Printable View
Agree 100%, part of the problem is there are so many issues within the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
If you took the CC aspect out of the debate and just discussed transitioning to an alternate energy source it would be a much more fruitful debate. CC itself appears to cloud some people’s judgment as it has become almost a religious type argument which isn’t helpful
Very sad but understandable, until we get a unified policy for Australia and not a parochial (think trains) policy it is going to be a very rocky road and requires object input by all parties.
“We’re out”: Big contractor dramatically quits Australian solar sector | RenewEconomy
Well Brett, from where I sit that describes your own behavior, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Agreed. So if we are discussing how to do the transitioning then it is part of the discussion to bring up issues which need to be overcome, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
So when anyone mentions an issue that has to be dealt with such as when I mentioned steel manufacture, why do others post information proclaiming that it is possible to make steel without coal. I know that. That's why I used the word "currently" which the critics trying to discredit my statement conveniently ignored. A helpful response to my post could have been to post the links to the very interesting material about the companies working on the problem and indicate that the companies themselves admit that commercial viability is a quarter of a century away instead of saying:
which gives a false impression that the problem is already solved (and thereby inferring that my point was - well, pointless, when it is actually valid) when there is a hell of a lot mere to do before that is a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
Brett you accuse me of picking on single words - well in that case the single word "currently" makes all the difference to the context. A number of times you have called for all the CC deniers in the thread to declare their position. As far as I can see without dredging back through the whole thread, there aren't any here; just other members trying to debate the same issue but with slightly different ideas and point of view to your own. You claim to want debate and discussion, yet when someone presents a point you don't like YOU are the one who gets all combative and emotive.
As soon as I saw who the publisher was I thought it best to get the whole storyQuote:
Originally Posted by rwbuild
Downer EDI profit falls 35pc on '''risky''' construction
The Fin Review is paywalled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Hopefully this worksQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
“Downer EDI will no longer build solar, coal or iron ore construction projects because they are too risky, chief executive Grant Fenn said after delivering a 35 per cent drop in interim net profit to $91.4 million.
Profits were dragged down by the poor performance of the contractor's engineering, construction and maintenance division, which reported a loss of $37.4 million compared with a profit of $22.4 million a year earlier.
Downer has previously slashed its full-year profits guidance in January by $65 million due to cost blowouts on two projects, APA Group's Orbost gas plant in Victoria and its construction of a processing plant for OZ Minerals' Carrapateena copper gold mine project in South Australia in a joint venture with Ausenco.
The profit warning caused its shares to slump 18 per cent. The stock has not recovered from the losses, and fell further on Wednesday morning, losing 34¢, or 4.5 per cent to trade at $7.13.
Downer EDI shares dive 18pc on profit warning
Mr Fenn is backing away from taking construction risk after a series of project cost blow-outs, telling analysts on Wednesday that the company would also not bid for "hard dollar" structural, mechanical and piping contracts or electrical and instrumentation contracts.
Downer instead plans to focus on sectors where it believes it can compete effectively, including transport, high voltage power transmission and substations, telecommunications, water and wind farms.
The Australian market for solar projects had "evaporated" due to the difficulty of connecting farms to electricity grids, and so avoiding solar was not a big move for Downer, Mr Fenn said.”
We can solve all problems with lasers.
They are very modern.
For those things that cant be solved with lasers, we can use ball bearings.
Brett, et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
My observation (close up within my own family) of those that are not convinced about climate change and its causes is more complex than that. Here are a few of those complexities.
* Some are neither afraid nor coming from fear of economic loss; given the information and influences on them some are just undecided on the matter. Yes, they are fence sitters, but more importantly they are not gamblers..."if in doubt, they don't". Yes, a conservative position, but not an unreasonable approach if you are undecided.
* Many are rusted on conservative voters who don't trust politicians in general, but mistrust any party to the left of centre even more. They are more conducive to the messages coming from the right. Here in Australia over the last decade or so those messages have been crafted to be hostile to taking the proactive action on CC coming from the left. If they lived in the UK the messages they would have been getting from the right over the last 30yrs would have been very different. Less than 3% UK citizens now say that climate change is not happening and a similar very low % still say that humans are not the cause of climate change. The views held here on CC among conservative voters are an artifact of our politics. The point being, the views of conservative voters here in Australia have been skewed by a concerted effort by the political class on the right to gain and stay in power and cannot be attributed entirely to any 'natural' conservative position.
