Printable View
In Katoomba:
For 2023 to be no more than the equal hottest year on record since 1907 (which was 1957 with a monthly mean of 18.9°), the remaining 16 days have to average no more than 17.5° (which is 0.2° less than the coolest ever Dec mean).
It's already ~28° today. :D
If the current daily mean persists (28.8°) then this year will be 0.5° hotter than 1957, which is a pretty substantial increase on the mean monthly temp. (some would say "SMASHED!" :D)
given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Insidious indeed! very much so.
Hydro has always had a superb response time for frequency control, which really is the grid way of expressing supply and demand. However, the big "potential" of hydro is as a storage facility, but that requires two dams instead of one and consequential extra investment and expense. As you say we don't enjoy the Norwegian topography so our ability (despite that document that "identified" thousands of sites) to utilise this technology is quite limited particularly if you factor in our incompetence in building these projects (Snowy 2.0).
While it is true to say the coal fired plants ramp rates are on the slow side I would not completely agree with
"They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market."
All generators are constrained by AEMO's rules, but there is some wiggle room there. I concede that at some point the "price taking" will become an unacceptable reality.
I am afraid that at some point a generator will shut down and there will be a hole, unless your last sentence finally comes to roost and the Government of the day does come to the party. I have to say that neither party has shown much inclination in this regard so far and is just another reason why the nukes are not going to get off the ground any time soon. Most nuclear stations around the world apparently have some form of subsidy/assistence from the government.
Regards
Paul
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
I think comparison between early 20th century stats and today are likely to be inaccurate, but it is difficult to say in which direction they were inaccurate. I think we should agree between us that the figures have some reservations, but do point towards a warming trend. This is borne out by the ice caps melting and the seal level rising. Both these events are happening.
When I was at school the record for the 100 yards was 10.0 secs. It was set back in about 1900 (I don't recall the exact year and no, I wasn't there :wink:). The closest I ever saw anybody get (during the 1960s) was 10.2secs. It was generally accepted that the "record" time was made with a pocket watch and not a stop watch, which conveniently explained why that with people getting bigger and stronger that record was still unbeatable.
It could be a similar issue with early weather records.
Regards
Paul
Tongue firmly in cheek.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Another way of saying that, is that on a planet that is 4.5billion years old, we've taken measurements for 40 years and decided to panic......
It's not that I don't think we have a problem (actually any number of problems!), it's simply that sometimes we appear very keen to make definitive statements based on minimal (in the context of the planet) data. Sometimes I think we would be better to stop quoting such numbers and simply spend our efforts trying to make the required changes. Anyone who doesn't think we have an issue isn't going to be swayed by another dubious claim, so why bother?
How many gigawatt-hours of fossil fuel generated power were spent figuring out that it's warmer now than it was first thing this morning? If all the scientists involved in working out how much the temperature has risen over the last 15 minutes were told to put down their thermometers and go and plant trees, don't you think we'd all be better off?
The difficulty is that the people who authorise or implement the required changes are governments and their subsidiaries, and they pretty much demand definitive statements, so I think it's a case of working within the confines of the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
my point was that until we had "advanced" to the stage where we could reliably measure the temperature at multiple points across the entire planet -- which required the appropriate satellite mounted sensors -- any temperature comparison was essentially worthless.
Prior to that sea surface temperatures -- "sea surface temperature" requiring that the water having a thermometer stuck into it be collected from 2 or 3 fathoms (12 to 18 feet) below the surface -- were reported, at best, on an ad hoc basis. While there were lots of sea surface measurements from the North Atlantic, other sea routes were less frequently sampled, and whole swathes of the ocean were only sampled as part of scientific exhibitions.
Warb
as recently(!) 540 million years ago (which is less than 12% of the earth's age) the earth is thought to have gone though its most recent "snow ball" phase, where almost all of the planet froze.
so there is geological evidence that the earth was once very much colder than at present.
As far as I know, the only reputable scientists who think that the earth will "survive" its current heating phase are geologists.
But given the time scales geologists work with, and their general view that modern civilisation is less than the blink of an eye on the geological time scale, their definition of "survivable" is somewhat foreign to those of us who are living with the daily reminders of temperature.
We are increasingly singing from the same song sheet, Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
One of the things that I am becoming increasingly aware of is that all the currently available alternative sources - hydro, pumped hydro and even nuclear - all have lead times of at least ten years. With the increasing escalation of solar and wind power, I am not sure we have ten years before grid instability reaches an implosion point.
Also I am starting to have doubts about the real viability of pumped hydro. This is not just a reaction to the Snowy 2 cost hikes. I would love to see the feasibility studies!
