Printable View
Ian
Looking at your screenshot I noticed something that is slightly misleading. SA shows no generation from coal. Now while it is true in that SA no longer has coal fired generators of it's own, there are two interconnectors from Victoria capable of more than 500MW. I assume these are incorporated into the Victorian output, but it does make SA "look" a little greener than it really is as extensive use is made of that line.
Regards
Paul
Paul
As of right now (11:25 AM May 14 AEST) the SA-VIC interconnector is exporting 104 MW to Victoria. The second interconnector is either idle or shut for maintenance.
Victoria in turn is exporting a net 504 MW to NSW -- the actual values are 948 export, 388 import
Victoria is also exporting 247 MW to Tasmania via BassLink.
As far as I can tell, the fuel mix only applies on a state basis.
This, in part, allows the ACT to beat their chest about how green their electricity is.
So while ACT might actually get all their electricity from black coal generation, they can pretend that their contracted solar farms -- the Royalla Solar Farm (opened in 2014 has a long term fixed price supply contract of $186 / MWh -- are providing 100% renewable energy.
As others have noted elsewhere, the Australian Government has dropped the ball big time when it comes to a policy environment.
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
The power always (actually, make that nearly always as there are from time to time other considerations) flows from the lowest price to the highest priced state and can cascade through two or three states with this effect up to the transmission limits. The SA mix will be very different in the sunless hours tonight, but still, as you point out in the ACT, there will be no coal burnt for power in SA, apparently.
Regards
Paul
Not so; that is quite wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
I had the site set to supply data for the 24 hours up to 10pm on the 12 May.
It is quite true that the yellow shading represents periods when the sun was shining and solar electricity was being fed into the grid.Quote:
... Below is screen shot for SA of the 48 hour period up to 4 AM AEST on May 13. The 48 hour period covers both May 11 and May 12.
The yellow shading represents the periods during which the sun was shining and providing solar power to the SA grid.
(In the main, roof top solar is not included in NEM data as the roof top systems are too small a scale to be registered in the market.) ...
However, the total solar power generated was less than 0.5% of the total electricity in the period and was rounded down to one. This is shown on the table below your graph - now highlighted with a red circle.
My understanding is that roof top solar is purely retail; only commercial solar enters the wholesale spot market. Correct me if I am wrong.
Attachment 511668NEM date selected by Ian, highlighted by me.
Possibly the best indication of sources of electricity is to look at the NEM aggregation for the year to 14/5/22.
Attachment 511670 AEMO | NEM data dashboard
This covers most of the wholesale electricity market centres excluding Western Australia. Highlights for the last year are:
- 75% of electricity was from fossil fuels,
- 25% was from renewables - hydro, wind and solar,
- roof top solar is not included.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
As I understand the chart, the Solar values you have highlighted represent the state of play between 3 and 4 AM on 13 May.
If you move the slider on the area chart to other times over the 48 hour period -- you have to be in the actual data chart (reference the link you provided) not the screen shot I posted -- you will see that solar's contribution varied depending on how the sun was shining.
The average Solar value over the 48 hour period (to 4 AM May 13) is said to have been 6%, refer to the bar chart above the area chart.
That is my understanding too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Regards
Paul
I have mentioned before that I am on a 'wholesale' rate (amber).
Currently prices are substantially higher than they have been, way above the vic default offer. The supplier has price insurance so it is rebated back to that vdo, but in the meantime the prices are "disturbing"...
I also notice the forecasts (next 12 hours) are very unreliable.
My goal has been to loadshift to reduce overall cost, fairly successfully until the last couple of months, but it's a struggle at the moment.
(what is reliable is the ausnet TOU putting up prices between 3 and 9 ��)
Previously in this thread, I've mentioned the issue of Hydrogen embrittlement of carbon steels.
And if I recall correctly, Bushmiller mentioned that the hydrogen used (to cool the turbines ?) at his coal fired power station is delivered in thick steel cylinders and distributed through the station in stainless steel piping. I'm not sure if Paul mentioned if the power station stores the hydrogen in stainless steel tanks, or if the hydrogen is delivered direct to where it is required.
This article, from my local chip outer wrapper -- Rocky Mountain Outlook -- gives an indication of what the different colours of hydrogen are and puffs the virtue of combining carbon capture and storage with steam reforming of natural gas -- which is mostly methane Alberta is banking on hydrogen to lead its green transition - RMOToday.com
Given the embrittlement issue I remain to be convinced that hydrogen can be safely transported in a pipeline designed for the transport of natural gas.
As far as I know, hydrogen embrittlement is mostly investigated in the context of very small amounts water and welding. I know of no studies looking at the risks of transporting hydrogen through carbon steel piping. Paul has mentioned in passing that the piping used at Millerrann is all stainless steel.
and as for carbon capture and storage, if the technology is so mature that it is commercially being used in Alberta why is the Australian Government still investigating the issue?
Perhaps, because CCS it's just a con?