* Some resist the changes proposed for avoiding CC by the same groups in society that brought about changes in laws on issues such as sexuality and marriage, which they resisted. Because these social conservatives didn't trust those opponents on those issues they don't trust them over this issue either.
* Some live in families/workplaces/recreation, faith and other community groups where they only/mostly hear the views circulating and being reinforced within those groups. They are not fence sitters, they are just oblivious to any alternatives and any media that gets to them doesn't challenge their equilibrium.
* Some are less educated. Surveys repeatedly show that the higher the level of education the more supportive individuals are on the need for action on CC. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that less education equals less intelligence. Not everyone has had the same educational opportunities. However, complex arguments exercised in higher education don't work so well with those who have been to the school of life. A more nuanced engagement at the level of values is required with them than repeatedly challenging them with arguments. Do that and they will quickly disengage.
* Some are resistant to any changes that will jeopardise their already precarious financial situations. The combination of low wage growth and absurdly high house (actually land) prices here in Australia has put financial pressures on many families. They know that any shift in their financial circumstances can tip them into mortage stress and default. Scare talk about taking a more proactive stance on CC will put a "wrecking ball" through our economy plays to their fears. The argument that we here in Australia would only make a very small difference if we if took more action and why do it unless every other country does the same further convinces them that it is not in their or our interest to do so, at least for now. They may be 'afraid of .... economic loss', but as responsible parents they are rightly concerned for the welfare of their family.
* And, some are not so much afraid as angry that others are pushing for changes that they don't see as being necessary. Pushing back just confirms for them that others are out to get them!
These undecided, resistant and anti-change folk are almost without exception very fine people, living honest hard working lives and contributors to their communities. They are the ones who step up when needed in a crisis like we saw across the southern states this summer. They are not other, they are us with different opinions. But, they have not been served well by some of our political class and some sectors of the media who have my lowest regard as I doubt their motives.
However, I reserve my greatest scorn for the denialist organisations, their aligned think tanks, and their deep-pocketed funders who have been manipulating good people to their own ends.
If that includes me, I'm sorry you feel that way Doug.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
I looked back at your original post and, on reflection, I don't think I took it out of context, but I won't quibble on that.
If I express a different view in response to a post that doesn't mean that I did not wish to read that poster's views. Far from it.
And, I would have thought that anyone who posts to a thread on these forums is self appointed, other than the Mod of course.
Neil you forgot one other group.
Those that don’t trust the mistruths and scaremongering that constantly comes from the pro CC camp ( just like they do from the denialists) The likes of Tim Flannery have done the cause no favours.
If they were honest and upfront of the real state of play they could gain more trust and traction
Unless there is some kind of evidence shown (here) supporting statements like that then they are just bombs thrown into the debate, and that's one very good reason why matters get heated from time to time. How about a link or two to some articles that support that point of view? That way, readers of your post can make up their own minds after reading at least some supporting evidence. My point being that I'll be damned if I believe that TF has done the cause no favours and not been honest and upfront, just because someone (who most often disagrees with my point of view anyway) says so, without evidence supporting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
At the risk of going down a side road but at the request of Brett, the OP, I have a little information on what we are up against regarding the transition to renewables. Brett's question was specifically what constitutes the "base" load. So I have put together a screen shot to assist with this. The first is just a snapshot of about the last 24hrs (not quite 24hrs) of demand to gain an idea of maximum and minimum loads. You will see that the minimum demand occured, not unexpectedly, around 0300hrs and in round figures was 18,250MW for the whole Eastern seaboard grid. Sorry WA, I'm afraid you are not in this.
