Printable View
This is something I've bene looking forward to for a long time.
Trucks that drive themselves on the long hauls. Humans do the fiddly bits at the front and end of the trip... but who WANTS to drive 1300km from Sydney to Melbourne every day?
Gah!
Autonomous trucks hit the highways, with Australian tech helping drive the revolution - ABC News
This is so excellent. These things can bumble along at a slow safe predictable speed and do it at 3am.... bothering nobody.
China turns on world’s first giant hydropower turbines | South China Morning Post
First two are on. They are 1 Gw generators EACH.
Nice.
I saw the following come in as a news item and looked into the statement:
‘Dramatic turnaround’: Electricity prices skyrocket in perfect storm of problems
Electricity prices: 'Dramatic turnaround' as perfect storm jacks up prices (thenewdaily.com.au)
There were some things I took from the article. Firstly, prices did go up. The average for the June quarter was $95/MWh in QLD ( similar in NSW, but slightly lower). This was well up on the previous quarter, but it should also be recognised that quarter was much lower than had been the case. This was not mentioned in the article. $95/MWh relates to the wholesale price and is the same as 9.5c/KWhr. In the short term it will make no difference to retail prices as they are usually on a fixed contract. If those prices persisted however, it would impact long term retail prices.
Why did this increase occur? The main impact was because of the crisis at Callide, which took out four generators. Two generators returned to service relatively quickly. The third generator only returned this weekend (unit 3) and Unit 4 won't be back for twelve months. In addition, gas prices have seen significant increase and that too has influenced the price. It is a rather sobering demonstration of what would happen if only a small proportion of fossil-fired plants were withdrawn from service without adequate supply to replace the lost generation.
Regards
Paul
WPQuote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I should have commented on this before, but somehow it slipped my mind. That is truly a remarkable project. It is not the largest hydro installation, but the individual units are the largest. 1000MW for one turbine is bigger than the whole station at which I work!.
Without wishing to be negative, I should reiterate something I have stated many times and it is that every power source has a flaw today. Hydro is no exception. Once touted as being the perfect supplier of power, hydro has some issues. Firstly, it can run out of water. This happened in Tasmania in the recent past, although partially caused by a combination of greed, bad management and circumstances. Secondly, it is not possible to dam a river and not have some impact on the ecology downstream. Thirdly, there is the issue ofwhat happens in the space now occupied by the storage dam? In the case of Chinese dams historically, very large numbers of people have been displaced. There is a humanitarian issue in such countries.
As an engineering feat it is magnificent.
Regards
Paul
Every tech has some compromise.
One cannot have nukes without the odd Chernobyl/Fukushima... nor coal without catastrophic global warming.
This one today was interesting: How to win big for the climate: rein in the ‘super polluters’ : Research Highlights essentially "Just 5% of the world’s power plants account for almost three-quarters of carbon emissions from electricity generation."
This article on an iron-oxide storage battery was intriguing. Iron air battery promises storage at fraction of cost | RenewEconomy
The things, while big and heavy can store colossal charges, are super cheap and seem to last 100 years. Another interesting development in an area undergoing violent change.
A couple of fat batteries in the basement of every building, or each suburb has an underground array of them (just like Roman cisterns for water were).
Interesting!
Just in case any think I am barracking for the fossil fuel industry, have a read of this by Alan Kohler:
Climate change: What we can learn from our reaction to AstraZeneca (thenewdaily.com.au)
My objective with this thread has been to present the harsh realities of electricity production, without agenda and at the same time desperately trying for a reasoned approach to both alternatives and the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Regards
Paul
I just love all the tech :)
I watch and read a few things from within China. There isnt a lot of news that isnt... directed.... but there is one YT chanel that is still fairly decent (until YouTube shuts it down, for reasons).
These two videos are particularly alarming if you join the dots....
66 Reservoirs Discharging; Cities Severe Flooding | Many Dams Burst - YouTube
Worst flood in Zhengzhou history | People Trapped in Subway |Dam In Crisis | Apocalypse in China - YouTube
You THINK getting a bandsaw is hard NOW, wait until the Yangtse system floods WuHan, Shang Hai, Nanjing and WuXi. We can kiss our collective patooties good bye!
There will be no new toys for anyone for years.
I personally think its too late. Ocean acidification by CO2 has already kicked over the limit, the lower level krill and phyto/zooplankton shells are already thin and weak. A small push and they are gone. If that happens, well, its adios for us all.
