Future of the Australian Electricity Market

[Bushmiller]

The graphic of highest emitters is interesting, but perhaps like the dam being 12m from full it doesn't, by itself, mean all that much.

In reality, if 1kw of power from coal produces (from memory) around 0.9kg of CO2,

On a different subject, I've now established that even on an overcast, cloudy and rainy day, my newly upgraded PV+batteries system is able to produce 100% of my power (although heating is by wood burner, and I plant way more trees than I burn!), but under such conditions it only manages to export enough to cover about half of my daily supply charge. However even at this time of the year (winter) and with my 5kW feed-in limit, 2 typical days produces enough excess feed-in to cover the deficit from the rainy day.

My next task will be to install (or rather to have the electrician install) Shelly controls, to enable me to automagically switch on loads such as water heating when solar production is high, and to monitor our consumption in greater detail. I'm enjoying this project!

Warb

I am certain you will recall the old line "There's lies, damned lies and statistics!" People can prove whatever they want avoiding outright lies by the simple expediency of cherry picking.

The .9Kg of CO2 emitted is bad, but should be from 1MW! Actually, that figure is for the most efficient coal fired stations. The general run of older stations are around 1.2Kg/MW. Once-through Gas turbines are about .8Kg/MW and the more efficient HRSG units down to about .6Kg/MW.

It is great that you are in a position to go renewable and are taking action. Unfortunately, the vast majority are not in that position. I was looking at increasing my solar collection recently and then twigged that I don't have any more suitable roof space until I get a proper shed.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

My next task will be to install (or rather to have the electrician install) Shelly controls, to enable me to automagically switch on loads such as water heating when solar production is high, and to monitor our consumption in greater detail. I'm enjoying this project!

Look forward to reading about your experience and to seeing some reliable performance figures.

so much of the solar debate is contaminated by:

Overt marketing hype, and
Well intentioned dreamers with rosy glasses.

[GraemeCook]

Paul, I had first hand experience in the strategic use of legal bullying in a previous corporate life.

I was very careful in my post to not name any organisation or person; don't want to embarrass our host,
you are unlikely ever to get to court. A corporate lawyer through endless manoeuvrering will run up your legal costs and bankrupt long before you get near a court. Routine legal strategy!


Sorry, but Sorry is definitely very important.

[Warb]

The .9Kg of CO2 emitted is bad, but should be from 1MW! Actually, that figure is for the most efficient coal fired stations. The general run of older stations are around 1.2Kg/MW. Once-through Gas turbines are about .8Kg/MW and the more efficient HRSG units down to about .6Kg/MW.

Much as I'd like you to be right, I suspect you're thinking tonnes rather than kg!

If "coal" contains about 90% carbon (anthracite, like my parents used to burn to heat the house), and 1kg of carbon makes 3.7kg of CO2 (1 x carbon + 2 x oxygen where oxygen has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon is 12, so CO2 is 3.7 times heavier than carbon), then 0.8kg of CO2 was produced by 0.21kg of carbon, which equates to 0.24kg of anthracite.

0.8kg of CO2 to make 1kWh of electricity is a scary number, but it seems more likely than 250grams of coal generating 1MWh of power!

[Bushmiller]

Much as I'd like you to be right, I suspect you're thinking tonnes rather than kg!

If "coal" contains about 90% carbon (anthracite, like my parents used to burn to heat the house), and 1kg of carbon makes 3.7kg of CO2 (1 x carbon + 2 x oxygen where oxygen has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon is 12, so CO2 is 3.7 times heavier than carbon), then 0.8kg of CO2 was produced by 0.21kg of carbon, which equates to 0.24kg of anthracite.

0.8kg of CO2 to make 1kWh of electricity is a scary number, but it seems more likely than 250grams of coal generating 1MWh of power!

Warb

We tend to talk exclusively in MWs in my workplace and I have confused the two. So, .9Kg per KW or .9T per MW.

Thank you for the correction. If you had not spotted that, I can visualise the denialists spouting how little difference burning fossil fuels makes.

:-

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

An interesting comment on the Coalition's nuclear option proposal:

Why nuclear is clever in opposition but a nightmare in government (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/08/14/nuclear-power-coalition-australia/?utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020230815&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=)

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

An interesting comment on the Coalition's nuclear option proposal:

Why nuclear is clever in opposition but a nightmare in government (thenewdaily.com.au) (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/08/14/nuclear-power-coalition-australia/?utm_campaign=Morning%20News%20-%2020230815&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=)

Regards
Paul

Interesting article, but I think the title could be modified to "Why anything and everything is clever in opposition but a nightmare in government".....


People want everything fixed, whether it be climate change, inflation, housing, immigration, health or anything else, but they don't want to change their own lifestyle, have any less money, work any harder or longer, or have any other perceived "negative" impact, no matter how trivial, from the enactment of the fix. So you can gain support by saying "we'll fix it", and you can make the other side look bad by saying "they're not fixing it", but actually fixing it is another matter!

[Bushmiller]

The coalition proposal to go nuclear is at best glib. I have already mentioned the hurdles to nuclear power but there are some more.

We have a competitive market and that market is primarily in private hands, at least as far as new players are concerned. This means that a private investor has to make money. If there is the slightest possibility of difficulty, particularly with a large investment, such opportunists will go elsewhere with their barrow of money.

This article, which it should be noted must have bias because of its origin (World Nuclear Assoc) is interesting:

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org) (https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx)

It is long and quite detailed: Sometimes confusing, but I did take this extract:

In deregulated wholesale electricity markets the economic justification for any capital investment has been decreasing while the actual need increases due to the ageing of existing plants. The IEA points out that at the turn of
the century one-third of investment in electricity flowed into deregulated markets exposed to wholesale price uncertainty, whilst two-thirds went into regulated markets with some assurance of return on capital. By 2014 only 10% of investment was directed into deregulated markets. This has prompted urgent reviews by governments concerned about medium-term energy security. All operating nuclear power plants were built by governments or regulated utilities where long-term revenue and cost recovery was virtually certain. Some of these plants, especially in the UK and USA, now find themselves in a deregulated market environment.
Regulated and government utilities make investments in generation assets, spend money on power plant fuel and operation, and make decisions about retiring existing assets. These decisions are based on long-term planning processes focused on ensuring reliable operation while minimising total costs over the long-term. In a deregulated market a merchant generator depends on the inherently short-term and often volatile market for its revenue, putting the operator at risk; and the developer of a new plant faces considerable uncertainty due to greater completion risk. Government support is needed to mitigate these risks and make new projects bankable.


I think that is saying that nuclear may be entirely unsuitable in a deregulated market and/or one that is not government run or at the least government guaranteed. It also flies in the face of other statements made in the article that nuclear power is competitive with renewables. Much depends on where you are in the world and what else is available for power generation.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Matt Ferrell, yesterday, on wave energy. Very interesting in that WE has ~100x the energy density per m² that solar has.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxdbD-N7pHE

[FenceFurniture]

It's one of the reasons which has inhibited my occasional inclination to start a YouTube channel publishing videos on handyman topics.As I understand it, you can turn the ability to post a comment "OFF" with YouTube.

[FenceFurniture]

Seeing how there was a minor digression...my view on biases from news outlets:



It seems to me that "left" or "left leaning" is sometimes substituted for a more balanced description like "a wider, more selfless view" or "a bigger picture view" by those who would much rather have a navel gazing view that is good for them and bugger everyone else (and who is almost guaranteed to be well-off or wealthy, and can easily survive (e.g.) rising interest rates and inflation).
I agree that a commercial enterprise will want to tilt their coverage to what they think their consumers want to consume. That may often be at the cost of the truth being told (or at least the full truth). It is not too difficult to spot those that spin things, but omission of facts is more insidious as we may not know what we are not being told.
For Aussie news I rely on reading ABC (a little left leaning), The Guardian (quite left leaning), and occasional things that pop up on YouTube. The Guardian is sometimes a little too blatant in their left leaning, but I find them less egregious in their behaviour than some of the shrill right leaning commercial enterprises. Over the weekend I was exposed to some of the more commonly watched 6pm news, and it was pretty poor shallow coverage that was sensationalised....on and on and on. I watch Insiders – they have journos of all flavours on, but not from as big a pool as they used to.
For American news (which I follow pretty closely) I read the US Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, and I watch YouTube snippets from CNN, MSNBC, MeidasTouch Network, and some of The Young Turks (who claim they are the "fairest network in America" but Ana Kasparian does get a little shrill at times). The NYT is fairly neutral, but they do mostly despise Trump (in the opinion section). Their news section is pretty much "just the facts". On MSNBC the guns for me are Ari Melber, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, and MSNBC has a pretty good range of guest commentators like Andrew Weissman and Neil Katyal amongst numerous others.
I largely stay away from Fox News, OAN, Newsmax but that doesn't mean I don't see what they are saying. MSNBC and TYTurks in particular will always show the latest outrageous or super-biased, or fake news clips from the very rightwing channels in any case, which means I get to see and hear for myself what the Republicans and MAGAs are saying. I do have an opinion of Tucker Carlson and Judge Jeanine Pirro et al, but ahh, not one I'll share. (funny, when I put Janine Pirrot into the search it prompted Janine Parrot... :D)


So all up I hope I'm getting enough of the facts to be able weigh it all up and come to a balanced and informed view, after I discard some of the too obvious left wing bias. There is only so much time one can devote to news gathering.

Just be grateful that the very rightwing views in Australia pale in comparison to what goes on in parts of Europe, and increasingly in America, although they are becoming louder here. America is deeply concerning, and it's come about because of their ducked up political and judicial system. The very idea of knowing where the politics of Sheriffs, Prosecutors and Judges lie is ridiculous and bizarre. Then there is the Electoral College....and the right to "carry".



Back to the sparks discussion...

[Warb]

I think that is saying that nuclear may be entirely unsuitable in a deregulated market and/or one that is not government run or at the least government guaranteed. It also flies in the face of other statements made in the article that nuclear power is competitive with renewables. Much depends on where you are in the world and what else is available for power generation.

I suspect the reality is that in a deregulated market, investment in any form requires a risk/benefit analysis and a very large investment in something (anything) with a long payback period just doesn't meet the criteria. Renewables are quick to get into operation, attract government grants (whether directly or via LGC's), are easy-ish to get approved (the only naysayers are those few, and unimportant, rural people who have to look at it!) and therefore are an easy decision. Like everything else, climate change is about money - whether plastic bags or energy generation, the underlying motive is profit even if the rhetoric is "environment" - so it really doesn't matter what is actually better; what makes most money in the shortest time will attract the investment.

The above, by the way, doesn't mean I'm pro-nuclear, simply that I don't think truth has any place in a profit driven system.

On a related note, as part of my ongoing project to reduce my externally generated energy usage, I started looking at heat pump hot water systems. The technology allows water to be heated with far less energy than a normal immersion element, and some systems even have an external trigger to allow them to run a boost cycle based on output from a PV system. All good so far, but then I found a few people saying they didn't really save much energy in the longer term. Apparently, and this is what relates to the "profit" comments above, unlike standard hot water tanks there is no regulation of insulation on heat pump systems (this is blamed on Tony Abbotts red-tape reduction) so some manufacturers fit less insulation, resulting in them cooling far more quickly than normal tanks and therefore having to heat "more" to replace the lost heat. The rhetoric is "save the planet" but the corner cutting screams "profit"......

