Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument :C

---

Not at all - down the bottom of the thread is a list of who is currently looking at it. If a name comes and goes then they are obviously in and out of the thread. If a name stays there it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is constantly looking at the thread - they may be away from the computer or using other windows. Yesterday morning I challenged you to put up evidence to support some fatuous statements, so before I follow that with a second call of "Where's the evidence you speak of" I have to be sure that you have seen the original request, so I looked at the list of readers from time to time. In the ecommunity it is etiquette to allow enough time to respond because people have other things to do.

I note you still haven't supported any of those statements with links/quotes, despite being aware of the call for 24 hours or more..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I am not here to argue with you

---

Hmmm :think: I think that's debatable. :; Five minutes or ten?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I am stating my point of views and opinions but you seem to take offence when others do not necessarily share your point of view.

---

See, again you are misconstruing. It's not about different point of view, it's about supporting CC denial with proper evidence - it never happens (and for a very good reason). Outrageous statements/claims and other bomb throwing will always be challenged. Sometimes when a statement is absolutely ridiculous it might just get torn apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I could find some articles to post up

---

When it comes to the outrageous claims about Flannery then I think they really must be supported. Post away with your evidence that "you don't have to look to far to find". If it's that easy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Surely you can’t deny that at the time when Flannery and Gore were working the crowd the language was very alarmist

---

I never did see Gore's film, but I saw him in the media. I have to say though, if it took some alarmist language to kickstart the debate then that is not necessarily a bad thing, because we were sleepwalking towards this catastrophe. We needed to be slapped awake. As Neil and others have commented in here, if we were in the U.K. we would not even be having this debate because it has bilateral political support - there is no argument to speak of. Here in Oz though - probably the continent with the most to lose - we still have around 25% (IIRC) of the population who either don't care and think it's all bullsh. We have no political will, and certainly not bipartisan support for remedies. It's staggeringly disappointing. Bearing in mind that the U.K. was stupid enough to leave the EU (the next couple of years will be "very interesting" in the full Chinese sense), but smart enough to catch on to CC - doesn't really say much for Australia's collective nouse does it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

I am still struggling with this notion that Australia can be the next superpower of energy supplier to the world.

---

Maybe you need more exposure to Ross Garnaut. In this interview you can skip to about 4 minutes to hear him touching on jobs in the future. There are other interviews where he goes into more detail, but there are so many hits in a search of "ross garnaut interview" that it is tricky to find the one that I saw in the last couple of months. Some of them are quite long too. Note that I have supplied two pieces of evidence to support my claim.

Solar by day, methane by night. Simples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Beardy

That is partialy true. However, consider:

While ever solar panels were low volume they were always going to be expensive and would never become affordable. So the subsidy was required but as well as kick starting solar, unfortunately, also held the price up (the problem with subsidies). Today solar is relatively cheap. Subsidy is not unique to solar. Coal gets subsidies on their diesel fuel for example.

The solar farms had the opportunity to get in early but they didn't initially. Then they thought they saw money and jumped in. When they got there it dawned on them that there was no free ride and they had to actually compete. Did they forsee that in SA, for example, the whole sale prices would at times be negative for a extended period? Probably not. The gas people made a similar error. While the wells were being esablished ad the pipeline built there was no place for the gas to go. They built small power plants and gave the gas away. Once the pipeline was operational they could export the gas for elevated prices and the gas stations found themselves on a level playing field. They immediately screamed they couldn't make any money.

There is no milege in entering a market unless you can do it either better or cheaper or expand it. If you cannot do one of those things you are now sharing the bucket of money with the existing players and probably everybody ends up with less. Usually in the electricity market the newcomer has the hardest time as the investment costs are as high as they will ever be. The old hands have reduced their debt and have a distinct advantage. This is why in my post to which you have referred I suggested, for the time being, any further solar players are going to be disappointed if they believe there is pot of gold out there. We actually have an oversupply of power for the sector in which they can compete.

While I am a strong believer in solar power, it still has a long way to go before it becomes the universal panacea some people would like it to be. While probably I am in that wishful group, I like to think I am also pragmatic.

Regards
Paul

---

Again Paul , thanks for the informative response.
So the pot of gold still sits on the mantle waiting for whoever comes up with a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Attachment 468601Attachment 468600


Something I neglected to mention before is that in the shot above and the earlier post showing those shots is that half the shot is what happened and the half to the right is the prediction for that period of time.

---

Yes, picked that up.

This morning I'm pleased to see that SA has the cheapest power again ($0.00) and that it is exporting to Vic, who in turn is exporting it, plus a bit, to Tassy. As usual, NSW is being carried by the other states. It being a Saturday will of course make it atypical.

