Printable View
Exactly. Just thinking about a major fuel station on a major highway; six chargers would not be anywhere near enough for the number of vehicles needing to recharge. Try 12 to 15 chargers and you are looking at 5MW. There's a hell of a lot of infrastructure needed before running EV's on the highways becomes mainstream in Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdan
Some information for the three levels of charging that are generally (but not plentifully) available in Australia. The third level is the so-called fast charging and ultra fast charging which can be anything from 50KW/hr to 350KW/hr and will require a three phase source converted to DC.
EV Charging explained: Home and public charging, power levels and plugs (whichcar.com.au)
Regards
Paul
An interesting read, especially the included link to "how long do batteries last". If, as stated in that article, you shouldn't charge to more than 80%, or discharge to less than 10%, and the slowest rate of charging is best for battery life, how does this impact range? Are the manufacturers quoted ranges based on 100% to 0%, or 80% to 10%? And just how quickly does ultra-fast DC charging degrade batteries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Those numbers are the same for all Li-Ion batteries (phones, tools etc). and they are built into the batteries to happen automatically. With my phone I try to recharge when it falls below 30%. When it says it's 100% it is referring to "usable" capacity, the stated range should be accurate unless they are telling porkies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
If you exclusively fast charge any battery it will not yield as many cycles as trickle charging, so again referring to my phone, I only fast charge it when I need juice quickly, which is not often. Apart from anything else it keeps the battery cooler during charging. Extrapolating that out to vehicles, fast charging should be reserved for road trips where possible, and always trickle charge when time is on your side.
Fast charge and discharge, and the resultant heat is to be avoided for any Li-Ion battery. This is yet another reason why other chemistries and solid state batteries are being pursued.
I understand the adjustment for battery degradation, I was more thinking about the fact that using an EV to it full quoted range (i.e. charging to 100% and then driving until "flat") is detrimental to its battery life. So for maximum battery life you need to subtract 30% from the stated range, to allow for 10% minimum charge and the 20% "avoid charging above 80%" advice?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Do EV's manage their charging to stop at 80%? I know my iPhone (according to the marketing) manages its charging to only charge the last 20% just before it thinks I'll need it, based on my historical usage.
AFAIK, and I'll stand corrected, all Li-Ion batteries only ever charge to 80%, but show that they are 100% charged, which I regard as the "usable" charge. So for you phone I suspect it's only charging to actual 60% mostly, but adding on the last 20% to go to 80% when it thinks you'll need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
So the usable range is 10-80%, and I believe that that 70% is displayed as 100% of usable sparks.
So, when the iPhone tells me (in the battery health section) that maximum capacity is "98% of new", that's 98% of the 80% that it originally told me was 100%? Oh what a tangled web...... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I think so.
They have to do it that way really. Imagine if they used the actual numbers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
"Why will my phone not charge above 80%?"
"Why does my phone keep turning itself off when there is still 10% of battery left?"
Rinse and repeat over 100s of millions of users.
I agree, if that's what they're doing. But if it is what they're doing, why bother also doing the "stop charging at 80% until the last minute" thing on the iPhone? And why does the EV battery link tell us to avoid charging above 80%? If the safety limit (for want of a better phrase) is 80% of "real", why further reduce that by another 20%? Is the suggestion that charging above 60%odd "real" degrades battery life?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
:shrug:
What bothers me is all these "round" numbers: 80%, 10%, 60%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Everything on these EV's is engineered down to several decimal points, but they expect us to believe that a round 80% is the optimum charge for the batteries and discharging them below a round 10% will damage them.
And from the discussion here about if 100% is really only 80% or not, the whole battery thing seems to be made deliberately confusing by the manufacturers.
I have a bank of auxiliary batteries in the back of my ute for camping. I have a sensor on the batteries that bluetooths to my phone, telling me stats about my battery bank to two decimal places yet with a high tech EV we can't tell if 100% is really 100% or just 80%. :rolleyes:
I've just looked back through my LiPo notes from my electric RC car days (slightly different battery, but I'm guessing the graph would be similar for both). There is quite a fine line between charging voltage, capacity and lifetime.