[FenceFurniture]

Like everything else, climate change is about moneyAbsolutely. It is why the deniers want to pretend that it is not happening because they think it will be unnecessarily costly to try to curb it.


- whether plastic bags or energy generation, the underlying motive is profit even if the rhetoric is "environment" - so it really doesn't matter what is actually better; what makes most money in the shortest time will attract the investment.For me, that is back to front. It MUST be done, and the fact that whole new industries can make a buck makes it far easier to tackle the task at hand, and get more people on board. It is the same situation as the ICE vehicle replacing horses and steam, and computers replacing people in the 70s (I witnessed that irrational fear first hand as an IT operator from 1976 onwards). People can't see the new industries and opportunities that progress creates. WOE IS ME!

Imagine what it would be like if there was ONLY cost involved, with very little profit. How far behind would we be then?

[Warb]

For me, that is back to front. It MUST be done, and the fact that whole new industries can make a buck makes it far easier to tackle the task at hand, and get more people on board.

That would be more believable if what was being done was the best approach, or even a good approach, to solving the problem, but very often it's not. A supermarket stopping using "single use" plastic bags and replacing them with (free) paper bags could be said to be done for the right reason. A supermarket stopping using "single use" plastic bags and then charging the customer for the same bag but with "This bag is reusable" printed on it, is not!!

The same applies to using "energy consumption" as a lever to sell a product to replace a perfectly functional one that will now go to landfill - the carbon cost of making and delivering the new product far outweighs any marginal gain in energy consumption, and that's before you factor in the "disposable" nature of the replacement product, which will again need replacing [warranty + 2 months] later.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that an acquaintance of mine when touring a windfarm with a group of his students, had a student ask why a number of turbines had been switched off. The answer was "to reduce supply until the price goes (is driven) back up". How does that fall under the heading of "the best approach"? In fact, it could be seen to be giving ammunition to the argument that we have to keep coal stations running to cover the times when renewables don't generate enough. But it makes more money....

[FenceFurniture]

I'm not suggesting that it is being pursued in the best way, or even a very good way, otherwise we'd have had Federal Govt intervention in about 2009 or so instead of kicking the can down the road. I'm just making the point that if there was no money to be made from developing green energy it wouldn't happen, and we'd be years and years behind even our current position (which may even be too late).

[GraemeCook]

Matt Ferrell, yesterday, on wave energy. Very interesting ...

CSIRO has also been doing a lot of research on wave energy, as have some universities.
Wave Energy in Australia - CSIRO (https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/oceans/wave-energy)

[GraemeCook]

... The very idea of knowing where the politics of Sheriffs, Prosecutors and Judges lie is ridiculous and bizarre. Then there is the Electoral College....

Yes.

With all the recent and neverending brouhaha on stolen elections I decided to have a close look at a recent US election results.


At that recent presidential election Candidate A polled 65,853,514 votes against Candidate B who received 62,984,828 valid votes. Candidate A seemingly won the primary poll by 2,868,686 votes or 4.6% - seemingly a clear majority.


Then the ballot was sent off to an archaic body commonly called the Electoral College who massaged the votes and declared that Candidate B had won by 306 votes to 232, a clear margin of 74 votes or 30.9%. The Electoral College had converted a loss by 4.6% into a 30.9% victory, and a President was duly elected.



I agree with Donald Trump. The election was stolen. Except I do not think he was referencing the 2016 election where Hilary Clinton outpolled him by 2,868,686 votes.


Sure is a weird concept of democracy.

[Bushmiller]

I'm just making the point that if there was no money to be made from developing green energy it wouldn't happen, and we'd be years and years behind even our current position (which may even be too late).

This is the result of the commercial market and the mantra of "competition is good." Competition is good when the only criteria is price. Unfortunately, price is rarely, if ever, the only consideration. I would concede that it discourages price gouging that you might expect to see in a monopoly scenario. In the Australian Electricity market today there are many factors other than price. However, price still dominates and is likely to do so for a long time.

I just cannot see anybody putting up their hand to commit to the large capitol cost of a nuke, coupled with the vagaries of the Australian governments. Those vagaries include a lack of regulation and guarantee, governments that are quite likely to perform a complete backflip. It is likely that they would only be competitive during the dark hours and on top of all that it would be at least ten years before a unit was commissioned even if they started tomorrow. That is always supposing there was permission to site it somewhere.

Too many hurdles; More like full blown steeplechase (Not so many finishers in that game, if you have ever watched the Grand National).

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

I'm not suggesting that it is being pursued in the best way, or even a very good way, otherwise we'd have had Federal Govt intervention in about 2009 or so instead of kicking the can down the road. I'm just making the point that if there was no money to be made from developing green energy it wouldn't happen, and we'd be years and years behind even our current position (which may even be too late).

Unfortunately, experience has taught me that when the only motivator is profit, it is very rare that the proposed "solution" does very much at all, and often in the long-term results in things becoming worse, not better!

[doug3030]

So all up I hope I'm getting enough of the facts to be able weigh it all up and come to a balanced and informed view, after I discard some of the too obvious left wing bias. There is only so much time one can devote to news gathering.

Just be grateful that the very rightwing views in Australia pale in comparison to what goes on in parts of Europe, and increasingly in America, although they are becoming louder here. America is deeply concerning, and it's come about because of their ducked up political and judicial system. The very idea of knowing where the politics of Sheriffs, Prosecutors and Judges lie is ridiculous and bizarre. Then there is the Electoral College....and the right to "carry".

It's one of those little quirks of human nature that many people perceive themselves to be somewhere near the centre of the spectrum between two extremes. Therefore, no matter where many observers see thenselves on the spectrum (often somewhere slightly left or right of centre) this becomes the reference point from which they perceive other behaviours as being left or right from.

Where this gets interesting is when someone who is, for example, well to the left of centre might see behaviours that are between their own orientation and the real centre as right wing. The converse is also true, of course.

Of course, not everyone's perceptions are distorted by their own bias, but it amuses me at times to read the thoughts of those whose are.

[Bushmiller]

I have mentioned that the Coalition appear to be ramping up a campaign to promote nuclear power There have been another couple of statements by the Canavan/Sky News combination in what seems to be a co-ordinated effort. It does not investigate how they would achieve this: This is the response from The Guardian:

Let’s talk nuclear, the Coalition says – just don’t mention cost or how long it would take (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/let-s-talk-nuclear-the-coalition-says-just-don-t-mention-cost-or-how-long-it-would-take/ar-AA1foXll?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9c7175a9d3114cb1bb8e4200f135e351&ei=20)

They focus primarily on the flawed economics of nuclear power versus renewables. They focus on O'Brien's comments in The Australian of the Bill Gates sponsored Wyoming demonstration small nuke. It is eye-wateringly expensive at $6bn for a plant of 350MW. Just to put that into perspective, Millmerran power station, was commissioned in 2003, at 850MW cost A$1.4bn. Now admittedly that was twenty years ago and was built as a budget plant. Also, the Wyoming venture is a pilot. Future plants could be cheaper. It is worth noting that the Millmerran project included building a bypass around the town and an 80Km pipeline from Toowoomba to carry the treated effluent for use in the cooling water system (that in itself is far less than most conventional stations as the turbine condensers are air-cooled as opposed to water cooled).

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

I have mentioned that the Coalition appear to be ramping up a campaign to promote nuclear power ...

Translation: They are on the trail of political donations.

[Warb]

Translation: They are on the trail of political donations.

I'd have thought it would be a fairly divisive policy? Whilst I guess there might be some "corporate" level donations from those who might benefit from the construction, at a voter level I'd imagine there are far more (and extreme!) nays than there are ayes. Or is the terror of climate change now greater than the terror of "Chernobyling" the countryside?

[FenceFurniture]

I'd have thought it would be a fairly divisive policy?I doubt I'd expect much else from Voldemort. He seems to have taken up Abbott's mantra of "The answer is NO! But what was the question again?"

[GraemeCook]

I'd have thought it would be a fairly divisive policy? Whilst I guess there might be some "corporate" level donations from those who might benefit from the construction, at a voter level I'd imagine there are far more (and extreme!) nays than there are ayes. Or is the terror of climate change now greater than the terror of "Chernobyling" the countryside?

But did someone say "Money talks"?

[Warb]

But did someone say "Money talks"?

Indeed, but at the cost of votes? And a LOT of votes?

Maybe, like most current politicians, they believe the majority of voters have the memory capacity of goldfish and will forget. Or maybe, like most current politicians, they believe that the promise of a pay increase, tax cut, or some other short term perceived gain, will wash away all the stains of the past. And history suggests they'd probably be right on both counts!



Oh, wow, look at that. It's so shiny. Hang on, what was I saying? Nevermind. Did somebody say KFC?

[ajw]

Got a bill from my electricity provider today. It’s been a while since they sent a bill. I’ve had messages saying there were problems generating the bill. Others with the same provider have had the same problem. This bill goes back to September last year. Although I’ve had bills in between, they are now saying they’ve received new meter data, and need to reissue the bills.

The data on the bill takes a bit of decoding. I’ve changed plans during that time, and my kWH rates have changed too. I switched to a plan with higher solar infeed tariff. All of these changes mean multiple lines on the bill. It’s a couple of pages long.

I had to set up a spreadsheet to work out what was what. I wonder how people without the capacity to create a spreadsheet actually decode their bills? I think we’ve strayed into a level of complexity that really ought to be questioned.

For me, it turns out that the higher solar infeed tariff will just about offset the higher kWh costs. The increases in daily access charges won’t be covered, so my overall bills will be higher. Imagine my surprise…

cheers,

ajw

[Warb]

I’ve had messages saying there were problems generating the bill. Others with the same provider have had the same problem. This bill goes back to September last year. Although I’ve had bills in between, they are now saying they’ve received new meter data, and need to reissue the bills.

"Smart" meters, contract staff and artificially "intelligent" computer systems. The future's so bright..........

[ajw]

Is it possible to have my hot water heater switched from Controlled Load to General Supply? I'm generating enough from my solar panels to run the hot water heater for free. It would be good to use more of it for my own purposes, rather than export it. My CL rate is now 26.741 cents/kWh. Maximum export tariff is 12 cents/kWh.

cheers,

ajw

[Warb]

Is it possible to have my hot water heater switched from Controlled Load to General Supply? I'm generating enough from my solar panels to run the hot water heater for free. It would be good to use more of it for my own purposes, rather than export it. My CL rate is now 26.741 cents/kWh. Maximum export tariff is 12 cents/kWh.

cheers,

ajw

Yes. Get a sparky to move the connection from the controlled load outlet to the normal system. However, you'll want a time switch with a contactor capable of switching the water heater load. Also be aware that the water heater uses a fair chunk of power, depending on the size of the tank (and therefore the element). If the time switch activates the heater and your PV is not generating the required juice (in my case it seems to be around 4 to 5kW, but I've not looked for a rating label), you'll be importing power at the full daytime rate. The amount of export required to offset a few kW of "cloudy day" water heating might be substantial!