* It takes a lot of energy to pump water up hill, a hell of a lot if that hill is a mountain,
* Is there a better use for that energy elsewhere?
* Why not just build a second hydro scheme - if you have the topography and rainfall.
EDIT: I have edited the embolded sentence. Bill Gate's auto-correct feature changed the phrase "grid instability" to read "grid installation" which is nonsensical.
I think that grid instability is developing into the major issue.
Warb, you exagerate by a mere 4,499,994,000 years. Enough of that scientific nonsense; the Earth is only 6,000 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I have absolutely no doubt that the earth will survive. Whether humans (or our current civilization) survive is an entirely different matter, and one in which I suspect climate is only a small part.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Which brings me back to thinking that Gas generated sparks may well be our best interim solution. Surely quicker and cheaper to build and decomm, and takes all the -ve prices out of the wholesale market.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Do/did they exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Only if we assume the required changes don't involve "us" making changes directly. The generation, storage and transmission of power are controlled by the government and large corporations, but the usage of power is largely controlled by "us". How much less power would we use, and therefore how much less generation and storage would we require, if we put a bit of thought and the tiniest amount of effort into using less?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Previously I said I would look for all the data on Katoomba and then break it into 10 year periods. A few caveats on those records:
- The BOM records start in 1907, but there are two enormous gaps. There are no records from 1942 to 1956 (15 years!), and none from May 1967 to June 1973.
- For the sake of completeness I have substituted the monthly mean temps into one 6 month period, and one other month, which were all blank.
- Looking at 10 year periods where possible allows some chance of evening out an El Niño or La Niña effect, e.g. 1978 was 15.4° but only 2 years later 1980 was 17.7°.
All of the following only refers to Katoomba.
:2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
1984–93 was 16.1°
2014–23 was 18.1°
As I posted before, 2023 will be hotter than the previous hottest year (1957 at 18.9°). Probably it will be in the range 19.1 to 19.3°Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
I charted the Mean° for the decades (as described in the charts), and then split that into the 6 warmer months and the 6 cooler months to see what differences it might show: nil difference whatsoever in recent decades (from 1984). That is, there is 2.0° difference between 1984-90 and 2014-23 for the overall temps, the warmer months, and the cooler months.
Attachment 533497
If we accept that more accurate records started to be kept from about 1980, the trend is quite alarming at 2.0° in just 40 years.
Notes:
- I had to slightly fudge the charts to ensure that the temp scales were all the same scale - some weird Excel thing going on.
- The first period 1907-1911 was, ahem, a "short" decade!
- The periods can be seen on the amber chart (for the warmer months).
- The last plot on the right is for 2023 only, and you can see a distinct up-tick due to the crazy temps we had in July-Sept.
- It looks to me like the warmer month temperatures are probably higher than reality between 1912 and the 1970s. There is quite a hump and a prominent "V" which seems unlikely, given that I am using 10-year periods. The cooler months chart is a bit more realistic, I think.
Some other points to note:
- 6 of the monthly records for the hottest months on record have all occurred in the last 6 years. These were the months of Jan, Apr, May in 2018, and Jul, Aug, Sep in 2023
- 3 of the monthly records for the hottest months on record occurred in 1957 (Jun, Nov, Dec) and it was the previous hottest year at 18.9° until 2023 which will be 19.1° or more)
- The Feb and Mar records were set in 1939 and 1940 respectively.
- The Oct record was set in 2014.
True Warb, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for overall consumption to go down (even relative to population). On top of that, gas usage has to largely become sparks usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
That's odd. My mother says it's 14,000 years old, but then again, she says that lesbians were only invented some time after the early 1930s. :roll: I guess she doesn't know about 1920s Berlin.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Hi GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
to answer your implied questions ...
I've said before that Snowy 2.0, might be better described as Snowy 20 -- as in it's expected cost is 20 BILLION
Yes, it does take considerable energy to pump water uphill, but the energy cost is approximately the same for every 100 metres of head you achieve. Actually it might cost more in energy terms to pump water 100 metres up a small hill than to pump it to the same elevation gain up a mountain. The friction loss in the longer pipe or tunnel up the "hill" would likely be the major contributor to the additional cost.
Is there a better use of energy elsewhere? I'm thinking NO. In essence pumped hydro is just a long discharge battery. On those days when electricity generated from roof top solar leads to wind and solar farm electricity being "switched to idle", Snowy 20 will be able to use that reserve electricity to pump water uphill. Something within the chemistry of current battery technology limits the draw-down time to something like 4 hours regardless of the battery's total MWh capacity. Snowy 20 is designed to deliver power for several days.