Attachment 531553
I guess the nice round numbers are because the manufacturer can simply choose a point on the graph that gives enough "life" to cover the warranty, and enough power to give the vehicle a suitable range. Clearly Barney Stinson doesn't work for them, otherwise it would be 83%....
With several brands competing in a market, all trying to make out that THEIR product is the one to buy, it's a wonder it isn't 83.17649% :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
FF
Thanks for that link. I thought this was pertinent:
The regulator said while the growing influence of cheap renewable solar and wind power on the grid is welcome, the transition still isn't occurring quickly enough.
"Overall, the rate of new entry into the market is not in line with what the market needs to transition," it said.
"In Victoria, for example, no new capacity has entered the market since April."
However, there was still no mention of the need to store electricity! As I keep mentioning, without a realistic storage system we are not solving the problem. In fact, more renewables at the moment would be close to useless.Solar farms are likely to be shut down for most of the day and they don't work at night. I would not be proposing any new solar farms for the moment and if they are doing their homework I don't think there will be too many coming online.
The trend at the moment, with mild Spring weather, is for the wholesale price to go negative by 0800hrs and remain there until about 1600hrs. This means that the most opportune time for a solar farm to generate is removed. There is the occasional spike:
Attachment 531557
I wasn't at work to witness the spike on Monday, but they typically last for 5 minutes. It still makes a big difference. However, generally I would fully expect that the solar farms are losing money right now and I am not surprised to hear no new solar farms have come online since April in Victoria as pointed out in the linked article. If they had, I would be questioning their diligence.
Of course, the issue is that the low prices are not flowing on to the retail sector. It is a little like the banks being fast to pass on rate rises, but slow to pass on the decreases. The retailers will say that contracts are in place I suppose. The retailers screamed when prices did not go their way. What are they saying right now? Perhaps they are down the pub celebrating.
Regards
Paul
And in the mean time my Amber Wholesale prices continue to be about 18% lower than Origin Mate's, and 36% lower than Origin Idiot's rates. (total costs shown)
Attachment 531564
Ah, the illusion of precision!Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
In a former life as an economist I had many pointless discussions with econometricians, aka "quants", who would make broad brush assumptions and then calculate the results to three decimal places - or six if Doug calculated to five places! Usually, their precision was dependent on their having next quarters economic indicators - as likely as having next week's horse race results.
In your previous career, Doug, presumably you were counselled to never expect your work to be more precise than it was. "Know thy weaknesses ... before the enemy does"
No, but I learned not to expect anyone to believe it was as good as it invariably was. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
If the Snowy 2.0 rows your boat, the Four Corners programme this coming Monday (and probably on Iview subsequently) may be of interest.
Tunnel Vision: The nation-building project that went horribly wrong - ABC News
A cost blowout of 600%, a stuck tunnel boring machine 150m into a 15Km tunnel and a projected completion date not before 2028 are some of the issues likely to be dissected.
Regards
Paul
My impression at the time was.... yet another hastily cobbled together election headline grabber. I liked the direction but questioned the merits of spending the original estimated cost on that project rather on other well thought through and planned infrastructure, like the national grid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Without looking at the programme, my thinking now is that it is far too early to say if the updated estimated $12bn will be a good investment. Some projects need the benefit of very long time horizons before they can be properly assessed. Two come to mind.
The Sydney Opera House opened 50yrs ago this week. The cost, value and time to build it was widely derided during my youth in NSW. In retrospect it has turned out to be not only NSW's, but also Australia's, best investments, IMO.
The other contentious 'investment' that comes to mind also goes back exactly 50yrs this year when Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles was purchased for $1.3m with taxpayers' money. I was in the art world at the time and got some of the brunt of the outrage against the spending of public money on something that a 'monkey could do'. I though at the time we were very fortunate to be able to acquire it, let alone afford it. Its art value may still be contentious for some, but in monetary terms that $1.3m ($11.3m in today's A$) is now valued at $500. In retrospect a good investment.