Something that I couldn't work out from the above states distribution graphic was the numbers in the small boxes next to the inter-connectors. Perhaps not necessary to getting the overall picture.

One thing that has struck me from looking at the AEMO data is that the Tassies are using almost the same amount of electricity as SA, which has a population of 3-1/2 times it. Does that say anything about unlimited supply, demand and price? There doesn't seem to be a price signal down there on the apple isle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidG

Please keep it none personal. Blast away at the subject not the messenger.
I do not want to be forced to close this thread..

DavidG Moderator.


Remember - Subject, not person.....

---

Yes, please!

Eleanor Roosevelt has been attributed with the saying, paraphrased as I couldn't find the original source:
Good minds discuss ideas;
Mediocre minds discuss past events;
Limited minds discuss people.

or, paraphrased for Australia:

Let's play the ball, not the man/woman.

This is also why I haven't weighed in on the Tim Flannery assassination/defence (who btw I personally admire) or jumped at the opportunity to attack Andrew Bolt (who btw I do not admire). Or individual politicians; like everyone else I have opinions about them as people, but these are irrelevant to the ideas we are discussing here.


We all have good minds here. Let's focus them on a contest of ideas.

I agree, this thread was turning into a Spanish inquisition and actually works against the cc activists, as I have said twice before, there is a middle ground where we can all have a win win but it will take time, patience (sorry Brett) and technical progress and no histrionics.

More magic from the wizards in white coats: The catalyst that removes CO2 and produces hydrocarbons / News / SINC - Servicio de Informacion y Noticias Cientificas

Make ethylene, hydrogen and oxygen at MEGA VOLUMES from renewable sources.

Bingo! Base load SOLVED!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Bear in mind that none of these renewable are in a position to replace that 50% base load.

What do you think is the way around this? Firstly that an economic plateau has been reached and secondly what will replace the fossil fired base load?

---

Looking at the AEMO/NEM maps I keep seeing how critical the interconnector network is to the eastern states. The glaring gap is a connector between WA and SA.


https://www.energynetworks.com.au/as...oads/pic_2.jpg

A link between say Woodina in SA and Kalgoolie in WA is about 1,500km. The Bass Strait interconnector is only abt 200km, as the fish swims, so a SA-WA interconnector would be a much more significant undertaking.

Back in an earlier life I was involved with video and audio conference meetings of reps from all the states and WA was always the hardest to accommodate. They were still in bed when most of us wanted to get on with it.

My thinking here is that the time offset of 2-3 hours between the east and west of Australia is also a peak use offset. We in the east could be cooking their breakfast with solar in the mornings and they could be cooking our dinners in the east of an evening. Yes, only when the sun is shining. But a more widely located network would also allow for more distributed wind power to iron out wind variability across the continent.

It seems to me that network development is lagging behind and is becoming problematic (you Paul will know better than most about that). Do we need a Snowy-3? Snowy-1 included the network to get its hydro power to consumers.

The little I ever knew about about electrical engineering left me long ago, so I'm uncertain about the loss factor with such a long distance high tension interconnector, but expect that it may not be such a significant factor. The economics would be more of a determining factor.

A recent report looking at the proposed additional interconnectors between SA-Vic, SA-NSW and SA-Qld put the cost (as of 2018) at between $0.75m and 1.00m/km. So an above ground interconnector between SA-WA could cost about $1.5bn, not all that more than some of additional interconnector options currently being considered by SA.

https://www.electranet.com.au/wp-con...iew-Jacobs.pdf

So, not exactly an addition to base load, Paul, but more of a partial mitigation against the need for it.

It's good to see the contributions from people with expertise in lots of different fields, particularly power generation, transmission and pricing which is a black hole to me (apart from a theoretical understanding of hydro). Does anyone know if there is much research being done into tide & wave generation. It seems to me that this could be suitable for peak & base load generation, and wave generation would be close to where most people live, on the coast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Something that I couldn't work out from the above states distribution graphic was the numbers in the small boxes next to the inter-connectors. Perhaps not necessary to getting the overall picture.

One thing that has struck me from looking at the AEMO data is that the Tassies are using almost the same amount of electricity as SA, which has a population of 3-1/2 times it. Does that say anything about unlimited supply, demand and price? There doesn't seem to be a price signal down there on the apple isle.

---

Neil

Those small boxes relate to the capacity of the individual connectors (in MWs) and which way the power is flowing. I have to say that I find it a little difficult to follow at times, but usually the direction of transmission will be towards the state with the higher MW price. Having said that, with the two SA/VIC connectors, you will see that the arrows are going in different directions. I am am unsure of the reason for that, but it does highlight the complexities involved. It is not quite the same as our extension cord analogy in the shed. Also we have to be aware that the capacities for an individual line are not usually the same for both directions. One issue that frequently catches us out in the QLD/NSW interconnector is when the line is "constrained." The reasons for this (to us at any rate) are not always clear but the limitations rarely seem to come at a good time.