However, there is another source of longish term battery storage and that is Australia's aluminium smelters. The molten aluminium pot lines within those smelters are very hot and if we could capture the IR radiation from them, they could become useful as GWh batteries. Capturing IR radiation has been done at laboratory scale with efficiencies around 2x that of regular solar panels. The beauty of this approach is that the high capacity feeder lines and transformers are largely in place.
I really like your optimism around building a second Snowy scale hydro scheme. The original Snowy Scheme essentially captured all the NSW snow melt and similar dams in Victoria's high country capture the bulk of the rest of the snow melt.
Tassie is pretty much built-out hydro wise -- I highly doubt that you would be able to get environmental approval to construct another dam, let alone concurrence from the Greens.
Which just leaves the rivers of Queensland's tropical north. Apart from the challenge of getting the electricity from FNQ to Sydney, there is the small challenge of obtaining environmental approval, not to mention First Nations and Greens by-in.
FF De-commissioning is almost never talked about. In fact I had never really considered the implications until BobL alerted me to this way back in the depths of this thread. You can't just demolish them and haul the steel off to the recyclers, because the so much material is contaminated. I don't pretend to know all the implications of de-commissioning a nuke, but it is no walk in the park. There are quite a few nukes past their use by dates, but I have no information as to how the owners are coping with that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Regards
Paul
As a small exercise and because almost everybody else seems to be climbing on the statistical bandwagon (Only joking - I very much appreciate all the time and research that people have made), I went back to see the incidence of negative pricing during the day on the wholesale market. This was just for QLD and it probably is the worst situation from that point of. The other states not too far behind.
Please note that this negative pricing only applies to the spot market and I estimate the spot market could be as little as 25% of the total. The spot market varies in size while the contracts are inflexible. That 25% might be the case during the day, but for the evening peak it could represent a much larger slice. Perhaps 35% or 40%.
I went back until 13 June. During that time the daytime prices were negative most days, although for varying periods of time. There were only 9 days when the price did not go negative at some point. 5 of those days the minimum price was $0.00. 2 days were $1.00, 1 day was $7.00 (still nowhere near a viable level for generators as it doesn't even pay for the fuel) and the only day where it may just have been a viable price point it reached $39.00. That would not have been economic for everybody.
I am mentioning this to illustrate the difficulties a fossil powered station encounters. Solar, Wind and Hydro simply shut down, but of course they still don't make any money. Actually, the situation is still not that simple, but I am not at liberty to divulge more information there and every station will be different.
If the power generators can't make enough money during the night to cover their losses through the day, they are history. That is the problem looming and the one the government of the day is not tackling. The previous government was disgraceful in that regard and the current government does not appear to have done much to head us in the right direction either. maybe they think it will fix itself. :rolleyes: :no:
Regards
Paul
I'll say watch this space -- my prediction is that when the lights start going out on consecutive hot days, governments (state and/or federal) will step in and prop the power generators up with non-recourse loans, designated as "commercial-in-confidence".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Given the quantum of cash the previous federal government gifted major corporations during Covid -- cash which ultimately ended up in the hands of their owners -- I have little doubt similar (up to full nationalisation) arrangements will apply. It's a classic case of privatise the profit, draw on the public purse for the losses.
As to the direction being taken by the current government, my understanding is that the current government has undertaken to underwrite -- a.k.a. take on the ultimate liability -- so that the private businesses proposing to purchase grid scale batteries can obtain bank loans at market rates. Which is a step in the "right" direction.
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Agree, gas may be the only feasible stop gap.
It is the same business model as for worked out mines, Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The company stops earning revenue, it stops paying its bills, a liquidator is appointed, he examines the lovely agreement about site regeneration but there is no money to do this so it becomes irrelevant. The liquidator recovers what he can and pays 2 cents in the dollar, takes a very generous fee and closes his books.
Muggins the taxpayer is left to either ignore or clean up the mess.
Well I suppose the question is: if not gas (as a stop-gap) then what else? Hydro, Coal, Nuke are all too slow to build (apart from myriad other problems) so is there actually anything else available?Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
How long to build a gas-fired PS? 4-5 years maybe?
How much cleaner are they than coal?
Is it feasible to build smaller gas plants and put them in a few locations (e.g. near the industries that will need them)
Is it indeed feasible for some of those larger industries to build their own, more or less on-site?
Some months ago I posted that there were (from memory) 5 coal-fired plants shutting down by 2028, representing a little under half the production capacity off ff-powered plants, and that's if everything goes to plan. I wouldn't think that renewables will be ready by then (storage wise).