So, whether Snowy 2.0 itself will be a good investment is probably too soon to tell, but whether the money would have been better spent at this key time in the transition away from FFs is another matter.
NeilQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
The concept of pumped hydro power is, to my mind, one of the best stored energy sources, although economics and the effect on the ecology need to be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, not all the dams and generators in Snowy 2.0 have pumped capability and I feel it is less able to provide stored energy than we have been led to believe.
However, I will be interested to see the programme as it seems to me that the desire to provide this facility may have clouded judgement or, if I was being more cynical, it was the result of a political grab. Having said that, it is a shame as it seems to be the only instance where the government of the day has made an attempt to intervene and actively support electricity storage. For the moment, it appears to be as ill-fated as the Inland Rail project. Hopefully, something can be extracted from the debacle.
Regards
Paul
A little information of where renewables are going and their penetration of the market. A few records were broken, but as usual it is a little sketchy. It focuses on how good the renewables are during the day, but not very much mention of how they are going to cope at night and during the evening peak. Ironically, the controversial issue of daylight saving does help a little as far as electricity demand is concerned as it spreads out the evening high demand period.
Fresh records for renewables but fears linger for bills (msn.com)
It is certainly a good time for those with retailer alternatives to hunt around for better deals. Having said that, The air conditioners will be taking a hammering with temperatures in my area around 35° today and tomorrow and 36° forecast for Wed.
Also a reminder to take a peek at Four Corners this evening (Tunnel Vision on ABC @ 2030hrs) to see whether the Snowy project is still stuck in the tunnel and/or "synched" without trace :rolleyes:.
Regards
Paul
Been waiting for your response to the Four Corners program, Paul. I thought it was a little disjointed - possibly the old "commercial-in-confidence" wall or silence and/or the journalist's work had been edited by the ABC lawyers.
Some things not mentioned or glossed over.
COSTS: Mentioned that the original estimate of $2 billion had grown to $12 billion. No mention of viability at either cost. But in over 2019 contracts of $5.7 billion were issued - over four years ago! Not new news?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._&opi=89978449
Lead contractors were a joint venture between Clough Engineering of Perth and Santini Impregilo of Italy. Clough went broke a year ago and Santini, who had changed their name to "Webuild Spa", bought the wreckage. There must have been legal and personnel disruptions in the fall out.
Contractor names: I do not recall mention of the contractor's names, merely "the best tunnelers in the world". Not sure if they were being satirical or if it was on legal advice.
Tunneling machines: Early it mentions three tunneling machines, but the focusses soley on Florence which has been perpetually bogged. Presumably the other two machines are busy boring away at 1-2 metres per hour?
Geoligical risks: Four Corners said the contractors were doing insufficient pre-drilling and ignoring risks; management says they were managing those risks .... Who is right?
This gung ho approach is the subject of a classic business school skit referenced as the John Wayne school of management, as in this military example:
We have a problem, Sir.
CHARGE!
Which way, Sir?
You heard the order, CHARGE.
Will be interesting to watch the political and business reaction.
Graeme
I was waiting for everybody else to chime in as I didn't wish to lead the viewers! :)
I thought the programme was a little light on and really, as you say, only focused on the "Florence" flop, which does not appear to have been resolved even now. I too thought there were two other tunnels being drilled simultaneously.
I was a little disappointed that the succession of dams was not discussed as that I feel is more pertinent to the success or failure of the project. That is unless you factor in the cost, which for the moment looks as though it would be a non starter if the project had not already started. I felt Mr. Turnbull ducked and weaved with aplomb. Mr. Morrison likewise looked as though he might have had the politician's handbook of photo ops in his back pocket. I had to go and get a fairly stiff drink at that point so I could continue watching. So I hope I didn't miss too much.