My approach (only partially implemented as yet) is to use a Shelly switch that I can program to run the water heater on off peak power, but I can also trigger manually (WiFi), or based on a rule such that it activates when my PV is exporting sufficient power. That means that hot water used in morning showers is replaced through the day IF there's sufficient PV, but the following night at off-peak rates (as would normally be the case) if the day was overcast.

[Pulse]

You can also swap out the element. I swapped from a 3600W from 2400W. You can work out the time it needs to be on for, it takes 4.2J to heat 1mL 1 degree. Ours runs for about 3hrs per day from 10am. This way you don’t exceed panel supply very often.

[russ57]

You need look out for a dump load controller. That can manage the demand to match your excess solar

I don't know of any specific units, but I recall reading about a couple.

[Bohdan]

You need a solar diverter (https://www.powerdiverter.com.au/). I had an ImmerSun unit, installed about ten years ago, but after two of them blew up over the years I wouldn't recommend that brand.

Worked well, any excess power generated was diverted to the hot water unit or to my convection heaters rather than the grid.

Provided that your hot water unit is not a heat pump model. Though I think that the newer units may be able to be programmed to overcome this problem.

I still had the offpeak heating at night if there wasn't enough sun during the day.

[Warb]

Provided that your hot water unit is not a heat pump model. Though I think that the newer units may be able to be programmed to overcome this problem.

The drama with heat pumps is that they like to work a "cycle", and don't like being switch on and off repeatedly. I investigated them with a view to getting one, and there is at least one brand that has a "trigger" connection that can be used to start a boost cycle. The downside is that the boost cycle will continue to run until it completes, whether the PV is still generating or not. The other downside was that the model I found that had a trigger was also one of the noisiest units.......

If the control systems are capable, a heater element can be fed a restricted amount of power rather than drawing its full load. It can therefore "warm" rather than "heat" (if you see what I mean!) and thus use excess PV power without drawing on the grid. It should not be assumed that all diverters can do this - a less advanced control system might switch the element on but still draw power from the grid to make up any shortfall. A heat pump cannot run on reduced power, it MUST have full power. To that end the control system must not simply switch the load on, it must ensure that sufficient power is available to fully drive the load. And, of course, if the sun goes behind a cloud the heat pump will draw from the grid, as it can't be switched off until its cycle completes. I didn't find a model that has the capability of switching on/off on the basis of a trigger, so they are a questionable fit for PV - unless the control system is very complex (ideally with weather forecasting) there is a risk of triggering a cycle and running most of it from the grid!

As an aside, I finally decided against a heat pump, at least for now. The are expensive and complex, unlike a standard hot water tank with a replaceable element. They use less power, but often have long cycle times meaning that from cold they can take a long time to heat up. Lastly, and this was really the clincher, unlike hot water tanks they are not covered by minimum insulation requirements, and "some" manufacturers have cut corners on insulation so the tanks can lose heat quite rapidly. The models I looked at didn't specify an insulation level, and saving money heating up water and then simply letting it cool down seemed like a waste!!

[koshari]

Indeed, but at the cost of votes? And a LOT of votes?

Maybe, like most current politicians, they believe the majority of voters have the memory capacity of goldfish and will forget. Or maybe, like most current politicians, they believe that the promise of a pay increase, tax cut, or some other short term perceived gain, will wash away all the stains of the past. And history suggests they'd probably be right on both counts!



Oh, wow, look at that. It's so shiny. Hang on, what was I saying? Nevermind. Did somebody say KFC?

to their defense i don't think the electorate is very wise at all. this is a flaw with democracy, a fools vote is equal to the value of a savvy voter. and if you ever feel the need to underestimate the amount of fools in society just spend a bit of time at a boatramp or airport baggage carousel. you will be promptly reminded of the enormity of this demographic.

[Mr Brush]

Our Sanden heat pump HWS is programmed on the unit to only run between 10.00am and 3pm, when we're likely to have plenty of solar available. It only draws 900W, is almost completely silent, and only runs for a couple of hours anyway to provide enough hot water for a household of 2. Some days it doesn't need to run at all. Massive saving in running costs over a traditional electric hot water service.

We just changed power provider to OVO, mainly because they offer 8c/kWh from midnight to 6am for charging EV. I can program the EV to only charge between these hours, so effectively 350km of driving costs me about $4.00. Their FIT is 10c/kWh too, so I'm charging the car at the fastest rate it will take (7kW) from mains power for 8c/kWh and getting back 10c/kWh for the unused solar during the day. This can easily lead to usage like this on a moderately sunny day:-

529895

The green dots during solar production represent a power draw of......0.01kW, i.e. rounding error on the smart meter !

[Warb]

Our Sanden heat pump HWS is programmed on the unit to only run between 10.00am and 3pm, when we're likely to have plenty of solar available. It only draws 900W, is almost completely silent, and only runs for a couple of hours anyway to provide enough hot water for a household of 2. Some days it doesn't need to run at all. Massive saving in running costs over a traditional electric hot water service.

If you don't mind me asking, have you measured how much power it draws in winter? The efficiency of (heating) heat pumps drops with decreasing ambient temperature, and whilst when investigating them I frequently saw specs quoting power draw at upwards of 30C ambient and fairly warm "cold water" temperatures, I'm intrigued as to what they draw in cooler conditions. In Canberra the summer average max is 27C, and in winter 12C (roughly speaking), so for the vast majority of the time such a unit would be operating at ambient and water temperatures far below those at which the spec is quoted. I assume the decrease in efficiency at lower temperatures is why the specs of heat pumps often also show a "max draw" which can be three times what they quote at >30C.

I've seen studies of heat pumps at lower temperatures, down to -10C or so, but they often seem to use "low temperature" heat pumps specifically designed for the job. Such "low temperature" heat pumps go from a COP of >4.5 at higher temperatures down to <3 at approaching 0C. I'd love to know how a real-life unit performs!

[Mr Brush]

I chose the Sanden unit because it is one of the few on the market that uses a CO2 refrigerant, meaning it works better than most at low temperatures. I'm in the southern highlands, so similar to Canberra climate. The rated COP for the Sanden is 5.96 tested against the relevant AUS/NZ standards. The 900W I mentioned is in winter, when it rarely runs for more than 2-3 hours. In summer power consumption seems much the same (maybe 50W less), but it runs for noticeably shorter time. We had a Quantum heat pump HWS before the house was lost in bushfires of 3 years ago, but upgraded to the Sanden for the rebuild. The Quantum was much noisier (compressor integrated onto the top of the tank), while for the Sanden we have the separate compressor unit in an outdoors undercover services area with the tank on the other side of a wall inside the garage. The original Quantum HWS lived inside the garage too, but in recent years they changed to an inflammable refrigerant so the whole tank has to go outside.

[doug3030]

to their defense i don't think the electorate is very wise at all. this is a flaw with democracy, a fools vote is equal to the value of a savvy voter. and if you ever feel the need to underestimate the amount of fools in society just spend a bit of time at a boatramp or airport baggage carousel. you will be promptly reminded of the enormity of this demographic.

never mind going out of your way to a boat ramp or baggage carousel, You will get all the reminders you need on the road on the way there. :rolleyes:

[Mr Brush]

Reminds me of this:-

do you know how stupid the average person is?? #rickygervais - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G2hlmJ16IJ0)

Many a true word, etc....

[Optimark]

If you don't mind me asking, have you measured how much power it draws in winter? The efficiency of (heating) heat pumps drops with decreasing ambient temperature, and whilst when investigating them I frequently saw specs quoting power draw at upwards of 30C ambient and fairly warm "cold water" temperatures, I'm intrigued as to what they draw in cooler conditions. In Canberra the summer average max is 27C, and in winter 12C (roughly speaking), so for the vast majority of the time such a unit would be operating at ambient and water temperatures far below those at which the spec is quoted. I assume the decrease in efficiency at lower temperatures is why the specs of heat pumps often also show a "max draw" which can be three times what they quote at >30C.

I've seen studies of heat pumps at lower temperatures, down to -10C or so, but they often seem to use "low temperature" heat pumps specifically designed for the job. Such "low temperature" heat pumps go from a COP of >4.5 at higher temperatures down to <3 at approaching 0C. I'd love to know how a real-life unit performs!

We chose the Sanden because no matter what part of the system I was studying, the Sanden came out on top. We had already decided to get a heat pump system having discarded various other methods of using solar either directly or indirectly via our existing photo voltaic panels on the rooftops. The real question was, which one?

The Sanden unit does not consume greater or lesser amounts of power according to the ambient water temperature, nor the ambient air temperature. Basically it consumes around 880-890W. When it is operating the draw hovers between just under 900W and never below 870W. This is real time power consumption, from observations of our house system which runs everything through our house batteries, which in long daylight times are completely charged from our rooftop PV cells.

When the water temperature is colder, the pump runs longer, when the ambient temperature is cooler, the pump runs longer, and when either or both of those parameters are warmer, everything happens more expediently. Our system is set to run from 12:30 hours through to 19:00 hours daily. The timing is set for these times to allow the batteries to get some charge after their full or partial overnight depletion and hopefully by that time the sunlight is in full swing and we have excess power to run the HWS compressor. We have had our Sanden HWS in operation for 1¾ years, at times we've had 4 people in the house and the youngies somehow just suck up hot water, but we've never even looked like running out of hot water.

Tank size is important, ours is 301 litres. Speaking of tanks, the Sanden stainless steel tank is manufactured in Moorabbin by Aquamax, I know this for two reasons, one, I asked Sanden in Sydney, two, I have a brother who works for Aquamax in Moorabbin. :U

The system has it's temperature sensor in the middle of the tank, the system heats the tank to 63ºC, the system automatically mixes cold water with the outgoing hot water to get to the legal maximum, which I believe to be 50ºC, or something like that.

You should never switch the Sanden unit off, even when you are going away. Firstly any programming of when the system is allowed to work, is lost. Secondly, if the external temperature drops very low, the system detects this and starts the cycle to ensure it doesn't freeze up. As this will normally happen overnight and mostly pre-dawn as the minimum daily temperature happens, if you are running it from an off grid situation, you will need to ensure there is enough battery power to run the unit.

When our unit was first switched on, the temperature of the water going in was around 15ºC, the unit operated for around 4 hours before it switched off. Currently the unit is on for close to two hours daily, in warmer months I have seen it running for under one hour. I can monitor the run times from readouts on our house solar and battery system, they are accurate times.

The Sanden compressor is virtually silent, basically you need to be about 3-4 metres away before you can hear it and then when it you are standing alongside, unless there is not much background noise you can hear it. The Sanden compressor unit is also vibrationless free, or at least as vibration free as any of these can be. Ours is attached to our external brick wall underneath the bathroom window, it cannot be heard or felt in the bathroom.

One small issue for some people, is the water pressure. The Sanden system requires reasonably low water pressure, so you won't get a blasting water massage with these.