Attachment 468552
The maximum was during the evening peak and about 27,000MW and this is fairly typical. Please note that I am reading off a fairly imprecise graph so the figures are rounded off. If we accept that the stations supplying the minimum demand are the base load stations, because they can supply during the night or at any time and they are supplying power when the price is low, which effectively means they are the most economic units, we can work out that on that particular day the base load represented 68% of the power required during the day. However, that is not really a true picture as the day was mild, temperature wise, and there was a lot of unutilised power available. So I went looking for the maximum demand for the year to date. That was 33,920MW.
Our minimum load as a percentage of that is 54% and I believe could be described as the base load. We will have the most trouble replacing this portion. While I was able to find maximum load figures quite easily there was nothing on the minimum load so I have had to take yesterday as fairly typical. If somebody wanted to be picky I guess you could say the base load is about half our maximum: In other words still quite a bit.
The following are some statistics for each of the states with a few comments of mine. Firstly:
NSW. The peak is clearly at tea time. Prices range from $25.00 to $295.00. Lots of surplus capacity (green line). Max demand 10,100MW. Min demand 6,500MW
Attachment 468553
QLD: Similar peak period and pricing (but not identical). Max demand 8,500MW. Min demand 6,500MW
Attachment 468554
SA: Max demand 1600MW, min demand 1000MW. Two distinct price peaks pretty much coinciding with high demand when the solar isn't playing much of a part. $300.00 to $-40.00 Take note of several hours of negative prices!
Attachment 468555
TAS: Max demand 1200MW. Min demand 900MW. Max price $400.00 Minimum $-30.00. More negative prices
Attachment 468556
VIC: Similar pattern to NSW and QLD prices $265to $20. Max demand 6250MW. Min demand 4000MW.
Attachment 468557
If you would like any further information, please say.
Regards
Paul
That's excellent detailed info - tvm!
I recall that you have mentioned before (and please correct any discrepancies) that gas - presumably natural gas - is the base load champion for expediency of delivery, followed by coal, which is what is mostly used. I would have thought that coal would have some kind of reasonably significant delay compared to gas - yes?
Where I'm going there is I'm wondering how good would Hydrogen be at producing Base Load power as quickly as required, as long as it is in plentiful supply of course (and that won't be until new tech can produce it significantly). I would have thought that it would be at least as efficient as natural gas, given that Hydrogen is one of the most volatile fuels we know of.
Sorry Doug I should be more clear. I am not referring to the formulation of the actual metal I am using the generic term "low carbon" to indicate a manufacturing process which does not rely on fossil sourced carbon. The Garnaut Report in 2007 and the second one in 2010 went into the potential future demand for "low carbon" steel and aluminium. Australia is ideally placed for this. Our bauxite and iron ore reserves are out in hot dry areas which are ideal for concentrated solar mass power stations. The cheap renewable power could be used right there to make low carbon aluminium and steel. It would be a huge bit of value adding and job creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
BrettQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Yes, gas power can be ramped up much faster than coal power, but it tends to be more expensive. Everything comes at a price.
Hydrogen is an interesting concept and it has been mentioned several times on this thread already. Hydrogen has to be extracted and the most common form at the moment is using electricity. When I worked at Bayswater PS we produced our own hydrogen there and also supplied Liddell across the road as their hydrogen plant never worked properly. It is quite expensive to produce until different technologies come along. Power stations use hydrogen as the coolant in their generators. It has the best thermal conductivity and the least windage.
As a fuel it comes down to the fact it has to be made. Maybe you could use it in the boilers. In cars, which is where is has been mostly touted, I think after cost the biggest issue is safety. Ask the people on the Hindenberg. If your H2 powered car has a bingle will it be more prone to exploding? Is there a way around that? It is rare for petrol or diesel powered vehicles to catch fire in a crash, although it happens occasionally. Certainly there is enough energy in H2 gas, but it is more a question of control. We are pretty careful with it at work and have quite a bit of security around it: For example when we move in the immediate vicinity of the H2 plants there is , obviously, no smoking, no two way radios, no mobile phones etc.
All that would have to be considered, but interestingly I have never heard of any of those concerns when hydrogen potential has been discussed. Nevertheless, if it can be made commercially viable it is another possibility.
Regards
Paul