wonder if the carbon tax will eventually force electricity prices down/ As PV becomes more efficient and affordable how much less electicity will be provided by burning coal?
Less coal derived electricity should mean lower carbon emissions. How will that be factored into the cost equations?

---

Artme

I am sceptical that prices will come down. If and when the carbon tax is in place the price of retail electricity will undoubtedly be higher then now, but the development of alternative power sources will gradually lead to a displacement of traditional fossil powered stations and the price will remain static instead of rising as would normally be the case.

Woodbe has already pointed to 24 hour generation by solar stations using saltbeds, although I don't know how economic it is at this early stage. Remember that the existing thermal stations will pick up night time generation for a long time to come so there is a long lead time to develop technology to overcome this problem.

The initial challenge is to get solar power up and running. Once there is serious momentum it will become the norm.

Just as an aside, back in about 2000 it was the accepted yardstick that the price per MW/hr for a new generator to enter the market was $35. Today, in Queensland, 11 years later, the average price is less than that. Nearly all the QLD generators forecast a loss for 2011 and that was before the imposte of the carbon tax, which will make the market even more grim.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

Depends on your worldview.
woodbe

---

Hm. I should restate my point.

Energy prices will rise anyway because of infrastructure underinvestment. IMO a seperate issue.

Energy prices will be pushed up more by carbon taxes etc. Whether the energy comes from taxed (and thus artificially expensive coal etc) or "renewables" which aren't used now because they are necessarily more expensive doesn't matter. If you penalise the cheapest option the cost rises. (This is a purely economic argument, I'm not interested in the enviromental aspect, we've already done that elsewhere).

Solar may or may not get cheaper and the payback time may or may not shorten. Either way there is an upfront cost and supposedly savings ongoing to recover that.

Scenerio 1: We continue as we have exploiting the cheapest options. People pay more for electricity.

Scenerio 2: We artificially inflate energy costs above the necessary increases and many of the least able to cope with energy price increases will not be able to access any potential savings solar might offer.

Yes people choose to rent, I wasn't intending to suggest all tennants are on the brink of financial collapse. I was trying to say that the financially vulnerable tend either to be renting or are barely making the mortgage and don't have the disposable income to fund the up front cost.

Hopefully that has made more sense than my previous effort.

Artme:

Quote:

---

I will bet London to a brick that if a group of owners were to approch the various suppliers of PV they would do better than each acting individually. For owners of investment properties this would provide extra incentive to invest in PV.

---

Precisely this happened in queensland a few years back. A residents group got the price of bulk bought standard 1.5 kw systems down from about $3500 to $1500 as I recall. Shortly afterwards Bligher "announced" a similar state government scheme. They stuffed the admin, a few people got cheap systems then the whole shebang fell over. Meanwhile the resident organised scheme had sunk without trace.

Sometimes I want to find the queenslanders who voted labour and one by one smack them some sense. I am not suggesting the coalition are perfect, or even good, but it seems labour really manage to make a hash of everything they touch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Hm. I should restate my point.

Energy prices will rise anyway because of infrastructure underinvestment. IMO a seperate issue.

Energy prices will be pushed up more by carbon taxes etc. Whether the energy comes from taxed (and thus artificially expensive coal etc) or "renewables" which aren't used now because they are necessarily more expensive doesn't matter. If you penalise the cheapest option the cost rises. (This is a purely economic argument, I'm not interested in the enviromental aspect, we've already done that elsewhere).

Solar may or may not get cheaper and the payback time may or may not shorten. Either way there is an upfront cost and supposedly savings ongoing to recover that.

Scenerio 1: We continue as we have exploiting the cheapest options. People pay more for electricity.

Scenerio 2: We artificially inflate energy costs above the necessary increases and many of the least able to cope with energy price increases will not be able to access any potential savings solar might offer.

Yes people choose to rent, I wasn't intending to suggest all tennants are on the brink of financial collapse. I was trying to say that the financially vulnerable tend either to be renting or are barely making the mortgage and don't have the disposable income to fund the up front cost.

Hopefully that has made more sense than my previous effort.

---

Yes.

In Australia, there is much evidence that as a country and as individual citizens we generally tend to go for the smallest short term costs regardless of the benefits of paying a little more in the short term for a better long term result. Energy and Public Transport are cases in point. There are exceptions: Snowy Scheme, public buildings (esp. Federal Parliament)

We are convinced that alternative energy will not work. We know this because we cannot show resulting short term energy costs as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels; therefore we discard it. So we never really try it. That's our lowest short term cost thinking in action. Regardless of the climate issue, we know there are finite resources and we know we have to do something about pollution and environment. We can choose to start early, or we can wait until we must do something. Wait = Pay through the nose to overseas entrepreneurs who got on board early.

Sometimes having 3-4 year terms for parliament is both a blessing and a curse. It's one of the reasons we have little or no genuine long term planning.

If we are going to plan an entire country's energy infrastructure around the ability of the most financially needy to pay for it, we are never going to make the necessary investments to get ahead of the game. It's that simple. If we don't make those investments, market forces will drive prices up anyway. We have a tax system and a welfare system capable of insulating the financially needy from these pressures.

We also have government incentives and handouts to the fossil fuel industry of over $10Bn per year. The fossil fuel industry seems to be doing just fine, maybe we could spend some of that to help the financially needy pay their power bills instead.

meh.

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

We also have government incentives and handouts to the fossil fuel industry of over $10Bn per year. The fossil fuel industry seems to be doing just fine, maybe we could spend some of that to help the financially needy pay their power bills instead.

---

If that is true, I just canot understand the reason behind such a level of help.:(

Regards
Paul