I thought this was interesting:
Watching Catalyst Series 22 The Grid: Powering the Future in iview
Catalyst : ABC iview
i watched most of that the night it was on. As someone in the industry it didn't really say anything new that most people don't already know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete57
It also glanced over the costs of things
it talked about things like generating power in QLD for use in TAS but never addressed the constraints and costs of actually getting the power there.
All the battery figures where highly talked up and only briefly mentioned things like the tesla battery only lasting 2 hours.
the tassie island said they where 100% renewable, then later said its normally only about 50% renewable, never mentioned the total cost of the project, who's paying for it and the fact the diesel gen must still get run if its only 50%
bit of a fluff piece over all in my opinion.
Within reason you are right, but most of those kinds programs have to gloss over many things, otherwise the general public don't even think of looking at them. I watched this with my other half, both of us agreed there were quite a few things in the program that we didn't know about, and we consider ourselves reasonably with it, with regard to the electricity system in Australia. I just wish they would either cut the music out completely, or at the very least, reduce the volume of the background music so one can hear the words being spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
Some of the things mentioned about the island situation were interesting, especially the fuel usage. It was mentioned that the diesel consumption was 1.1 million litres annually. Now if there was a 50% reduction of time the generators were on, then the assumption is 500,000 litres less fuel, at a minimum, would be used.
I have no idea of what the actual cost of fuel is on the island, but it wouldn't be that cheap. Even assuming diesel was priced at $1.00 per litre without taxes, that is half a million dollars saved in one year. That half a million dollars per annum savings must surely be beneficial, and one assumes it would only get better with more solar and possibly wind generation being added bit by bit.
Wind farms are another technology that is powering ahead, pun intended. We did a tour of a wind generator in Germany, it was a decommissioned tower of about the fourth generation of wind turbine systems in Germany. To say it was massive would be an understatement, the one shown in the program is smaller and lighter, yet produces higher power as the technology has matured. Wind turbines seem to last around 25 years before they are pulled down and replaced, if you check out Engineering with Rosie on you tube, you will find one she has on this very subject and why it is done, which is something I never knew happened; Rosie is Australian and an engineer.
Mick.
World'''s biggest wind turbine shows the disproportionate power of scale
Quote:
The MySE 16.0-242 is a 16-megawatt, 242-meter-tall behemoth capable of powering 20,000 homes per unit over a 25-year service life.
The stats on these renewable-energy colossi are getting pretty crazy.
When MingYang's new turbine first spins up in prototype form next year, its three 118-m (387-ft) blades will sweep a 46,000-sq-m (495,140-sq-ft) area bigger than six soccer fields.
Every year, each one expected to generate 80 GWh of electricity.
but a coal fired station will do 7000Gwh for a poofteenth of the footprint?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Eraring power station did 15,000Gwh back in 2018. thats 187 of those wind turbines, no small feat putting up 187 of those huge things
Not exactly to do with the Oz electric market - but is tangentially.
This is a new electric motor... the YASA:
Its torque and Kw outputs are beyond belief.... 200kw and 790 NM..... crazy..... these are 30cm round and 8cm thick !!!!!!!!
Imagine this on the cars... or windmills.... or dams... or anything.
Attachment 500557 https://youtu.be/6m_iIbX0gmA
it would certainly be useful for mini-turbines on dams like I saw in South Amercia... (let me find the link).
edit- here! This produces 15Kw for a small community in Chile.
That looks absolutely amazing. It sounds like an enormous breakthrough.
ajw
Whats this called then?Quote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
Attachment 500579
an open-cut coal mine ??
or are they mining some other commodity?
would say coal. Any open cut mine for any mineral tends to look like a moonscape and a blot upon the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Our Plant Manager in the early days used to point out how much space a solar farm takes up (he doesn't peddle that line much nowadays): It is a lot. However he conveniently neglected to mention that our power station sits on 10,000 acres. This also incorporates our mine, which is owned by the station and only supplies the power station. In the mining phase the land looks much like the picture Bob posted, but not as large. We have to rehabilitate the land to it's original state once mining has been completed in that section. in accordance with our mining lease. Also much of the land continues to be farmed or grazed and in some instances by the original owners who have leased it back.
Regards
Paul
Paul has there been any discussion with the rehabilitation about the disturbance of the natural water table ? I raised this when doing a mine tour in the Hunter and was only given a blank look as a replyQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I would've thought a coal bearing ore would have no water table.
That stuff is crazy porous.
When we were down the coast (Depot Beach, NSW) my brother and I used to marvel at the way the oils would leach from the very cliffs and the seam of coal (about 10ft up the cliff face) would pour water out after a storm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Yeah, i know.