The new CEO cannot really be blamed for the failures so far, other than he must have known what he was getting in to. I felt he conceded enough past failures to be plausible, but not enough to instill confidence. Unless something really changes regarding performance of contractors and catch up on progress, it looks to be the proverbial goat propagation.
That's a shame as it is the only government effort towards renewables. One other thing I found surprising was the various statements that batteries are now so good we should not really be countenancing hydro storage. True to say Hydro is good when the topography lends itself easily to the project, but not when mountains have to be moved. Batteries on the other hand would be good, if they put enough in place. That has not be done so far: Not even close.
Lastly, comments about long term storage seemed a little out of place as really it is the short term storage that is more urgent for the moment from day to night: Every day.
Regards
Paul
When presented with a stuff up as huge as the tunnel boring machine debacle, a lot of the low level stuff ups (some of which I witnessed first hand) pale into insignificance...
Many years ago I quoted them for a fibre optic temperature measurement system (Distributed Temperature Sensing, or DTS) to be installed on the HV cables, but at the rate they are going I'll be retired long before they ever get to that phase of the project :(
I held off, too, Paul, as I didn't want to lead the debate ... We are basically singing from the same song book.
Agree about batteries. No where near commercially cost effective.
Also was puzzled about reference to long term storage. Pumped hydro only needs to tide you over until the next sunny or windy day. Guess it was just loose journalism.
Costs: $2 or 12 billion - wonder if any credibility in either number? If Snowy 2 is commercially viable at $12 billion capital cost, then it must have been hyper-profitable at $2 b. Why weren't there a queue of commercial developers?
But is commercial viability even relevant now? Roads are not commercially viable! But essential. Would love to see the calculations being done in Treasury about the possible economic costs of the instability in the electricity network, and modelling possible scenarios from the participants:
- coal burning generator may decide that they will only accept a take or pay contract for entire capacity, or decomission their plant - no spot sales,
- solar or wind generator may decide it is more profitable to mine cryptocurrency than to sell into the grid.
My threepence worth...
I watched the program and I now know more about Florence.
As suspected, it confirmed for me that there was insufficient project feasibility and planning before approval to proceed.
The potential risks were known but not given sufficient weight. The incentives to proceed were as much political as economic. I put that down to the ownership and political incentives to have a large flagship renewable project underway.
Snowy Hydro has always been a government venture. First by the Comm Gov, then owned by NSW & Vic, and now fully owned again by the Comm government. It may have been, is, or will be profitable in the future, but it has never been a commercial venture. Like Australia Post, the execs in Snowy Hydro may think they are running a fully commercial venture, but they make decisions with a large government safety net suspended below them. Snowy 2.0 wasn't a fully commercial decision.
Other than the grid expert expressing his views about batteries being a better option, alternative storage solutions to Snowy 2.0 were understandably beyond the scope of the 1hr programme.
Large infrastructure project very rarely come in on budget and on time. So, nothing new there. The optimists usually prevail over the pessimists in the planning stage.
As governments are either the primary or joint partnership investors in most large infrastructure projects the need for an early return, other than political, is not the same as it is in the commercial world. Whether there will ever be a Return on Investment (ROI) for the Australian taxpayers with Snowy 2.0 may not be known in my lifetime, but it would be good if it could at least start to contribute to digging us out of our energy storage hole some time soon, although digging Florence out of her current hole doesn't give one a lot of hope there.
Mr. B, Graeme and Neil, you have all made very pertinent points.
There is indeed a time when necessity outweighs (I can't bring myself to use the word "trumps" :rolleyes:) economic viability and only a government can step in with this in a competitive market.
This is an interesting article from back in 2019 and interestingly some of their forecasts at the time have come to bear and were even conservative predictions of gloom.
Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button | RenewEconomy
Towards the end of the article, it investigates the claims of what the system would supposedly deliver. It may well be less than half of the 2000MW originally touted. The claim is based on idealistic dam levels that are not possible in practice and ignores the draw from other stations in the original Snowy system. It was once again a gross lie for political purposes.