There are various tank sizes available, get the largest you can fit or afford; having a critical mass of water works in your favour with heat retention.

We spent all of July away this year, the Sanden HWS ran for under one hour daily, mostly around 40 minutes. I can go down to five minute intervals on the records. Now that we are back home, it is running for close to two hours a day. I just checked todays figures, it ran for about 95 minutes.

Mick.

[Mr Brush]

Well, that explains why I can hardly detect any change in power drawn by the Sanden. :D

It really is a very impressive product, and that's us coming from another brand so we've had heat pump HWS of one kind or another for about 20 years now. Even our old Quantum unit gave a massive saving in power costs over conventional electric HWS, and the Sanden is better again. I don't have the battery considerations that you have, so just set it to only run when we generally have plenty of solar (4-5kW). Your experience with run times lines up with what we're seeing too.:2tsup:

[woodPixel]

Im back to interject with a "yeah, but more technology!"

Not a battery this time, but a CO2 to Propane tech..... neato!

Read up chaps and chapettes :) .... imagine what could be done with this tech on a farm ,or in industry....

Illinois Tech Engineer Spearheads Research Leading to Groundbreaking Green Propane Production Method | Illinois Institute of Technology (https://www.iit.edu/news/illinois-tech-engineer-spearheads-research-leading-groundbreaking-green-propane-production-method)

529920

[Warb]

You should never switch the Sanden unit off, even when you are going away. Firstly any programming of when the system is allowed to work, is lost. Secondly, if the external temperature drops very low, the system detects this and starts the cycle to ensure it doesn't freeze up. As this will normally happen overnight and mostly pre-dawn as the minimum daily temperature happens, if you are running it from an off grid situation, you will need to ensure there is enough battery power to run the unit.

There's no battery back-up on its internal clock and settings? I wonder why not? It seems like a serious omission. Sanden are advertising a new WiFi controller and phone app, perhaps it removes the problem?

I saw mention of the low temperature cycling in the FAQ on the Sanden web page. It says "Please note that in cold climate regions, the Heat Pump unit will run during the night when the ambient temperature drops below 3oC. If used in an off-grid system, please ensure that adequate power is available", but it gives no further details. Do you know to what extent it runs? Are we looking at sporadically running a circulation pump to push hot water around the system, or significant usage of power - the phrase "the Heat Pump unit will run during the night when the ambient temperature drops below 3oC" could mean anything from an occasional buzz to 100% of the time! In the winter here it can be 3C and below for >14 hours a day.

Water pressure shouldn't be an issue - the Sanden specs says 850kPa maximum for the heat pump, and 500kPa inlet pressure to the tank. That's the standard domestic pressure, and higher than any normal domestic water pump (tank water) that I've used.

[Optimark]

Warb, I lifted this from another thread I participated in when I was doing background information on the Sanden HWS.

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/gas-hws-heat-pump-hws-242091/2#post2250993


I also heard about the units coming on in the middle of the night in winter when it is cold and in some instances staying on for quite some time. This is true, but with the current G4 unit there is a defrost function which is tripped when the ambient goes below 3ºC and the unit goes into preservation by having a defrost for about 10 minutes to raise the compressor/heat exchange unit to 45ºC.

I asked about whether it was a good idea to turn the unit off on really cold nights, as in Melbourne on the few nights it gets down to around 1ºC or thereabouts? The answer was a definite no, the pipes in the compressor may freeze and then they may burst; it may be a quite expensive way to save a dollar or two. The same applies for when one goes away on a holiday in winter; leave the HWS on.

Mick.

[Bart1080]

We spent all of July away this year, the Sanden HWS ran for under one hour daily, mostly around 40 minutes. I can go down to five minute intervals on the records. Now that we are back home, it is running for close to two hours a day. I just checked todays figures, it ran for about 95 minutes.

Good feedback.
I'm betting you could get an even better result by wrapping the tank in batts and sisalation. I've done this to a standard HWS thats only timed to switch on btwn 12pm to 4pm to maximise solar usage.
Found that in the morning during winter the water was barely luke warm after not having an active heating element for 15 hours.
So it dropped approx 13 degrees overnight and wrapping the tank in batts, drops 2 degrees. My 2 tanks are out of the weather (shed and veranda)
Had the batts and siso lying around, so good "free" fix.

[Warb]

I'm betting you could get an even better result by wrapping the tank in batts and sisalation.

It might depend on how old/cheap your hot water tank is. When I was young (in the UK), hot water tanks were uninsulated. Then the hardware stores started selling insulation kits specifically for (indoor) copper tanks. Then tanks started being sold with foam insulation covering most of their surface. These days, in Australia, tanks are covered by MEPS, so a new tank should be fairly well insulated off the shelf.

What can also make a difference is insulating the pipes, ideally all the way to the tap, but at least enough to stop them draining heat from the tank. I've also seen a device that insulates the relief valve without impacting its function, and whilst still allowing easy access for testing. Obviously a wad of rockwool would insulate the valve just as well, but care must be taken to avoid interfering with the valve or making it difficult to test.

Lastly, I encourage my family to wash their hands from the cold tap*. Washing hands in hot water involves either flushing an entire pipe-length of cold water down the drain waiting for the hot to arrive, or washing in cold water from the hot tap, and then letting the hot water cool in the pipes. Both are wasteful of either water or energy or both.

*Living on tank water through droughts, you learn not to waste! In my last house, I incorporated a hot water recirculation system that was activated by a switch near each outlet, and which circulated hot water from the tank outlet around the house and back to the inlet, switching off automatically when it detected that the water in the pipe was hot. When used with insulated pipes, this almost entirely removes wastage of water waiting for the hot to arrive.

[GraemeCook]

It might depend on how old/cheap your hot water tank is. When I was young (in the UK), hot water tanks were uninsulated. ... These days, in Australia, tanks are covered by MEPS, so a new tank should be fairly well insulated off the shelf. ...

What you say is undoubtedly true, Warb, but I am not sure that it is sufficient.

The average Australian home uses 23% of its energy consumption to heat water. A large portion of that heat is lost during the storage phase.
Access Denied (https://www.yourhome.gov.au/energy/hot-water-systems)
I know, two weaknesses with that data:

Its from a government source, and
You and I are not "average".

Most storage hot water systems seem to cycle on for 3-4 hours per day, meaning that they are in heat mode for 4 hours per day and radiating mode for 20 hours per day - implying that about 20/24ths of the energy is radiated - roughly 19% of the houses energy consumption.

It also says that for an "average" insulated house in winter between 25-35% of heat losses are through the ceiling.
Access Denied (https://www.yourhome.gov.au/passive-design/insulation)

Putting together those two wasters of heat:

19% - storage hot water system,
25-35% - ceiling radiation.
Variance - 54-76%.

Summary: The HWS wastes half to three quarters as much energy as the ceiling.

Conclusion: Additional insulation of HWS is extremely cost effective. Just compare surface area of HWS to that of ceiling.

[Optimark]

Good feedback.
I'm betting you could get an even better result by wrapping the tank in batts and sisalation. I've done this to a standard HWS thats only timed to switch on btwn 12pm to 4pm to maximise solar usage.
Found that in the morning during winter the water was barely luke warm after not having an active heating element for 15 hours.
So it dropped approx 13 degrees overnight and wrapping the tank in batts, drops 2 degrees. My 2 tanks are out of the weather (shed and veranda)
Had the batts and siso lying around, so good "free" fix.


In our house, there is almost always a shower taken around 22:00, the next major lot of hot water is in the morning when I come back from the gym around 07:15 and have a shower. There has always been plenty of hot water and when we had four adults, two oldies and two youngies, we also never even looked like running out of hot water, even with the two youngies having a shower before going to work and before I have my return from the gym shower.

Our Sanden HWS has been programmed to only heat water between 12:30 and 19:00, so all showers are taken when the HWS cannot re-heat. The re-heating time in every 24 hour period is 6.5 hours. Everything is very well insulated, especially the external hot water piping. Basically our HWS has one heating cycle in that 6.5 hour period. I have no doubt if we wasted hot water, or had a higher usage pattern, it would come on again, but the reality is; it doesn't.

Mick.

530038530039

[Warb]

Most storage hot water systems seem to cycle on for 3-4 hours per day, meaning that they are in heat mode for 4 hours per day and radiating mode for 20 hours per day - implying that about 20/24ths of the energy is radiated - roughly 19% of the houses energy consumption.

Your first link says "About 30% of the energy used to heat water in a storage system is wasted in heat loss from the tank and associated pipework". I'd believe that, but keep in mind that's not all from the tank. As I said above, if you use hot water (or even just the hot tap) to wash your hands, all the hot water in the pipe cools down when you switch off the tap. Ever wondered how many times an "average" person runs a tap until the water gets hot, then switches it off 5 seconds later? That's a lot of heat being dissipated through the pipes!

Additionally, if Joe Average uses 200L per day, and (from a mixture of data sources) 30 to 40% of that is in the shower, that's 80L of water being heated to 42C (or thereabouts) every day. I have no idea whether it's accurate, but this calculator (https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/water-heating) suggests 2.8kWh to heat 80L of water from 12C to 42C, which takes 46 minutes. That's just for one person's daily "average" shower requirement!

The last point is that all these statistics, if accurate at all, are "averages". That means they include both new (supposedly) efficient houses, and also places that are still using very old installations. It should. I suppose, be easy enough to check. If the outside of the tank is cool, the insulation is working. If it's warm or hot, the tank is leaking heat. I should go and find my non-contact thermometer!

Like most things, there's a great deal of "habit" about water and energy. For example, Sydney Water states that each person in Sydney uses 200L of water PER DAY. People who are used to living on tank (rain) water would find that almost unbelievable. But it's an easy habit to get in to. My kids had 5 minute showers when they lived at home. A couple of years of living in cities and they regard showers as a place to relax - 15 minutes is a "quick" shower! My mothers-in-law's apartment has the water heater (seemingly) in a building down the street; you turn on the hot in the shower, then make coffee and read the paper, then go back and check to see if the hot has arrived! In that apartment, every time hot water reaches an outlet, I'd guess that the power to heat >15L or so of water is wasted as the pipes cool back down.

[GraemeCook]

... Like most things, there's a great deal of "habit" about water and energy. For example, Sydney Water states that each person in Sydney uses 200L of water PER DAY. ...

I saw a similar figure for various centres around Aus - I think it was a CSIRO site, but I cannot find it.

From memory, figures were markedly similar in all states, varying only by the relevant popularity of apartment dwelling - apartments have minimal gardens. Average daily use was indeed 200 litres per day per person. The water usage was:

50% - gardens,
10-15% - Kitchens,
10-15% - Toilets,
10-15% - Bathroom,
10-15% - Laundries.

Apart from the lack of gardens in apartments, houses and apartments used roughly the same amount of water, except for bathrooms. Apartment dwellers inexplicably used more water in the bathroom than house dwellers.

[Warb]

I saw a similar figure for various centres around Aus - I think it was a CSIRO site, but I cannot find it.

Apart from the lack of gardens in apartments, houses and apartments used roughly the same amount of water, except for bathrooms. Apartment dwellers inexplicably used more water in the bathroom than house dwellers.