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
I have to stress that I am in no way a metallurgist and can only report on my observations at my work sites and perhaps link any reading I have turned up. I have worked at four power stations and three of those used hydrogen for cooling. The cooling is for the rotor of the generators (the stator is cooled by demineralised water piped through the hollow copper conductors. Water is a poor conductor of electricity: It is the impurities that conduct so once they are removed removed it is safe). Early generators, such as the first station I was at, used air to cool the rotors, but that gas has more windage (sixteen times more) and poorer heat transfer than Hydrogen. At Bayswater we made our own hydrogen, compressed it and stored it in large "torpedo" tubes. At Millmerran we buy in our hydrogen and mainly it arrives in similar large torpedos on a semi trailer. Each torpedo is the length of the semi. We also have smaller, vertical, emergency packs.
The vessels are not stainless and as you have mentioned the hydrogen embrittlement issue seems to be mainly during welding processes and there is little information on the gas being piped. The hydrogen trailer is left at Millmerran so that becomes our storage vessel and we hook it up to out distribution manifold, which is all stainless steel including the pipework to the units. However, I would not necessarily read too much into that.
This is a basic appraisal of the embrittlement issues:
Hydrogen - Wikipedia
As far as transportation is concerned, this was interesting:
Hydrogen Transport - Features - The Chemical Engineer
The article also mentions smaller tanks in vehicles.
On CCS: This is, to put it euphemistically, controversial. The separation of the CO2 is complicated, involves steam and a complex plant. Then the CO2 has to be compressed. Then it has to be found a suitable storage location and transported to that site, pumped underground and capped off. Whew!!
Having said that, as I have mentioned before, we are supposedly putting in such a plant at Millmerran. However, it is a pilot plant to prove the technology is possible and I don't think that too much store should be placed in the viability of CCS for the moment. Any Australian politician spruiking about CCS should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt and dismissed as talking from the wrong orifice (just my opinion :) ). As for the government putting up their hands for research, there is, I believe, some sort of government support for our project, but if I was being cynical I would suggest it is a vote catcher or a nod to the coal companies. I am a little surprised that the coal companies themselves have not volunteered funding for research, but I am not aware of this happening. That in itself could be indicative of the viability.
I would like to think I am entirely wrong on all these statements and I guess time will tell: It is true to say that some locations will be better placed than others to support a CCS venture of this nature. I did look up your Alberta reference. It appears to be calling for interest and was established only in the Autumn of 2021 so it is very recent.
Carbon Sequestration Tenure Management | Alberta.ca
Nothing in place for the moment, although on the positive side they are at least looking for alternatives. If 89% of your energy is still produced from fossil fuel even after all this time, I expect there is a big incentive to clutch at any straw no matter how tenuous.
Regards
Paul
The UK are now in the process of converting homes to Hydrogen so they must have answers or one would hope so. converting homes to Hydrogen - YouTube
Very skeptical of the rigour of anything on YouTube, but couldn't find that article. Just a miscellaneous pile of videos on hydrogen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Parks
Liked this one, but how would his vehicle maintain traction in the BS?
Hydrogen Hybrid Conversion For ANY Vehicle - I'm Saving 56% At The Gas Pump! - YouTube
I'm disappointed with the lack of solar and wind generation in those charts above.
Obviously nobody is going to invest in a turbine if the price doesn't support it, but that may be because the price hasn't priced in the future.
I'm not a huge fan of China, but I do read a lot of their material on government projects and the sciences.
Without a doubt, they are absolutely hammering it on solar and wind. They seems to be putting up monster turbines at the rate of hundreds a day.
I'm very disappointed the government sees the generation of power to be purely a commercial objective. Yeah Yeah liberalism and private enterprice, hooray.... but it doesn't have any vision.
It hasn't priced in the future, nor planned for the future. It severely disappoints me that we look at everything on such a short term basis.
Imagine what we could do!
Solar farms everywhere.... one drives from Canberra to Sydney (or Melbourne) and its 300km of NOTHING and 1100km of NOTHING. The farms look sad and lonely.
If only we put a few solar farms down. Put in 20 times the volume we have. Put wind where we can...
It would drive that coal-usage number right down.
Its not a matter of political will, its a social and environmental necessity. Its beyond economics - its survival.
Check this picture. I sent it to the kids yesterday. India and Pakistan are WILTING under the extreme heat.
Attachment 511715
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
After I saw Chis' links I found this one for a company called Rosen, which appears to be European based and German.
Hydrogen | ROSEN Group (rosen-group.com)
It seems to be offering support to convert gas pipe lines into Hydrogen pipe lines. I was wondering how safely your gas oven could become a hydrogen oven? On thing I discovered during a brief research was that although pure H2 burns virtually invisibly, the presence of impurities will allow it to be visible. At the very least some degree of smell would need to be introduced, but that is already done with other substances so not insurmountable.
However, they don't say they have converted any yet. They may still be waiting for the hydrogen!
Regards
paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
I suppose that you will say that "clean coal" was a myth, as well.
But when you try to think of the long term effects of pumping CO2 underground you get some "strange" questions:
- Will it convert the aquafier to soda water?
- How does the CO2 know its got to stay underground. With the thermal gradient, will it percolate back to the surface?
- Will it react chemically with the many substances in the geology?
- Finally, how will or can its efficacy be policed, and by whom?
And CO2 is a strange critter - consider this phase diagram:
Attachment 511720
Remember:
- ambient temperature increases quickly with depth,
- sub-aquous pressure increases very quickly with depth - water table is aquous, and
- dry air pressure increases slowly with depth.