Regards
Paul
Just on a slightly different tack I was called into work yesterday and an interesting situation had developed because of the local bushfires. The transmission line out of a substation for one of our two units was under threat from the fires and if it came out of service one of our units would have tripped as there would have been nowhere for the power to go. Fortunately, for both us and the system in general, the wind changed or died down and the fire became more controllable. AEMO removed their alert notice and life continued as normal (mild chaos and occasional panic).
One of the fires itself is only about 15 to 20kms out from Millmerran. On Sunday the choppers came in and sucked the water out of the local swimming pool. No small children were lost in this process as everybody was told to go home and the pool was closed to the public. I am told they didn't go home and they watched this fascinating procedure from outside the railings. I would have watched too if I had known what was going on. I did see all the choppers going over not realising where they got the water from.
Farm dams are often used for this purpose, but it has been extremely dry this way of late and dam levels are probably low. The original pool was rebuilt recently and has been open less than a month.
Regards
Paul
I'm quite certain that the overall view was "optimistic" for political reasons. But the difficulty with that is that these things don't go away and tend to come back to haunt people. Politicians know this, so whilst they may be "optimistic", they don't normally go too overboard if they don't genuinely believe the project will work - they have at least some grasp of the future ramifications of having their name on an utter failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
For most of my adult life I would have made the above statement, based simply on common sense and logic (yes, I realise neither hold much sway in politics!). However..... after I retired and we moved to the Canberra area, my wife got herself a job in the public service. She's not involved in the energy sector, but her job does involve planning, dealing with contract companies, designing and reviewing policies and the like. And it's frightening. Having been quite a high ranking executive 20 years ago, and then running her own business for 20 years, she's finding it hard going, because "they" are completely detached from reality. Obviously I can't go into details, but decisions are made based on nothing, and statistics are regarded as gospel for decision-making purposes, yet when questioned they are seemingly baseless - nobody knows where the number came from - it's like Barney Stinson - the answer is 83%!!
So now, whilst my statement would remain the same, the reasoning has changed. I now believe that the public service is largely incompetent, and the information it deals with is either incorrect, meaningless, or a distillation of the two designed to provide the person above with what they want to hear. I now feel (a bit) sorry for politicians, because if they ask for information and are supplied with what somebody thinks they want to hear, how can they possibly get things right?
Edit: I also believe (know, from experience) that when outside contractors are used, the contract details are often far below what is realistic because once a company has got the contract it can delay, increase prices etc. to its hearts content. Contract companies almost never get penalised, pressured or suffer any other "punishment" for doing this! Combined with the inability of the public service to come up with accurate real-world information and estimates, it's a massive problem.
I'd also note that it seems to me that public servants don't seem to care much about outcomes or spends. I suspect this is because at the end of the day there is NEVER a downside for them. In the private sector, when the company loses money questions are asked and somebody suffers (whether reputation or financial). In the public sector they just go on to the next project....
Years ago this dicotomy was identified as Canberra and "the real world".Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
The "real world" starts at Queanbeyan.
Nothing is as terrifying as a second generation Canberran.
(My contribution) ... now we have third generation Canberrans.
WarbQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
In our industry we call those subsequent changes in price "variances" and I think frequently that is where contractors make their money. They bid low to gain the contract and charge high when alterations are made to the original specs.
As far as accountability is concerned, it is just not at the same level as within the private sector.
Regards
Paul
I've worked on some power cable projects where a fairly incompetent contractor submitted a low-ball, tender-winning price (largely because they didn't really understand the scope of work and price it accordingly), then proceeded to submit variations like you wouldn't believe to try and make up the difference. Did the customer (power utility) ever sit down at the end of the project and add up the total they ended up paying? No, that would have involved large helpings of egg on face for all concerned.....:rolleyes:
I haven't seen 4 Corners yet (been away). It seems to me that Turnbull 2.0 wasn't much cop at his nation-building projects. The NBN and SH 2.0 are both way over budget, late, and probably far less effective than they could have been. For the former (NBN) I don't know if he was put under control by his superiors, but it's hard to see that he was not controlled. He was certainly compromised, particularly as PM.