Sydney Water quote 200L/day/person, 26% for showers, 6% for baths and 23% "outside". Other sources quote much higher values for showers, others put the bulk towards the garden.

I suspect that it's all a guestimate, designed to support whatever story the author is trying to tell. The apartment dweller using more water in the bathroom is quite likely a mathematical construct to explain why they use much the same but don't have a garden! On the other hand, I've walked along roads and watched the water running off apartment balconies because the irrigation system is watering a couple of small pots for 45minutes solid!

[GraemeCook]

Found a 20 year old ABS report on domestic water use, but couldn't find annything more recent - presume ABS has put the statistics behind the pay wall?
1350.0 - Australian Economic Indicators, Australia, Jul 2005 (https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/3d68c56307742d8fca257090002029cd/a0b004e8941b6fbfca25702f007a793b!OpenDocument)

Interestingly it quotes the proportion of water used for "outdoor purposes" - presumably gardens as:

25% - NSW,
35% - Victoria
50+% - Rest of Australia.

Intuitively, these variances reflect the proportion of flats/apartments in the states.

The overall average consumption was :-


530054


I am fairly competent at searching, but I could not find any more uptodate statistics. Sorry.

[Warb]

Found a 20 year old ABS report on domestic water use, but couldn't find anything more recent - presume ABS has put the statistics behind the pay wall?
1350.0 - Australian Economic Indicators, Australia, Jul 2005 (https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/3d68c56307742d8fca257090002029cd/a0b004e8941b6fbfca25702f007a793b!OpenDocument)

"The information in this article is based on data obtained by the ABS through direct surveys of water providers (as well as other peak industry bodies such as the Australian Water Association (AWA) and Water Services Association of Australia(WSAA)) and occupants from a sample of dwellings."

I find these things fascinating. Many years ago, I used to provide consultancy services to big pharmaceutical companies, and it used to fascinate me how many statisticians and statistical programmers they employed. I often wondered why they needed quite so many people to establish something as seemingly simple as "does it work" and "does it kill people". The ABS, I suspect, do a similar thing. Their entire operation is based on "asking people" (aka a survey) and then analysing the result. In this case they have "asked" the organisations listed above, but no information is supplied about whether those organisations measured consumption (a meter on each water outlet in a statistically representative number of dwellings in every area of the country?), or whether they also "asked someone" or simply had a guess!

If no measurements have been done, then the result is almost arbitrary - what people think, even about their own habits, is often far removed from reality, and that's before any politically motivated (or otherwise self-serving) concocted answer.

With regard to the "outside" water usage, it is indeed possible that, as hypothesised in the article, the lack of outside space (apartments) impacts the water usage. Also, as hinted at, there is the issue of water restrictions, plus the planning of Sydney's desalination plant and so forth. If the data was indeed just a "survey", I would suspect that many people wouldn't feel comfortable saying they used huge amounts of water "outside" when to do so would be to break the restrictions - even if they actually did!

I'd also love to see actual measured data, including outside use, from various climatic areas. I'd assume that higher rainfall areas would use far less water on their gardens than hot and dry places... or maybe not!

[GraemeCook]

I'd also love to see actual measured data, including outside use, from various climatic areas. I'd assume that higher rainfall areas would use far less water on their gardens than hot and dry places... or maybe not!

A lot of water is used by councils on sportsgrounds and parks. Their automatic watering systems still come on at midnight when it is pouring.

[doug3030]

Interestingly it quotes the proportion of water used for "outdoor purposes" - presumably gardens as:

25% - NSW,
35% - Victoria
50+% - Rest of Australia.


With regard to the "outside" water usage, it is indeed possible that, as hypothesised in the article, the lack of outside space (apartments) impacts the water usage. Also, as hinted at, there is the issue of water restrictions, plus the planning of Sydney's desalination plant and so forth. If the data was indeed just a "survey", I would suspect that many people wouldn't feel comfortable saying they used huge amounts of water "outside" when to do so would be to break the restrictions - even if they actually did!

Not sure about what happens in other states but on my water bill, in Melbourne, we get a charge for water supply and another charge for waste water/sewage disposal.

Quite a few years ago, I began to wonder about this. I know that we have an electricity meter, a gas meter and a water meter which either gets read by a person coming around, (water and gas) or remotely (electricity), but I was pretty sure we didn't have a sewage meter. Google told me that it was worked out as a percentage of our water usage but there was nowhere that I could find what that percentage was.

Having spent a large proportion of my working life as an intelligence analyst, I started playing with the numbers on my water bills to find out what the correlation between the amount of water used and what the waste water charge was. There didn't seem to be any.

A quick phone call to the Water company should provide the answer, I thought. Well, no such luck. All that they could tell me was that it was worked out on a percentage of the water usage, which I already knew. Asking what the percentage was produced a stunned silence. Apparently nobody had ever asked that before. Escalated to a supervisor only wasted another hour of my time, listening to the elevator music while they tried to find an answer for me, and failed. They promised to find me an answer but I am still waiting.

All I can say with any certainty is that the percantage has been different on every bill I have analysed.

[AlexS]

When I was studying in the 1960s, the figure quoted in notes (written some years earlier) was 20 gallons (91 litres) per head for people living in cities, and in the early '70s it was said to be increasing, but I don't remember a figure being quoted. About 10 years ago some colleagues contracting for Sydney Water were involved in a project using smart meters (actually just data loggers) and the data was analysed to look at what water was being used for - different uses have different patterns. I know that the test was carried out in a suburb with only houses, no units, but it was probably carried out in other typical areas.

[yvan]

If you don't mind me asking, have you measured how much power it draws in winter? The efficiency of (heating) heat pumps drops with decreasing ambient temperature, and whilst when investigating them I frequently saw specs quoting power draw at upwards of 30C ambient and fairly warm "cold water" temperatures, I'm intrigued as to what they draw in cooler conditions. In Canberra the summer average max is 27C, and in winter 12C (roughly speaking), so for the vast majority of the time such a unit would be operating at ambient and water temperatures far below those at which the spec is quoted. I assume the decrease in efficiency at lower temperatures is why the specs of heat pumps often also show a "max draw" which can be three times what they quote at >30C.

I've seen studies of heat pumps at lower temperatures, down to -10C or so, but they often seem to use "low temperature" heat pumps specifically designed for the job. Such "low temperature" heat pumps go from a COP of >4.5 at higher temperatures down to <3 at approaching 0C. I'd love to know how a real-life unit performs!

Hi Warb,

We live in Hobart - 2 adults - and have used a Sanden unit since 2013. Over this period of time, our quarterly hot water tariff power bill has never exceeded $50 excluding the statutory daily charges.

The unit outside is very quiet to the extent that I cannot tell if it is on or off when I walk past it.

The system will turn off when the water filter gets clogged which usually means a lukewarm shower...DAMHIK !!!
I suspect this is because our water main is old so I flush the system every 6 months or so. I called the service man the first time it happened, not realising that I could do it myself as per the manual....

Overall, very happy !

Cheers,
Yvan

[Bushmiller]

A lot of water is used by councils on sportsgrounds and parks. Their automatic watering systems still come on at midnight when it is pouring.

Graeme

I think a lot of that water is recycled effluent (it certainly is in country regions), although I take the point it is still wasted during heavier rain events.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

Graeme

I think a lot of that water is recycled effluent (it certainly is in country regions), although I take the point it is still wasted during heavier rain events.

Regards
Paul

Many country sportsgrounds, and indeed private houses, have bores for irrigation.

I assume (!?) that the domestic statistics are all for "mains" water usage, and don't include rural houses running on rainwater tanks and bore water for the garden.

[Optimark]

While not law in Australia (yet) in the EU and for sure in Germany for many years, is electrical product efficiency requirements that should help the grid masters to keep the lights on.

For some time vacuum cleaners in the Eu have had a maximum 1200W power draw limit, which has the effect of overall lowering of power consumption.

Then there are dishwashers, which apparently are really big users of electricity, firstly with their direct power usage, and secondly with their indirect electrical power usage where the water pumps that keep the water flowing. Use less water and the country uses less power. This indirect power consumption by villages, towns, cities and the whole country, is noticeably less around five years after some of these requirements came into effect.

Miele have released some innovative dishwashers where power and water consumption is demonstrably less than only a few years ago. They have one 450mm wide dishwasher model, which in one mode, uses 6 litres of water for a wash, and in Eco mode, uses just 0.67kW/h of power.

It is these almost inconsequential things, which should help the future of the Australian electricity market much more than most people think.

Mick.

[Warb]

Then there are dishwashers, which apparently are really big users of electricity, firstly with their direct power usage, and secondly with their indirect electrical power usage where the water pumps that keep the water flowing. Use less water and the country uses less power. This indirect power consumption by villages, towns, cities and the whole country, is noticeably less around five years after some of these requirements came into effect.

Miele have released some innovative dishwashers where power and water consumption is demonstrably less than only a few years ago. They have one 450mm wide dishwasher model, which in one mode, uses 6 litres of water for a wash, and in Eco mode, uses just 0.67kW/h of power.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products.


Firstly, and most obviously, they cost a fortune. You can buy a dishwasher for $600, but the cheapest Miele is three times that, and they run up to over $5000. This is the same problem as with heat pump water heaters - when an old style hot tank costs $1000 or so, the additional $4000 investment in a Sanden buys a lot of power. Overall these products may save money, but you have to be able to afford that upfront cost, and (in our disposable, "if it's not new, it's not cool" society) you also have to intend to keep them for many years.


Secondly, the eco cycles tend to take forever to run. In our house we have energy and water saving laundry appliances. They do, I have no doubt, save both water and electricity, but they don't save time. To use the "most saving-est" cycles takes hours longer than the standard cycles on an older machine, which is a problem if you're trying to do all the family's clothes and bedding on a Saturday morning....


There's actually a third issue, which as is the case with many of these "save the planet" products, relates to marketing and usage. The marketing says the product uses x% less power, and under a fixed set of circumstances that's true. But in the bigger equation, replacing a functional unit with a new one that saves x% means that the embedded carbon cost of the new one needs to be factored in. It has taken energy to make and transport the new product, so how long will the savings take to recoup those costs? Will it actually be kept long enough for that to happen? And will it be used in the correct manner to achieve those savings, given that the savings may apply to one specific "cycle" which may not be the one chosen - those energy saving washing machines still retain the high energy usage "boil washes" of old.


The marketing also often relies on "assumptions" which can vary enormously - the estimated break-even point (in carbon terms) for a Tesla Model 3 varies between the 15,000-25,000km suggested by Reuters, through 150,000km suggested by Damien Ernst (University of Liege) up to 700,000km (Ernsts original estimate, later revised downwards). We've already discussed the financial break-even point with PV and batteries being somewhere between "a long time" and "longer than the life of the batteries", but both financial and carbon break-even points are often quite long, and indeed may never actually be reached!


