energy sources

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jredburn

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html

this is a talk by one of the people that knows what he is talking about and what the state of nuclear power actually is.

---

Jredburn

Thank you for bringing us back to the nuclear element. Your link when I tried it was broken but I found a u-tube vid with Steven Cowley. An interesting man.

His forecast was that for the future eletrical power would come from either:

Solar
Nuclear Fision
Nuclear Fusion

His particular barrow was for nuclear fusion. A very worthy aspiration and although they have succeeded in the achieving a reaction they have not made power with it and neither have they produced the reaction without putting more power in than has come out.

I think at the moment it might be more unrealistic than clean coal. A comment he made pointed to the limited reserves of uranium. I saw a reference that said at the currrent rate of consumption easily mineable reserves would last 10 years before going to strata that had a lower yield.

However, for me that is acadaemic as nuclear fision is a no no until they can safely dispose of the waste. In fact include making the whole process safe.

Interesting that Steven Cowley made no mention of fision using thorium.

Regards
Paul

I don't have much patience with the nuclear thing - I think the Fukishima experience has brought people back to earth - it is clear that the supporters of nuclear power have some vested interest in it.

The idea has been around for a few years that if we converted the world to run on nuclear power then we would run out of fuel within 10 years.

At least with coal I gather we have rerserves for more than 100 years.

It is amazing how the pro-nuclear people ignore things like not enough fuel - accidents - commercial nuclear fusion still a dream - and of course no viable waste storage technology.

But the biggie is that fossil fuels (and nuclear) must run out at some time - we have painted outselves into a bit of a corner - doesn't that suggest that next time we want an energy source that will go on indefinitely ?

Cheers,
Bob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citybook

I don't have much patience with the nuclear thing - I think the Fukishima experience has brought people back to earth - it is clear that the supporters of nuclear power have some vested interest in it.

The idea has been around for a few years that if we converted the world to run on nuclear power then we would run out of fuel within 10 years.

At least with coal I gather we have rerserves for more than 100 years.

It is amazing how the pro-nuclear people ignore things like not enough fuel - accidents - commercial nuclear fusion still a dream - and of course no viable waste storage technology.

But the biggie is that fossil fuels (and nuclear) must run out at some time - we have painted outselves into a bit of a corner - doesn't that suggest that next time we want an energy source that will go on indefinitely ?

Cheers,
Bob.

---

Bob

I think the first questions to ask in any of these discussions is do the persons concerned have an agenda, do they have a financial involvement and are they truely impartial?

Almost nobody is completely impartial.

For me the world is in transition regarding it's energy sources. We are already in transition although only just. The transition will be long and drawn out. 50 years perhaps until renewables dominate and many more before non-renewables are extinct.

Indeed transition is the only way it can happen. The conjecture is how it will happen.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Jredburn

neither have they produced the reaction without putting more power in than has come out.

---

That's incorrect, they have managed a net power surplus the problem is sustaining it.

Having said that fission and fusion present 2 completely different problems.

You can liken fission to a train running downhill, you have to keep the brakes on or it runs away, fusion is the opposite if you back off the power it collapses and the radiation issues are significantly less and there is almost no waste to dispose of, whereas with fission it produces significant quantities.

So fission is a safety and disposal problem, fusion doesn't work, yet, and it is undetermined when they will build a working commercial reactor.

I don't believe in magic and I reject it as a valid argument for policy decisions. When rational argument fails all too often people resort to "X new technology will be developed to address the problem". If it's not close to flying now you can't assume it will ever be viable. Goes for everything from fusion to carbon sequestration and future solar technologies.

We are NOT going to run out of fossil fuels, never. What will happen is as the deposits drop in quality and go up in recovery cost the $ will push people to other sources.