The New York Times is reporting:
BREAKING NEWS (paraphrased by FF)
Volcano Erupts in Iceland Near Power Plant, in ‘Worst-Case Scenario’
Iceland’s weather service had warned that a volcanic eruption was likely after thousands of earthquakes were recorded this month.
A volcano in Iceland began erupting, with lava fountains reaching up to 330 feet and the glow visible from central Reykjavik.
The location of the fissure poses a risk to the nearby Svartsengi Power Plant and the town of Grindavík, which was evacuated in November following heightened seismic activity.
The Eyjafjallajokull (pronounced EYE-a-fyat-la-jo-kutl) volcano had been dormant for nearly two centuries before it sprang back to life more than 13 years ago.
It will be on other news platforms soon enough. The very first thing I wanted to know was (and which was not addressed): "What type of plant is it? Surely they are not stupid enough to have a nuke in Iceland?"
No, they are not, it's a Geothermal.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
A few questions there. There are typically two types of gas plant. The first and most simple is a "once-through" installation where the gas turbine drives a generator and the exhaust gas goes straight to atmosphere. it is relatively inefficient and has a carbon intensity of .8 ( I'll come back to the carbon intensity). They are basically a jet engine coupled to a generator and can be installed within a couple of years probably as they are off-the-shelf type products delivered on the back of a truck. They are relatively easy to site and are fairly compact. They are expensive to run particularly with the way Australian gas has gone. These are the installations that are commonly referred to as "peaking" plants.
The more advanced gas stations are the HRSG (Heat recovery Steam Generator) plants. These capture the exhaust gases and divert them through a low steam pressure conventional boiler. Consequently, the heat from the exhaust is utilised and a much more efficient process results. Their carbon intensity is around .6 (providing the low pressure boiler is being utilised). Their response time for the gas turbine aspect is similar to the "Once Through" types but the steam generator would be much slower.
Australia already has quite a few (a lot) of these plants, but the expense of running them limits how much they are used. The fuel is expensive so they tend to come online when prices are elevated.
The carbon intensity is a reasonable comparison of how polluting different types of power plant are and reflects the amount of CO2 they pump into the atmosphere for each MW they produce: In tonnes! The best coal fired stations have an intensity of .9, which includes the supercritical units, but the older stations would be >1.0 up to around 1.2. The old hazelwood, brown coal station, which has been shut down for some time was around the 1.6 mark! The carbon intensity is also an indicator how much they cost to run and at what price they are economic, but I emphasise it is not the only consideration. Debt levels and other commercial impositions would also play a large part.
At the rate we are going in the storage stakes, by 2028 there may well be some large gaps if authorities don't wake up. My solution for the moment, is to make Canberra the first region off the rank when it comes to load shedding.
Regards
Paul
Edit: In talking about construction time I ignored approval time. Double the figures for approval too.
But since we all know that the decision on load shedding priorities will not be made in Millmerran, it's pretty safe to say that, as usual, Canberra will look after Canberra.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Now, if only they could harness the energy in all that hot air that Canberra produces ... :rolleyes:
Given that ACT electricity is 100% green, i.e. solar, wind or hydro -- even if a big chunk is sourced from NSW's coal plants, the ACT has contracts in place that "prove" otherwise -- so turning the lights off first in Canberra won't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
Generally speaking, when demand outstrips supply, AEMO has a schedule for which areas are switched off first. As an example, it is different in NSW to Queensland. In QLD industry is prioritised and the general populace is sacrificed. In NSW it is the other way around with industry being the first to go. It is a completely different scenario if the supply deficit is due to a failure of the lines or power plants.
As for Canberra, I don't know what goes on there. Apparently not very much that is ultimately worthwhile or beneficial to the public in general. However, I am starting to step on the political boundaries there so no more of this.
Regards
Paul
Too logical to be implemented. Obviously derived by an engineer and not by a political operative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I really only adopted the philosophy surrounding going to war. If the Bureaucrats who made that decision had to lead the first charge, there would be no wars. Point out that when the electricity goes out they are first to go without (make that wherever they chose to reside and not just Canberra) and we will see how soon things get fixed.
Regards
Paul
Federal Parliament sits 3-4 days per week for 18-20 weeks per year. That's top whack 80 days per year, which gives them a 21.9% chance of being in Canberra when a load shedding happens. Not exactly a shed load of a chance.
Still too logical, Paul.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
That did occur to me so I had already slightly modified the proposal in post #one thousand seven hundred and forty nine :D . I think you were typing at the same time.
Regards
Paul
I had no idea about this scheme until my local member sent me an email this morning. There are 400 batteries being installed across the country. One of them is in Blaxland (lower Blue Mountains), and the other at Hobartville, near Richmond.