The other big problem of having the entire "save the climate" movement being driven by the desire for corporate profit, is that by necessity it involves selling something, whether the something is a dishwasher or the power itself. The power companies don't really want you to use less power, that cuts their profits (unless they jack-up the price). And the manufactures of dishwashers will say and do anything to get you to buy a new dishwasher. The end result is that neither organisation will tell you the truth, which is that the greatest saving for water, power and money is probably to keep your old appliance but only run it on a low temperature cycle when it's actually full!! When that old appliance finally dies, replace it with an energy and water saving unit, but don't bother replacing it simply because the new version is a tiny bit better..

[GraemeCook]

We only get a fixed charge for sewerage. For water we get a fixed + variable charge.


... Having spent a large proportion of my working life as an intelligence analyst, I started playing with the numbers on my water bills to find out what the correlation between the amount of water used and what the waste water charge was. There didn't seem to be any. ....

Must be a good cypher, Doug, if you could not crack it.

[GraemeCook]

Graeme

I think a lot of that water is recycled effluent (it certainly is in country regions), although I take the point it is still wasted during heavier rain events.

Regards
Paul

Yes, they do, but not as much as their PR people would like you to believe. Grounds/parks close to treatment plants do use recycled water, but it is rather expensive and disruptive to dig up suburban streets to lay separate treated water lines, so it does not happen.

No bores down this way.

[GraemeCook]

... Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products. ...

Ditto.

Our previous Miele washing machine had a water saver option. Select it, and it used less water on most cycles. But the freshly washed clothes felt strange, in a horrible sort of way.

Lots of investigation. Turns out that it put less water in the tank for both wash and rinse cycles and it reduced the rinse cycles. Those strange feeling clothes were actually still full of dried laundry detergent. Yuk.

It really was a dumb idea.

[Bushmiller]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products.


Firstly, and most obviously, they cost a fortune. You can buy a dishwasher for $600, but the cheapest Miele is three times that, and they run up to over $5000. This is the same problem as with heat pump water heaters - when an old style hot tank costs $1000 or so, the additional $4000 investment in a Sanden buys a lot of power. Overall these products may save money, but you have to be able to afford that upfront cost, and (in our disposable, "if it's not new, it's not cool" society) you also have to intend to keep them for many years.



Warb

I am pleased you have mentioned this.

It is a little like the solar panels and batteries. Not everybody has a roof and not everybody has the money. As to the second hand market, many have commented on the difficulty of even giving stuff away. Times have changed since we first started out in adult life.

Regards
Paul

[Bart1080]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products.
-Firstly, and most obviously, they cost a fortune.
- replacing a functional unit with a new one that saves x% means that the embedded carbon cost of the new one needs to be factored in.
- financial break-even point with PV and batteries being somewhere between "a long time" and "longer than the life of the batteries".

Sooo many good points here. Another point people miss is Gov subsidies - they generally waste hundreds millions of dollars of tax payers money on shonky products/companies just wanting to make easy money on these "save the planet" campaigns and if it wasnt for these millions going to waste with "free" stuff that ultimately we are all paying for, it would never be taken up by the masses due to the upfront cost.

Turned down a "free" $4,000 heatpump when the company said they were going to destroy the electrical components and drill a hole in a perfectly good HWS tank they were removing purely out of principle, and I wanted to re-use the tank to use for another off grid project. I understand the rules were set by the gov, but the logic is insane to destroy and send to landfill a perfectly good piece of equipment.

[GraemeCook]

... For some time vacuum cleaners in the Eu have had a maximum 1200W power draw limit, which has the effect of overall lowering of power consumption. ...

Yep, but it was further reduced to 900W with effect from 1 September 2017.
Vacuum cleaners (https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-ecodesign/energy-efficient-products/vacuum-cleaners_en)

Miele are still selling 2,000W C3 model Cat & Dog Vacuums in Australia.
Complete C3 Cat & Dog Bagged Vacuum Cleaner | Bagged Cylinder Vacuum Cleaners | online shop (https://shop.miele.com.au/en/vacuum-cleaners/bagged-cylinder-vacuum-cleaners/complete-c3-cat-dog-bagged-vacuum-cleaner-zid11071460/)

[GraemeCook]

Sooo many good points here. Another point people miss is Gov subsidies - they generally waste hundreds millions of dollars of tax payers money on shonky products/companies just wanting to make easy money ...

So true. Remember the roof insulation debacle?

We booked an appointment with a planet saver and they sent along their expert consultant who happened to be known to us - that phrase sounds much more ominous when used by the Police. We reasoned that if expert consultant was involved, then it was not for us.

A neighbour was not so prescient.

[Optimark]

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, there are a couple of issues with many of these products.


Firstly, and most obviously, they cost a fortune. You can buy a dishwasher for $600, but the cheapest Miele is three times that, and they run up to over $5000. This is the same problem as with heat pump water heaters - when an old style hot tank costs $1000 or so, the additional $4000 investment in a Sanden buys a lot of power. Overall these products may save money, but you have to be able to afford that upfront cost, and (in our disposable, "if it's not new, it's not cool" society) you also have to intend to keep them for many years.


Secondly, the eco cycles tend to take forever to run. In our house we have energy and water saving laundry appliances. They do, I have no doubt, save both water and electricity, but they don't save time. To use the "most saving-est" cycles takes hours longer than the standard cycles on an older machine, which is a problem if you're trying to do all the family's clothes and bedding on a Saturday morning....


There's actually a third issue, which as is the case with many of these "save the planet" products, relates to marketing and usage. The marketing says the product uses x% less power, and under a fixed set of circumstances that's true. But in the bigger equation, replacing a functional unit with a new one that saves x% means that the embedded carbon cost of the new one needs to be factored in. It has taken energy to make and transport the new product, so how long will the savings take to recoup those costs? Will it actually be kept long enough for that to happen? And will it be used in the correct manner to achieve those savings, given that the savings may apply to one specific "cycle" which may not be the one chosen - those energy saving washing machines still retain the high energy usage "boil washes" of old.


The marketing also often relies on "assumptions" which can vary enormously - the estimated break-even point (in carbon terms) for a Tesla Model 3 varies between the 15,000-25,000km suggested by Reuters, through 150,000km suggested by Damien Ernst (University of Liege) up to 700,000km (Ernsts original estimate, later revised downwards). We've already discussed the financial break-even point with PV and batteries being somewhere between "a long time" and "longer than the life of the batteries", but both financial and carbon break-even points are often quite long, and indeed may never actually be reached!


The other big problem of having the entire "save the climate" movement being driven by the desire for corporate profit, is that by necessity it involves selling something, whether the something is a dishwasher or the power itself. The power companies don't really want you to use less power, that cuts their profits (unless they jack-up the price). And the manufactures of dishwashers will say and do anything to get you to buy a new dishwasher. The end result is that neither organisation will tell you the truth, which is that the greatest saving for water, power and money is probably to keep your old appliance but only run it on a low temperature cycle when it's actually full!! When that old appliance finally dies, replace it with an energy and water saving unit, but don't bother replacing it simply because the new version is a tiny bit better..

Warb, in general I agree with you.

However with dishwashers one doesn't need to spend shedloads to get an efficient model. But within reason one would expect there to be a much longer life for a more expensive product, but I know this is not always the case, but it can be.

Firstly, dishwasher cost versus efficiency.

Splurge vs save: Cheaper dishwashers that outshine expensive ones | CHOICE (https://www.choice.com.au/home-and-living/kitchen/dishwashers/articles/splurge-vs-save-dishwashers)

Now to some personal purchases. 51 years ago my wife purchased her first kitchen mixer, actually her only kitchen mixer purchase. She bought a Krups 3000 hand mixer, which could be accessorised up to a reasonably capable unit. Some of the accessories available were a bench top mounted bowl arrangement. What she purchased though was the mixer, which came with a pair of normal mixing blades, she added a pair of dough blades, the cream mixing bowl and the food atomiser which attaches to the rear of the machine.

She has used this on a very regular basis since first purchasing and since 1984, we have been using this mixer reasonably heavily. It is finally starting to die and even though I have pulled it apart and cleaned it, it now seems to be living on borrowed time. When my wife bought this mixer, it was the most expensive unit available, but as it did everything and at a much reduced price compared to benchtop units, she thought it was worth saving up for.

Our current dishwasher (Miele) is about 30 years old and still going strong. It did cost an eye watering $2000 when we purchased it and we thought long and hard about it. It replaced my first dishwasher, which was a benchtop dishwasher which was the cheapest and nastiest unit imaginable. That benchtop dishwasher used very little water, didn't have a heating element; so one turned on the hot water for the first intake of water, then switched to the cold water immediately after that first intake of water. Wash cycles were about 30 minutes from memory and I had it for 20 years. We donated it to a person in need of help and I understand it was in daily use for about another 5 years.

We replaced our HWS 20 months ago, we spent top dollar for a heat pump unit, Sanden compressor made in Japan with the stainless steel tank made in Moorabbin Australia. It replaced a top dollar Aquamax that was made in Moorabbin Australia which lasted around 28-29 years.

This week our next door neighbour purchased their fourth HWS in the same time frame. They purchased a heat pump glass lined all in one unit manufactured in Sydney. Their three previous HWS were all cheap gas powered glass lined units, one of which only lasted 7 years. We had an interesting over the fence discussion regarding HWS a few days ago.

I do get that the sometimes quite expensive solutions being offered are almost impossible for some people to purchase, either because they don't have the money or the roof space for PV panels, or the money for a house battery, but by and large as the top tier products push the development window, the middle and bottom tier products are dragged upwards bit by bit, and this must be good for the country.

We are now on the lookout for a replacement for our Krups handheld mixer, it may take some time to find, it may be expensive; but not necessarily so, and, it should see us out if many of our past purchases are any indication. :U

Mick.

530115

[Warb]

Our current dishwasher (Miele) is about 30 years old and still going strong. It did cost an eye watering $2000 when we purchased it and we thought long and hard about it.

Sometimes it works, but even the "best" is getting worse...

We had a Miele dishwasher for 23 years, it was still going strong when we left it in the farmhouse when I retired. We also had nearly 20 years out of a Miele washer and dryer, but the replacements (also Miele) weren't as good. The energy saving dryer was especially poor, taking hours (literally) to get clothes to something approaching "dry". I wouldn't buy another Miele washer or dryer.

We had a Miele microwave that constantly failed, Miele fixed it repeatedly, only to have it fail again. Eventually fixed by a guy in Dubbo (not Miele) who, I suspect, simply bypassed some of the door safety interlocks. A Miele pyrolytic oven that broke three times in 10 years, the last time a "known issue" of failing to unlock after pyro clean cycle. Miele can't fix (parts no longer available) so they provide a bent wire "key" to get the door open...... The Miele gas cooktop worked 100%, but all the knobs became brittle and fell apart, replaced by Miele twice (second time cost $) after which we patched them with epoxy.

On the other hand, in the cottage on the farm (before we built the house) we fitted a F+P oven which was DOA. F+P declared it was close to Christmas (mid December) and their repair team would look at it mid- January. Luckily Harvey Norman swapped it for another they had in stock so we could cook Christmas lunch. Never buying F+P again! The replacement F+P oven lasted about 8 years before the door hinges started to fall apart.