The fact is we're heading for a massive energy deficit and people are going to be consuming every resource to meet it. We can try to tax coal to death here, but someone else will step in to burn it for us. We are literally like the boy plugging the dike with his finger while the whole dam wall collapses above us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

If it's not close to flying now you can't assume it will ever be viable. Goes for everything from fusion to carbon sequestration and future solar technologies.

---

Agree with that.

I think the problem we face in Australia is that our governments have been chicken of getting behind alternative energy for too long. I don't know, but I suspect they run scared of the coal lobby.

Existing solar thermal (eg Areva/Ausra and plenty of others) has huge potential in Australia but we have been spinning our wheels for years. Ausra started in Australia, but moved offshore (US) because of lack of local support. And yes, solar doesn't run at night, but it could drive a freight train through daytime coal use if we chose to make the investment.

There's the catch, too: utility grade plants of all types need long term planning and take years from concept through to production. We really haven't even started.

woodbe.

My partner has a wonderful term for the loony left/right: You've drunk the coolade. For the younger amongst you search on jonestown mass suicide.

Woodbe: I think you've inserted a conspiracy where human nature explains the behavior perfectly well.

Coal industry does not care about renewables and certainly wouldn't "lobby" anyone over them. The simple fact is that coal is the cheapest way to generate electricity by a country mile apart from nuceur (GWBush). Renewables simply aren't competition. Not cost competitive even at $23/ton and not base load.

Politicians will "back" anything that gets them re-elected. They don't care either because it's OUR money they are spending.

The simple fact is no one cares. I am sure lefties like to believe the whole population does, or at least should, sit about wringing our hands all day about the impending terrible horrible DOOM (whichever doom the lobbyists are trotting out today), but the fact is the swing voters in marginal seats, the only voters who count, only care about their mortgage repayments, bills and loading the landcruiser with the offspring on saturday morning to drive them to sports. The politicians know this so they don't care either.

Why do you suppose we are drowning in middle class welfare ? Why do you suppose KRudd's whole campaign was "working families" ?

Democracy at work.

And for all the wonderful hype about centralized solar plants generation at point of use is much better. The solar thermal plant you linked to isn't that great. They have a whopper in Spain and a change in the political winds will see it shut down I reckon.

As I've said before if your on piped gas search on bluegen. If they ever get production up properly I reckon they will fly.

It would have been nice if the government had just left solar rebates simple and the feed in tariff at retail equivalent, but then they don't get to make an announcement every 5 minutes.

As I say, no use whinging about politicians and policy, we (someone) hired them. The electorate is the problem, the parliament is the symptom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

The solar thermal plant you linked to isn't that great. They have a whopper in Spain and a change in the political winds will see it shut down I reckon.

---

I linked a company... :)

The point is that utility solar thermal is one alternative energy option, but it takes investment and government support that has been lacking here. You think it's democracy, I think it's something, perhaps there's a coal lobby, perhaps there is not, but I don't know either way except to say that the something has stalled investment in utility grade power stations, especially from alternative sources for years in this country. We have some catch-up to do, especially if the population is going to grow as predicted.

SolarPV in the household is great for those capable of installing it with acceptable roof aspect. It also delivers excess power into the grid close the where it will be consumed, thereby reducing line losses. What it lacks is scale and effective efficiency monitoring and remediation that a large scale plant would bring with it.

Renewables are not competitive with coal yet. Granted. :) Its just too easy to dig up 100 million year old fossils and burn them like there was no tomorrow.

Hadn't heard of bluegen, but not on piped gas either :( Interesting that you can put a gas fired electricity plant in your backyard that is more efficient than Yallourn! Any idea what they cost?

woodbe.

Damian made the point that it's "...no use whinging about politicians and policy, we (someone) hired them. The electorate is the problem, the parliament is the symptom".

Boy, isn't that true.

But then it's immediately clear that if something is to be done about it - then we are the ones who have to do something about it. Absolutely no good hoping for the coal industry to change - or somebody to do some long term planning - or in fact anybody else to do anything else.