But most of the stuff we require for electricity comes from those type of mines both coal, iron, copper and yeah lithium for batteries like this one in W.A
https://blog.iseekplant.com.au/hubfs/WA-lithium.png
Its hard to say the a coal mine is bad, but lithium open cuts are ok. Its just all part of the process.
I cant remember if it was in this thread or not, but i Remeber seeing somewhere that there is an idea of turning open cut mines into pumped hydro storage.
And just filling a heap of the under ground mines with power station fly ash slurry, almost like back filling with concrete
I can't answer about the Hunter although I was involved in collecting surface water data for Liddell in the 1960s, but it was certainly a consideration when Loy Yang was being planned. One interesting outcome of the study was that extraction from groundwater would cause subsidence, and hence a change in the slope of Traralgon Ck., so that the flow that had previously had a 50 year average recurrence interval would have a 25 year ARI. (Sorry about using the old terminology - I believe % probability is now used, but sometimes the old terminology is more illustrative.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Interesting, I hadn’t considered that aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
I like the old terminology better as it better represents the facts, using % is a great way to misrepresent a situation and often used to bolster a position or viewpoint.
BeardyQuote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
As part of the lease agreement, a small creek has been re-directed. i saw it just before the water was diverted and it appears to have been done extremely well with three level to accomodate flood times and prevent any overflow into areas that would not normally have been inundated. The recreation included placing fallen trees to replicate they way this small creek was.
The mine itself is shallow with the coal bearing seams being thin mainly so underground water is not severely impacted.
Regards
Paul
[QUOTE=Bushmiller;2253450]Beardy
As part of the lease agreement, a small creek has been re-directed. i saw it just before the water was diverted and it appears to have been done extremely well with three level to accomodate flood times and prevent any overflow into areas that would not normally have been inundated. The recreation included placing fallen trees to replicate they way this small creek was.
The mine itself is shallow with the coal bearing seams being thin mainly so underground water is not severely impacted.
As to the Upper Hunter between Singleton and Muswellbrook I am afraid we have a basket case. This is the classic case of greed over environment. When i drive down that section of the New England Highway I glance out the car window and see an abomination of the first order.
If you go behind the highway, it gets worse!
:((
Regards
Paul
A slight but brief thread drift, if you may. Knowing the interest and involvement of some here in the coal industry, the following may be of interest.
Sunday 19th September 2021 will be the centenary of the explosion at the Mt Mulligan coal mine in Nth Qld. 75 men died in what is Queensland's greatest mine disaster. A commemoration will be held at Mt Mulligan but I think it's booked out. I believe there are activities planned in Mareeba. More information is available if you search on Facebook for Mulligan Centenary.
OK, back to normal service.
Mt Mulligan Mine 1921- Mining Accident Database
Battery storage solutions are getting VERY exciting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
Wonder how much they are?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I am a little sceptical of reports that do not nail down details, even if they are only theoretical. There was no mention of cost or what sizes are proposed. That is rather important!
Regards
Paul
As the subject of storage batteries has raised it's head again, I went looking for the Ambri battery that Chris Parks mentioned in post #31 (or thereabouts). It seemed the most likely to gain traction, but I cannot find too much on further development. At the time, a work colleague was quite taken by the product and went looking to see how he could invest, but it did not appear to be publicly listed.
Perhaps somebody has more information on development.
Regards
Paul
100% agreed.
Even on their site, absolute ZERO on capacities, draws, watts, Kwh, etc.....
Its 100% marketing spin and press releases.
Using google and its image search, it has found a single solitary squeak of peak: Gelion’s Endure™ Battery | Gelion - Inspired Energy where the image has 1.5v 75Ah and 20A printed in small text on the side of a sample. The box looks to be about 200x200x100.
This is looking ominous for some parts of the power generation industry; this was posted yesterday.
Solar powers more than half of Australia’s grid for first time, coal at record low
Solar powers more than half of Australia's grid for first time, coal at record low | RenewEconomy
Mick.
electrification is going mainstream... one of my old rants is now being promoted to the peasants!
Converting classic cars to electric vehicles is booming in popularity - ABC News
Even more ominous when put into the context of ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimark
"The new benchmark might have been higher were it not for the number of solar farms that were obliged by their contracts to turn themselves off as prices went below zero."
Mick's link is interesting not for just being a landmark in renewable generation.
It highlights the difficulties during the transition from one type of energy production to another: For all the players! We know that during the day the coal fired stations are having to reduce their outputs to absolute minimums as the prices go negative (up to -$1000!), but at times the solar generators, and wind generators too, are having to restrict their outputs as well. And don't they whinge! Welcome to the real world. Down the track, surplus generation will go into storage facilities, but we are not close to that point yet.