For the latter, I think his heart was in the right place, but it seems to have been highly politically motivated to try and nostalgically reinvigorate the nation-building exercise of the 1950s. However, those times were completely different and all the planets lined up beautifully. The war was over, we needed skilled people and increased population (to eat all that wheat and wear all that wool), and we needed electrical power to crush said wheat and mill the wool.
And yet Turnbull was probably the smartest PM we've had since Rudd The not-so-fat Controller right up to Albo. That should be pause for thought regarding the Aukus project, and how that could go awry.
I had dinner on Monday with someone who works for Defence in a planning role of some kind. A fairly aware person, but she is hell-bent on nuclear power being the right fit for Australia. "What about the waste problem?" I asked her. "It's a big country." was her solution. I didn't bring up what First Nations people might think of that, confident in the knowledge that it would be dismissed. She glossed over the shortest start-up time-frame of 10 years, and the staggering cost. Apparently Voldemort's Koolaid is pretty sweet nectar, and she's chugging it down.
This, by the way, was just one or two streets away from Morrison, in Lilli Pilli, and the conversation was on the balcony while we drank in the expansive water views.
I thought Malcolm came across on the 4 Corners prog as very sheepish and defensive - if in doubt, deflect, deflect, deflect.
Felt sorry for the current project manager guy from Snowy Hydro who has basically inherited most of the mess from his predecessors, but at least was prepared to face the cameras and respond as best he could.
I was recently made aware that there are two pumped hydro storage facilities under consideration in QLD. I'm not quite sure why I was unaware of these projects so shame on me for that.
Firstly at Borumba in the Sunshine Coast hinterland:
Borumba Pumped Hydro Project | Queensland Hydro (qldhydro.com.au)
and secondly at Pioneer Burdekin 75 Km west of Mackay.
Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project | Queensland Hydro (qldhydro.com.au)
The second project is at a very early stage.
Regards
Paul
I thought this one was laughable. To my mind it is only a group of politicians who are pushing for nuclear power and it seems that in itself is just a diversion to take the heat off the fossil fuel industry while at the same time supposedly offering an alternative to solar and wind: It is a delaying tactic.
Poll shows public support for ‘green energy fantasy’ declines as push for nuclear rises (msn.com)
Recently there has been huge opposition, by the local public in Newcastle, to the proposal for offshore wind farms. If there is objection to wind turbines 20Km out to sea, I am wondering how receptive they will be to a nuke in their backyard.
Wake up!
Regards
Paul
Can't get it to play, but now that I see who the "reporter" (distorter?) is...I think I'll take your word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Assuming for a moment that the survey is genuine and random, not the result of asking people with shares in "Reactors R Us"..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
It's par for the course that people support things "in principle", but don't want to be directly impacted. The more directly people are (or suspect they might be) impacted by things, the less likely they are to support them. Wind farms have great support amongst people who stand zero chance of having one built in their backyard, far less support from those who will have to watch them go around every day. Except, of course, from those who own rural land and will gain income from the leases but don't actually see them, I know this from experience. At my previous property I saw the range of reactions to a proposed windfarm, from massively positive from people who would have turbines on their land but not where they were in view of the homestead (or where the landowners lived somewhere else), through to pulling out of a farm purchase by a supposed climate believer who had previously extolled the virtues of all things green/renewable... but not in their backyard! The guy who found out there was a 280m high turbine planned 500m from his house, right in the view from his living room window but just over the fence on his neighbours' land (so zero compensation for him) was apoplectic.
So why would someone in the Eastern suburbs of Syndey not support nuclear? They assume the plant will be built out in the sticks, the same way wind and solar farms aren't built in Bondi.