When you say renewables aren't competitive at $23 a ton, I don't think many energy sources can run at that price. The $23 looks like the carbon tax ? The coal price is closer to $123 a tonne - maybe we are going to have to pay at least that for any sort of fuel into the future.

And nuclear doesn't compete either unless you leave some of the costs out (like handling spent fuel).

The whopper solar thermal plant in Spain I suppose is Solar Tres ? This one
First 24/7 Baseload Solar Power Plant Now Fully Operational In Spain

This web page is a good example of the crap we have wade through to get good information.

Notice they say it is the "First 24/7 Baseload Solar..." - well, I am fairly sure the truth is that official uptime estimate is 68% - which is not 24/7 as far as i'm concerned. And Solar Tres is modelled on the Solar I and II projects in the Mojave Desert in the late 70's - why did the Americans can those projects ? Does anybody know ? Must be a reason.

I think you can bet that if Solar II was a good thing then the Americans would be building more of them ? But no, they sold the "technology" to Spain.

I am not just rambling on here - this Solar Tres thing is a core assumption in the Green's 2050 Renewable Energy Plan.

Maybe people have noticed the influence the Greens have on the direction we are going ?

Well, maybe this sort of fruit loop thinking would become a little harder if more folks are talking and questioning.

Cheers,
Bob.

Solar energy is excellent for heating water.

At present there are two types of solar hot water systems that I know of on the market. One is the simple copper pipes welded to a copper plate. The other is the evacuated tube type.

I want to know which is the cheaper to make and which is the more efficient in terms of heating the water.

About the Bluegen fuelcell - I believe it is a combination high temperature fuel cell and water heater - ie. it produces electricity and hot water. Don't know how much hot water you get, but it sounds like a great idea.

I think they have been around for 10 years or so - I think they are really more German than Australian, with their sales targetted for the subsidies available in Germany, which are better than here.

The electrical output is about 2kva or about 17,500kwh per year - they do emit carbon dioxide - and I don't know if they would be eligible for the feed in tariff because a diesel generator wouldn't be.

Wikipedia suggests operating costs of 6.0¢ per kWh based on $1.20 per therm for natural gas in the USA - here we are paying $1.52 a litre, so I think that would convert to about 32c/kwh.

I haven't seen a retail price - but it would have to be about $15,000 - say it lasted for 10 years, that is $1,500pa or say 8.6c/kwh.

So cost of the electricity would be about 40c/kwh. So if you got the feedin tariff you would make 4c/kwh or $700 a year, and your hot water would be free.

I definitely suggest more research before buying.

Cheers, Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citybook

The whopper solar thermal plant in Spain I suppose is Solar Tres ? This one
First 24/7 Baseload Solar Power Plant Now Fully Operational In Spain

This web page is a good example of the crap we have wade through to get good information.

Notice they say it is the "First 24/7 Baseload Solar..." - well, I am fairly sure the truth is that official uptime estimate is 68% - which is not 24/7 as far as i'm concerned. And Solar Tres is modelled on the Solar I and II projects in the Mojave Desert in the late 70's - why did the Americans can those projects ? Does anybody know ? Must be a reason.

---

Hey Bob, thanks for the link, I was wondering what Damian was talking about.

It appears that Tres has a salt storage battery to carry it overnight, so while its true the sun doesn't shine at night, the plant banks heat during the day and uses it when the sun goes down. I had read somewhere about salt storage, didn't realise that it was in operation.

I had a look for solar one and solar two, and found this. It would appear that Solar One was commissioned in 1982, ran until 1986 and was then upgraded into Solar Two which ran from 1996 until 1999 whereapon it was converted into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere. Who'd have thought? :) The whole lot was removed in 2009 and the site returned to vacant land.