SA has been 100% renewable several times, but the 50%+ mark nationally was only achieved because of eastern seaboard conditions ( sunny and windy) and low demand. Spring and autumn are traditionally low demand periods. There is still a long way to go before we become too complacent.
It is worth remembering that no power is "free." It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power ( electricity in the main) that we debate so hotly. Electricity generated from the sun is not free. The solar farms had an initial cost building arrays, installing them and subsequently maintaining them. The solar farms want a return on investment too. When the wholesale price goes negative it affects everybody active on the spot market.
Regards
Paul
Paul, broadly I agree with you, with one major difference. The fuel used to generate electricity from PV solar, is totally free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
With our own PV array on the various rooftops of our house, we obviously had an initial outlay for installation; the same initial cost factor also applies for our batteries being purchased and installed. This is the same as what you quote above, "It is the cost of converting the resource into useable power."
However for the fuel used to generate electrical power in our system, we have yet to receive an invoice, solar farms are in the same boat.
Amortisation of purchase and installation costs, plus regular maintenance is looking pretty good so far; but the cost of the fuel resource is still free.
8 years ago we installed our first solar PV array, we were quite surprised that our initial projected payback period of 5½-6 years actually happened at approximately 3 years and 8 months. Changes to tariffs and the manner in which we used our own generated power in ways we hadn't quite envisaged, hastened the payback period.
Similarly, our purchase of our house batteries had a projected payback period of around 9 years. We have been surprised at how the batteries have enabled us to further change our way of using our own power, to such an extent that our projected payback period on them could be between 6 years and 6½ years. If power costs rise, that payback period will move forward with some of the what if scenarios in a spreadsheet telling us it may in fact be closer to 5¾ years or slightly better. Our house batteries will be 2 years old in a couple of weeks.
If one looks at the South Australian big battery, the way it has changed the electricity market is, in some instances, quite different to what was anticipated. At least publicly anticipated, that is.
The Victorian big battery, if it goes along the same route as the South Australian big battery, I'm sure will further change the electricity landscape in ways not originally anticipated. Energy storage is the one missing factor with large scale and small scale renewable power projects; you can only generate energy when the free fuel resource is there.
Mick.
While the fuel for solar panels may be free, the panels have a finite life. Old panels are becoming a source of pollution which will increase as more panels reach the end of their life. Also there is the manufacturing process.
While I can see the vast benefits of solar I can also see the downside.
Solar Panel Waste: The Dark Side of Clean Energy | Discover Magazine
While I think this question is slightly off topic, it's relevant. Maybe one of the cognoscenti can satisfy my curiosity.
Sydney Trains have just announced that their network is going 100% renewable by virtue of a deal signed with Red Energy (Snowy Hydro). Is anyone measuring the amount of electricity sold by Red Energy against the gigawatts generated by them? Or is it yet another political con job?
mick
Panels, like all equipment, eventually stops working or get to a point that it needs replacing or refurbishment. I have seen quite a few stories about solar panels requiring early replacement and that things are not quite what they seem to be. I'm not completely sure whether many of these stories/articles are planted or come from legitimate solar industry specific sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
From personal experience my first ever solar panel was made in 1991, it is now 30 years old and still working pretty much as it was when I first purchased it. It is small 10W, but 10W back then was a reasonable size for the job it was given.
I personally know of a PV array installation that was done in 1982 in Gippsland, inland from Bairnsdale to be specific. This installation powered the entire house up until the property was sold in October 2019, which is 37 years straight. Their house batteries, huge ex-Telstra units, had one rebuild and were still running along smoothly. I understand the house is still running on that system, but I cannot be 100% sure. But if it is, that is 39 years straight, pretty impressive.
Meanwhile the Germans have been conducting some pretty impressive research into how long and how well solar panels are running in an array. This link makes for interesting reading as these panels are approaching 45 years. At the 35 year mark individual panels were removed and subject to rigorous examination, the losses of performance for these panels, is to put it mildly, minimal.
The oldest photovoltaic array in the world still in operation
In the not too distant future, possibly within 10 years maybe, we could start seeing solar panels with much greater output. Basically solar panels convert one small part of the spectrum they are sensitive to into electrical energy. By having another layer of material that is sensitive to another part of the spectrum, the energy output can be magnified to possibly double their current output.
Something like this technology could spur greater take-up of PV panel generation at the industrial level and at the same time may initiate a trend to replace existing panels to gain more generation from the same footprint.
This is the kind of technology behind the unbelievable output of solar panels used in outer space, at the moment it is quite expensive to manufacture, but so were the original PV solar panels offered to the public 40+ years ago.
Mick.