Having said all that, I'm currently renovating the kitchen in our new house, and have installed a Miele dishwasher, induction cooktop, oven and warming drawer. I did not buy a Miele microwave, fridge or laundry appliances!

I have always believed in buying a good product and keeping it for a long time. It used to work most of the time, but these days I'm not so sure. Certainly the cheap stuff only lasts until you lose the receipt, but even the better, more expensive items don't seem to last the way they used to. My suspicion is that the world has changed and that (many of?) the people who can afford the top end items can also afford to replace them when they start to look dated/used, or when it ceases to impress their friends... I've also noticed that the designs change very frequently, and spare parts availability isn't great.

The corporate mantra of constant growth isn't served by producing things that last a long time!

[Mr Brush]

One thing to bear in mind - with the big name brands like Miele, you'll find that some of their "lesser" appliances such as microwaves are often made by someone else and just rebadged. Also, when looking at the various models from a particular company, it pays to look at the country of manufacture. We've settled on Bosch for a lot of our appliances, but have been careful to select from their product range the items which were actually made in Germany (e.g. Series 6 and up). A lot of their lower end products are manufactured in Turkey, Poland, or Spain to meet the required price point, and these tend not to get reviewed as favourably as their higher end stuff.

This reminds me of Scheppach woodworking machines; the boxes are plastered with "Designed in Germany" logos, desperately trying to distract from the fact that the manufacturing is all in lowest possible cost Chinese factories, with exactly the quality (or lack thereof) you'd expect.

[doug3030]

... And will it be used in the correct manner to achieve those savings, given that the savings may apply to one specific "cycle" which may not be the one chosen - those energy saving washing machines still retain the high energy usage "boil washes" of old.

A few years back, when I still had adult children living at home, we got a new dishwasher with an "economy" cycle.
My "save the planet" millennial offspring would use the "economy" setting on the rare occasions that they started the dishwasher. It would not clean the dishes properly so we had to waste+ another cycle and another detergent tablet to get them clean. It took a long time to convince them just to put it on one of the "full" cycles because one cycle has to be cheaper than two.


My suspicion is that the world has changed and that (many of?) the people who can afford the top end items can also afford to replace them when they start to look dated/used, or when it ceases to impress their friends... I've also noticed that the designs change very frequently, and spare parts availability isn't great.

Not sure that's new, Warb.

I'm sure I spent most of my life going to work at a job I disliked to make money to give to my wife to buy things we didn't need to impress people we didn't even like.

[Warb]

I'm sure I spent most of my life going to work at a job I disliked to make money to give to my wife to buy things we didn't need to impress people we didn't even like.

But now you can impress people that you've never even met, by posting pictures of your breakfast on Faceboast.........

[doug3030]

But now you can impress people that you've never even met, by posting pictures of your breakfast on Faceboast.........

I could - but I don't. :rolleyes:

[Warb]

I could - but I don't. :rolleyes:

I don't think my daily bowl of Uncle Toby's muesli would impress many people, although I have taken to scattering a few blueberries on top, so who knows?!

[Bushmiller]

A little bit more on Nukes in this article and how certain elements are spouting forth without any real comprehension of realities:

The right’s nuclear stupidity is enough to make us cough up Phlegm Orville (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-right-s-nuclear-stupidity-is-enough-to-make-us-cough-up-phlegm-orville/ar-AA1fUu9M?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c8f5617773c241d4b219eeae1d79405f&ei=44)

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

A little bit more on Nukes in this article and how certain elements are spouting forth without any real comprehension of realities:

I often wonder whether journalists do themselves any favours by including statements such as "...the AFR or Dutton — both of whom like to whine about too much government spending —". To me, when you include comments like that you instantly remove any pretence of being impartial, which then calls into question any "factual" statements made. Obviously regular readers of whatever source produced the article will already know, and presumably agree with, any political or idealist leaning, but as a new reader I don't. If I read an article that comes across as well-researched, unbiased and factual I tend to pay far more attention to it than to one that includes personal attacks and derogatory names, or in any other way seems obviously "motivated" towards one side or the other.

It also fascinates me how many of these articles focus on the history of nuclear generators taking a long time to build and going massively over budget. It's not that the statement is inherently untrue, it's simply that I'm not sure there has ever been a government project that has been completed on-time or on-budget......

[Davich]

A little bit more on Nukes in this article and how certain elements are spouting forth without any real comprehension of realities:

The right’s nuclear stupidity is enough to make us cough up Phlegm Orville (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-right-s-nuclear-stupidity-is-enough-to-make-us-cough-up-phlegm-orville/ar-AA1fUu9M?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c8f5617773c241d4b219eeae1d79405f&ei=44)

Regards
Paul

Heheh, ol Crikey strikes again, nuke bad and over priced, solar good and cheap..............except when it is not, why did not Bernard Kean mention the Kogan Creek solar boost $76.2 million dollar flop that not only has been abandoned but has now been totally scrapped without producing a single watt?
The lies that are put forward about "renewables" is astounding, simple fact remains if there is no base load power on tap the entire grid falls over, better yet just shut down all coal fired power stations for a week and see what happens eh? Just to note though I have been totally off grid for over 10 plus years however that is my choice and which I have paid for out of my own pocket, have a look at the waffle in the link below, just another money grifting project for the gullible to soak up, just to note the report advises it cost $76.2M and was completed in March 2016...............no mention it was actually Abandoned and Scrapped.

Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project - Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) (https://arena.gov.au/projects/kogan-creek-solar-boost-project/)

Snip from the page

Summary

The Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project set out to install a 44 megawatts of concentrating solar power (CSP) at CS Energy’s 750 megawatt coal-fired Kogan Creek Power Station.

Project innovation

The project intended to demonstrate the hybridisation of solar thermal and coal-fired power generation on a large scale, and provide key insights into the construction and operation of hybrid renewable/fossil thermal plants.
Benefit

Valuable insights gained during the project will be used to strengthen future renewable energy developments.
A bit more insight on this from the SMH no less.

'Fast-moving clouds': How CS Energy's Kogan Creek Solar Boost project failed (smh.com.au) (https://www.smh.com.au/business/fastmoving-clouds-how-cs-energys-kogan-creek-solar-boost-project-failed-20170516-gw5p2u.html)

[Mr Brush]

Look, Australia has basically lost the ability to complete large civil engineering projects to a good quality, on time, and on budget. We can't do it anymore. I just read that the costs of Snowy 2.0 (already years behind schedule) are now expected to DOUBLE. I've had some very minor peripheral involvement on Snowy 2.0 as a consultant (trying to fix something they've already stuffed up), but stopped doing work for them when the scale of their incompetence became obvious. Good $$$ to be made, but I just don't want them as a client ! Nucular?? (sic) - you have to be joking !!

[FenceFurniture]

We are now on the lookout for a replacement for our Krups handheld mixer, it may take some time to find, it may be expensive; but not necessarily so, and, it should see us out if many of our past purchases are any indication.Mick, do some research on "Dualit" brand. They were pretty good when I purchased mine in 2008.



One thing to bear in mind - with the big name brands like Miele, you'll find that some of their "lesser" appliances such as microwaves are often made by someone else and just rebadged.You cannot trust ANY brand these days, regardless of how good the pedigree is (or was). As we all know from woodworking tools the "Accountants in Suits" have taken over and sell shight tools under good old trusted names. It's actually the same with everything (appliances etc), so one has to extensively read reviews (and try to make sure they are genuine reviews). These days I read a lot of "Choice" articles, and then look for reviews on what they recommend, before purchasing. I am yet to be let down by this process in the last year or so.



I often wonder whether journalists do themselves any favours by including statements such as "...the AFR or Dutton — both of whom like to whine about too much government spending —". To me, when you include comments like that you instantly remove any pretence of being impartial, which then calls into question any "factual" statements made.Yes, it's that kind of thing that should be in the "Opinion" section, and clearly marked as such. It's one of the gripes I sometimes have about The Guardian, and one that I always have about Fox "News".

[Warb]

Mick, do some research on "Dualit" brand. They were pretty good when I purchased mine in 2008.

I bought a Dualit "Classic" toaster in the UK in the early 1990's. It's the simplest design possible - a clockwork timer, hefty 1 or 2 slot selection switch and a manual lever to raise the toast. No electronics whatsoever. I believe they started making them in the 1950's, and their "Classic" model hasn't changed all that much. Maybe 5 years ago we upgraded to a 4 slot version of the same toaster because sometimes we needed, um, 4 slices of toast at a time. The old 2 slot machine got relegated to the workshop, but still worked. I have no knowledge of their other products, but if they follow the same philosophy as the "Classic" toaster, expect them to be basic but bombproof.

[Mr Brush]

These days I read a lot of "Choice" articles, and then look for reviews on what they recommend, before purchasing. I am yet to be let down by this process in the last year or so.

Usefully, Choice also tend to show the country of manufacture for each model from a particular brand. Makes it easy to identify at what level in their product range German brands (for example) actually make the product in Germany. Likewise with cars, e.g. which Hondas still come out of Japan, vs. bodged together in the UK :D

[FenceFurniture]

One thing I don't agree with about Choice is the "buy" button for any given product. It diminishes their objectivity.

[Mr Brush]

Of course, being a tight :rolleyes:, I don't actually subscribe to Choice magazine. Our local library has it though, so I can go look at relevant Choice reviews there before considering any major appliance purchase. As you say, best to use this to generate a short list of products to consider, then go off and Google other reviews and compeittive pricing info.

I think I only ever got one bum steer from Choice some years ago; they recommended a particular kettle as being one of the quietest available due to some fancy feature it had like a double base rather than exposed element. We bought one - it was quiet for about 2 months, then transformed into the noisiest kettle I've ever experienced. Sounded like a 747 taking off when my partner put a brew on early in the morning before going off on shift work. Luckily the kettle burned down with the rest of the house in the bushfires (2020), and has been replaced with a simple, cheap, exposed element type (probably K-Mart) which works a treat and is as quiet as a mouse.

[Bushmiller]

Heheh, ol Crikey strikes again, nuke bad and over priced, solar good and cheap..............except when it is not, why did not Bernard Kean mention the Kogan Creek solar boost $76.2 million dollar flop that not only has been abandoned but has now been totally scrapped without producing a single watt?
The lies that are put forward about "renewables" is astounding, simple fact remains if there is no base load power on tap the entire grid falls over, better yet just shut down all coal fired power stations for a week and see what happens eh? Just to note though I have been totally off grid for over 10 plus years however that is my choice and which I have paid for out of my own pocket, have a look at the waffle in the link below, just another money grifting project for the gullible to soak up, just to note the report advises it cost $76.2M and was completed in March 2016...............no mention it was actually Abandoned and Scrapped.

Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project - Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) (https://arena.gov.au/projects/kogan-creek-solar-boost-project/)

Snip from the page

Summary

The Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project set out to install a 44 megawatts of concentrating solar power (CSP) at CS Energy’s 750 megawatt coal-fired Kogan Creek Power Station.

Project innovation

The project intended to demonstrate the hybridisation of solar thermal and coal-fired power generation on a large scale, and provide key insights into the construction and operation of hybrid renewable/fossil thermal plants.
Benefit

Valuable insights gained during the project will be used to strengthen future renewable energy developments.
A bit more insight on this from the SMH no less.