The Tassie load might (I stress "might") be explained by two factors. One is that SA could have had or be having mild temperatures. The other issue is that they are exporting power to Victoria. probably both combined accounts for that apparent discrepancy.

Thirty years ago the seasonal peaks occurred in winter, but with air conditioning becoming more commonplace summer peaks have easily taken over that position. A heat wave get the populace cranking up the air cons and the system becomes severely stretched.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Looking at the AEMO/NEM maps I keep seeing how critical the interconnector network is to the eastern states. The glaring gap is a connector between WA and SA.

My thinking here is that the time offset of 2-3 hours between the east and west of Australia is also a peak use offset. We in the east could be cooking their breakfast with solar in the mornings and they could be cooking our dinners in the east of an evening. Yes, only when the sun is shining. But a more widely located network would also allow for more distributed wind power to iron out wind variability across the continent.

---

Neil

While the time differences could be used to advantage in staggering the peak demand periods (I think daylight saving already assists with that to a lesser extent) I suspect WA will continues to be on their own for a long time to come. The reason we bump up the voltage on transmission lines is to minimise the transmission losses. Most of the power is used at about four voltages 11KV, 6.6KV, 3.3KV and 415V. However the most modern and longest lines are now up to 500KV. 330KV used to be top of the line :rolleyes: .

I am not an electrical engineer, but I would hazard a guess that the cost of a line of 1000km is more than double the cost of a line of 500km just to take some hypothetical figures. We often use the garden hose analogy for losses. If you connect enough garden hoses together nothing comes out the end in a useable flow. If you have ever had to connect power to a shed over an extended distance you would be aware that the cable dimension have to increase proportionately. These lines have to be maintained. The cost there would balloon I suspect.

The other problem is who wants to build it? The private companies do not have the desire or the money. We know where the government stands. All mouth and no money.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Does anyone know if there is much research being done into tide & wave generation. It seems to me that this could be suitable for peak & base load generation, and wave generation would be close to where most people live, on the coast.

---

Alex

I don't know, but there is clearly such a reluctance to research any of these new technologies (actually, not so much a reluctance but more a lack of funding) that I doubt there is significant development. My quick take is that there are some places where there are huge tidal variations (up in the far North?) but possibly the communities are too small to justify the investment. The economic laws of supply and demand are as relevant here as anywhere. It is in particular an Australian problem of vast distances and a small population (The Chinese city of Shanghai has the same population as Oz).

Wave just does not seem to have been pursued. Geothermal, which I think Tim Flannery was keen on, has fundamental issues to my mind. I am not an expert in this field, but anything that is three or four kilometers down in the ground and relies on some pipework has some potential for unreliability. Having said that, how deep are oil wells? I don't know.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

My quick take is that there are some places where there are huge tidal variations (up in the far North?) but possibly the communities are too small to justify the investment.

---

My understanding is that the generators must be in areas where there is significant flow from the tide to make it work. This means shallow water where the depth variation is a significant percentage of the average water depth. they do not work offshore in deep water because even with a 10 metre tide that is only a depth change of 10 metres over say 100 metres depth is only a change of 10% over 6 hours which is pretty insignificant and probably almost no movement near the bottom. Also deep water tends to be further offshore which increases the cost of transmission lines,making it less economically viable.

This means that all the good spots for tidal generation are close to the coast in shallow water. These are also often the places that need to be preserved as marine habitats or are used for recreational purposes. I can see a lot of kickback from a lot of concerned citizens if a tidal generation facility was proposed for a marine park or a popular Gold Coast beach. Other places with high tidal flow such as the mouth of Sydney Harbor (large body of water passing through a small gap creates a strong current as the tide rises and falls) could be ruled out due to obstruction to shipping and habitat destruction.

Maintenance costs could also become an issue in a marine environment due to rust etc and the general wear and tear of the ocean and weather.

How deep are oil wells? I have no idea how credible that site is.


RE wave power, I wonder what impact soaking up all that mechanical energy would have on the various micro environments. It may be none but I would doubt that - I'm thinking water flushing in and out of rock pools and the like. I imagine it would be different to taking mech energy out of wind because wind is so widespread over much greater travelled distances (not breadth), and I'm trying to think of how it might benefit an environment - nothing comes to mind. Anyone?

On the cost of connecting WA to the Eastern States I would have thought that money would be better spent on some solar farms or similar for the two sides of the country.

You would think tide movements and wave action would be a good source of energy and consistent as well
They set up a trial unit at Port Kembla that eventually was damaged from a storm.
My understanding was it was cost prohibitive and was shelved but don’t know the details.