Community Batteries for Household Solar
| Your Say Endeavour Energy
I can see any mention of the capacity ( or in the pdf), but it's certainly a great step in the right direction.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
While I was aware that pilot schemes had been introduced in new communities, in principle allowing them to be independent of the grid, I was not aware of the extent of the link you posted so thanks for that.
There is a little more information here on the extent and sizes, although I am not sure how many are just proposed and how many are up and running. As you said: " A step in the right direction."
Community Batteries for Household Solar program - DCCEEW
The largest individual battery looks to be 0.525MW so these are fairly small. The largest installation (11 batteries) was 1.44MWs.
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Is "Fedferal Government" (third paragraph in the document) a political statement or a typo, do you think?
CSIRO finds renewable energy cheaper than nuclear, coal and other fossil fuels
As if nookular ever made sense......
I find myself growing a little tired of the repetitive chorus, particularly from a certain media outlet although not exclusively, that Australia will be defacing the countryside with solar panels and wind turbines. Typically, these installations are on grazing country (as opposed to "farming" country) and usually that land continues to function much as it did before. The land beneath wind turbines can be grazed by a range of domestic animals, while solar farms welcome sheep only as larger animals can potentially damage the arrays.
In fact sheep can form a type of symbiotic relationship with solar farms as they keep the grass down, which would otherwise have to be mechanically managed, and in return the panels provide shade for the animals. Increasingly the same media outlet continues to invite only opponents of renewable energy to discuss the electricity crisis and it is clear those guests are closely associated with the fossil fuel industry or have other agendas.
The latest in this line was from Dr. Adi Paterson, who was proposing nuclear power for Oz.
He stated:
"the queue is forming to build the next generation of nuclear."
I am not sure where. Not in Australia. He went on to say:
“It’s safe, it’s reliable, it can live with renewables.”
What he didn't say was whether it can compete with renewables in Oz on an economic basis, whether they can sustain negative prices throughout the day, who would build them and who would finance them.
Never having heard of him before and wondering about his credentials, I looked him up:
Adrian Paterson - Wikipedia
I did take this extract:
"In 2006, he became General Manager of Business Development Operations at the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company in South Africa, and held the position until December 2008. The Company downsized significantly following his departure. In 2010, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan described the project in Parliament saying that "between 2005 and 2009, it became increasingly clear that, based on the direct-cycle electricity design, PBMR's potential investor and customer market was severely restricted, and it was unable to acquire either [investors or customers]."[5]"
Now everything is clear.
Regards
Paul
Ignoring, for the moment, the problematic flaws in the nuclear power plant question, one aspect is whether they could replace directly a fossil fired station. Typically, they appear to either be made as base load facilities or in more recent times as load following utilities. France may be the only country that has significant load following nukes, primarily because it has up to 70% nuclear power. However, I have also read (if this information is correct) that because of breakdowns, maintenance and other issues their actual nuclear composition in their grid could be as low as 35%.
I saw one comment that nukes could ramp at up to 63MW/min. That is very fast. I am a little doubtful. I looked a little further and came across this site. It describes both base load and load following machines. I have linked to the load following information:
Load Following Power Plant | Definition | nuclear-power.com
I am something of a charlatan with regards to the nukes, so if anybody can update us with information, please go for it. One distinction I would caution over is whether something actually exists or whether it is proposed as a potential development. The SMRs are an example of where they are frequently mentioned as if they exist without any having yet been built.
Regards
Paul
1/ Both sides seem to always conclusively "prove" that they are correct, yet both seem to cherry pick and ignore reality. For example, the CSIRO report mentioned above - does anybody really think that any of the numbers quoted have any bearing on reality? Snowy 2's costs have gone from $2bn to $12bn (last time I read about it), not including Humelink, so is the CSIRO claim that the cost of renewable power will fall by nearly 30% over the next 7 or so years credible, or based on desire and belief? Equally, nuclear is clearly not going to happen as there is too much public opinion stacked against it (never mind any cost issues!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
2/ The grazing under solar concept is very persuasive, and sounds great, but I'm not 100% convinced of the reality. Weed control is still required in grazing land, and it's potentially very hard to use a boomspray in a solar farm. That would presumably push the management in the direction of longer term (residual) chemicals, which often have long withholding periods and, in some cases, may not be grazed at all. Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge, as both visibility and vehicular access would be compromised. I certainly believe that grazing under solar is possible, but I'm not convinced that it's the simple task that is often presented!
Exactly. Nuclear doesn't stack up financially even today, and stands even less chance of doing so many years into the future when any plants that started construction even right now would come online.
As we've discussed many times here, the most pressing requirement is going to be storage, in various forms, not generation.