Anyway, the answer to the question appears to be that Solar One and Two were test/demonstration plants, and their success apparently led to the commercial solar thermal plant in Spain, Tres.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the prod. :)

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citybook

When you say renewables aren't competitive at $23 a ton, I don't think many energy sources can run at that price. The $23 looks like the carbon tax ? The coal price is closer to $123 a tonne - maybe we are going to have to pay at least that for any sort of fuel into the future.

And nuclear doesn't compete either unless you leave some of the costs out (like handling spent fuel).


I think you can bet that if Solar II was a good thing then the Americans would be building more of them ? But no, they sold the "technology" to Spain.


Cheers,
Bob.

---

Bob

There is a wide range of coal costs to the various power stations. It depends primarily on how close they are to their coal source and the quality of the coal. Consequently a power station on the coast will normally have expensive coal primarily because of the transportation charges. A power station that sits on top of a coal mine will have cheap coal. The stations in the Latrobe valley in Victoria possibly have extremely cheap coal, because it is brown coal of little use for anything else. I don' t know the detail of their costs but it would not surprise me to hear of a cost less than $10 per ton.

The range of costs may well be less than $10 to greater than $100 per ton.

The carbon tax of $23 per ton is another issue which I will comment on in a separate post.

Nuclear power can't compete on price where the coal is cheap (it is very cheap in Australia). It only comes to the fore when other forms of power are non existant or expensive. or possibly where a country has an altogether different nuclear agenda.

A Nuclear station is at least twice the price of a thermal station and while the fuel is relatively cheaper, the maintenance costs are again much more expensive. That to my mind is all of no consequence when they can't dispose of the waste and we have times bombs like Fukishima (you have to be careful with the spelling on that one). I think they be well and truly Fukishimed!!

This link may help regarding the Solar projects around the Mojave desert.

Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I worked with an American who was in charge of a solar thermal project (5MW) in the states, but I don't recall it's name. He said the cost was five times that of a thermal station, but that would have been around 15 years ago.

I believe Spain and germany are the leaders in solr installations. Much of it in Germany is domestic PV.

Regards
Paul

Ooops. Managed to duplicate previous post in error. Moderators please delete if appropriate.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

That's incorrect, they have managed a net power surplus the problem is sustaining it.

---

Damian

I would love you to be right but.... From Wikepedia. Produced 65% of input power for 0.5 secsonds.

"As of July 2010<SUP style="DISPLAY: none" class="plainlinks noprint asof-tag update">[update]</SUP>, the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec."

As you say it is not a viable proposition in the foreseable future.

Regards
Paul

The carbon tax is imposed upon users at the rate of $23/ton starting in July 2012 always assuming that is travels successfully through the two parliaments. That may still be a big "if."

The power generators refer to a carbon intensity, which is just a phrase to express how much coal they burn to generate 1MW of power. This is a factor of both the station efficiency and the type of coal they burn.

The worst fossil stations (probably burning brown coal and of older design) have an intensity of around 1.4: The best fossil fired stations fractionally below 0.9. The straight gas turbines 0.6 and the HRSG gas stations 0.4.

This last category is where the exhaust gases from the gas turbines are passed through a low pressure boiler to generate steam, which in turn drives a generator. One station I know of has three gas tubines and one steam turbine.

Gas of course still produces carbon emissions but, the potential is there to reduce the carbon emissions by half.

All good.

Maybe, maybe not.

The recent spate of gas stations came about not because of a vision for the future and an impending carbon tax, but by the desire to export gas. The pipe lines are under construction to pipe the gas to ports, such as Gladstone.

In the meantime the gas has to be developed (called ramp gas) to a sufficient level to make it a viable proposition. In come the gas-fired power stations. They are the benefactors of this "ramp" gas at extremely preferential rates. That is the situation at the moment.

When the gas reaches a sufficient volume the gas companies can choose to send the gas overseas or to the power stations at elevated prices. Now it is no longer the panacea. Add the fact that if used in Oz they will pay carbon tax, but not if they export and you can see that the pendulum has swung once again.

Regards
paul