'Fast-moving clouds': How CS Energy's Kogan Creek Solar Boost project failed (smh.com.au) (https://www.smh.com.au/business/fastmoving-clouds-how-cs-energys-kogan-creek-solar-boost-project-failed-20170516-gw5p2u.html)

Davich

Thanks for the contribution. Kogan is a government owned station. The station at which I work, Millmerran (I mention this as a welcome newcomer to the thread i need to state my position), is privately owned. Millmerran looked at the same thing as Kogan Creek and decided not to go ahead as it was not economically viable. That was then. It may not be the case now. Renewables have made daytime power ridiculously cheap. The big issue, as you have said is power during the sunless and windless hours. The focus should be on storage and that aspect is still lamentably minimal.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

I often wonder whether journalists do themselves any favours by including statements such as "...the AFR or Dutton — both of whom like to whine about too much government spending —". To me, when you include comments like that you instantly remove any pretence of being impartial, which then calls into question any "factual" statements made. Obviously regular readers of whatever source produced the article will already know, and presumably agree with, any political or idealist leaning, but as a new reader I don't. If I read an article that comes across as well-researched, unbiased and factual I tend to pay far more attention to it than to one that includes personal attacks and derogatory names, or in any other way seems obviously "motivated" towards one side or the other.

It also fascinates me how many of these articles focus on the history of nuclear generators taking a long time to build and going massively over budget. It's not that the statement is inherently untrue, it's simply that I'm not sure there has ever been a government project that has been completed on-time or on-budget......

Warb

It would be preferable to do without the political comment, but if you have been attacked by certain political elements as often as Crikey, have perhaps you would be unable to resist a dig. For real unmitigated bias have a look at Sky and particularly their headlines.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Look, Australia has basically lost the ability to complete large civil engineering projects to a good quality, on time, and on budget. We can't do it anymore. I just read that the costs of Snowy 2.0 (already years behind schedule) are now expected to DOUBLE. I've had some very minor peripheral involvement on Snowy 2.0 as a consultant (trying to fix something they've already stuffed up), but stopped doing work for them when the scale of their incompetence became obvious. Good $$$ to be made, but I just don't want them as a client ! Nucular?? (sic) - you have to be joking !!

Mr.B

I have to restrain myself when talking about Snowy 2. Over talked up (not as much pumped Hydro as there should be), over time and over budget. Their drilling machine has been stuck in the tunnel for several months now.

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Well, it's much worse than has been reported in the press - the public are only hearing about the large-scale stuff ups. The ordinary, everyday stuff ups don't get a mention. Having done some work up their as a contractor, I certainly don't want anything more to do with the project in future.

Initial cost was estimated at $2 billion. The latest estimate is $12 billion.....clearly even a small child could do a better job of costing a project. They've hardly started on the tunnel bores, thanks to a huge hole that suddenly appeared in a paddock with a tunnel boring machine at the bottom of it, and any government with any fiscal nouse (and a spine) would scrap the project entirely. If the economics barely stood scrutiny with the original budget and timescale, they certainly don't now.

[Warb]

If the economics barely stood scrutiny with the original budget and timescale, they certainly don't now.

This leads me to another thought. I have, in previous posts, mentioned the problems that are caused by "climate mitigation" measures being driven by a desire for corporate profit rather than any real wish to fix the problem. Given, as has also been mentioned, that corporate profit as a driver inherently favours the short term, high return, "easy" solutions and precludes any long term, low payback, high-cost projects (as evidenced by the mass of wind and solar farms that are quick, cheap and easy to install but don't address the weather-independent base load problem), will "we" ever grasp the nettle and address that base load issue? Or will we simply hope that someone, sooner or later (and before it's "too late") will devise an approach that will both genuinely work and also meet the requirements for profit?

In the past, western civilization and probably most others have always done things for profit. Whether personal profit, or profit of the country/kingdom/empire, those explorers, engineers and so forth were driven and funded by the desire to profit. I guess the only difference now, if we believe the current predictions*, is that there are significant negative consequences for failure to act.

*Although in the past perhaps the motivation was similar, revolving around what God(s) might do if the population didn't behave appropriately!

[Davich]

Davich

Thanks for the contribution. Kogan is a government owned station. The station at which I work, Millmerran (I mention this as a welcome newcomer to the thread i need to state my position), is privately owned. Millmerran looked at the same thing as Kogan Creek and decided not to go ahead as it was not economically viable. That was then. It may not be the case now. Renewables have made daytime power ridiculously cheap. The big issue, as you have said is power during the sunless and windless hours. The focus should be on storage and that aspect is still lamentably minimal.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul, thanks for the welcome, you are correct in that Kogan is government owned and then you would also know that there was supposed to be a Kogan 2 to boost the capacity out to 1500MW but that is highly unlikely to happen in this current climate (pardon the pun!).
Whilst daytime renewables are cheap the only reason for that is that we have shipped our cheap energy (coal) off to China so that we can offshore the "dirty" manufacturing to a country that only gives lip service to human rights and pollution so that we can have cheap goods.
In a past life I went over to China on 2 business deals of which one was paid for by the Australian government to clean up a refinerys pollution that was so bad it could be seen from space.
The winning contractor (ex father in law) stated to me that once commissioned the water treatment plant that he designed and built and was fully paid for by the Australian taxpayer that the Chinese would pull the contract for the 7 other plants that were slated to be built, copy his and then build their own..............and that is exactly what happened.
With the deal that I had going on I had already paid the money so had to go through the process, however after seeing the abysmal treatment of the workers and the conditions they were forced to work under plus how polluted the whole area was I decided then and there to limit my dealings with the Chinese as much as possible even though I ended up losing a lucrative deal.
You are dead right in that the problem is storage of electricity which is why the current base load need to be not only retained but should have more capacity to bring down pricing until we have a viable means of storing power efficiently but with the current dogma this will not happen.

Dave

[Bushmiller]

Hi Paul, thanks for the welcome, you are correct in that Kogan is government owned and then you would also know that there was supposed to be a Kogan 2 to boost the capacity out to 1500MW but that is highly unlikely to happen in this current climate (pardon the pun!).
Whilst daytime renewables are cheap the only reason for that is that we have shipped our cheap energy (coal) off to China so that we can offshore the "dirty" manufacturing to a country that only gives lip service to human rights and pollution so that we can have cheap goods.
In a past life I went over to China on 2 business deals of which one was paid for by the Australian government to clean up a refineries pollution that was so bad it could be seen from space.
The winning contractor (ex father in law) stated to me that once commissioned the water treatment plant that he designed and built and was fully paid for by the Australian taxpayer that the Chinese would pull the contract for the 7 other plants that were slated to be built, copy his and then build their own..............and that is exactly what happened.
With the deal that I had going on I had already paid the money so had to go through the process, however after seeing the abysmal treatment of the workers and the conditions they were forced to work under plus how polluted the whole area was I decided then and there to limit my dealings with the Chinese as much as possible even though I ended up losing a lucrative deal.
You are dead right in that the problem is storage of electricity which is why the current base load need to be not only retained but should have more capacity to bring down pricing until we have a viable means of storing power efficiently but with the current dogma this will not happen.

Dave

Dave

Kogan Creek was the last thermal power station to be commissioned in Australia and Millmerran was the second last. Kogan has the largest single unit in Australia at 740MW and is nearly as much as our two 425MW units combined. We also had anticipated a further two units, but all that was dashed as acceptance of carbon dioxide emissions was finally admitted and we became a pariah.

The coal that is used in power stations is extremely poor quality and for this reason is not shipped overseas. So, while there are some anomalies in attempting to reduce carbon emissions while exporting carbon producing fuels, it is not causing high coal prices in the thermal stations. The market is driven by the old basic economic principle of supply and demand. During the day power supplies are plentiful and the price is extremely low: Frequently in the negative region where the generators have to pay to remain online. The last few days have seen ~-$45Mw/hr in Queensland for extended periods. The converse is true at nighttime where supply is tighter and demand from thermal sources is greater.

The Chinese are a wily bunch of entrepreneurs. I sense, despite never having been to China (so forgive me please if I am wrong), that their approach is changing. As a child growing up, "made in Japan" meant absolute rubbish. Gradually they developed into being high level manufacturers. I think China is moving towards that position. However, their political ambitions may yet prove to be their undoing where in a similar economic position Japan went from strength to strength.

Coal fired stations will be around for a little longer yet. As they become uneconomic, they will close. They are mainly in private hands and the bottom line is king.

Regards
Paul

[havabeer69]

Look, Australia has basically lost the ability to complete large civil engineering projects to a good quality, on time, and on budget. We can't do it anymore. I just read that the costs of Snowy 2.0 (already years behind schedule) are now expected to DOUBLE. I've had some very minor peripheral involvement on Snowy 2.0 as a consultant (trying to fix something they've already stuffed up), but stopped doing work for them when the scale of their incompetence became obvious. Good $$$ to be made, but I just don't want them as a client ! Nucular?? (sic) - you have to be joking !!

when people talk not only about building nuclear... but the people running it day to day and maintaining it

https://comb.io/zVRXUp.gif

[Davich]

Dave

Kogan Creek was the last thermal power station to be commissioned in Australia and Millmerran was the second last. Kogan has the largest single unit in Australia at 740MW and is nearly as much as our two 425MW units combined. We also had anticipated a further two units, but all that was dashed as acceptance of carbon dioxide emissions was finally admitted and we became a pariah.

The coal that is used in power stations is extremely poor quality and for this reason is not shipped overseas. So, while there are some anomalies in attempting to reduce carbon emissions while exporting carbon producing fuels, it is not causing high coal prices in the thermal stations. The market is driven by the old basic economic principle of supply and demand. During the day power supplies are plentiful and the price is extremely low: Frequently in the negative region where the generators have to pay to remain online. The last few days have seen ~-$45Mw/hr in Queensland for extended periods. The converse is true at nighttime where supply is tighter and demand from thermal sources is greater.

The Chinese are a wily bunch of entrepreneurs. I sense, despite never having been to China (so forgive me please if I am wrong), that their approach is changing. As a child growing up, "made in Japan" meant absolute rubbish. Gradually they developed into being high level manufacturers. I think China is moving towards that position. However, their political ambitions may yet prove to be their undoing where in a similar economic position Japan went from strength to strength.

Coal fired stations will be around for a little longer yet. As they become uneconomic, they will close. They are mainly in private hands and the bottom line is king.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul, you are on the money about Kogan for sure, Kogan breaks even at a ridiculously cheap price point per m/hr but the savings are never passed on due to the way the entire grid is being manipulated, Australia could have cheap power for centuries but as I said the current dogma will not allow it while we transfer our abundant wealth overseas so that they can have cheap power.

Dave

[GraemeCook]

... As a child growing up, "made in Japan" meant absolute rubbish. Gradually they developed into being high level manufacturers. I think China is moving towards that position. ...

I think you are on the money, Paul. It almost seems like there is an inevitable economic "law of progression" - first you produce crap, lots of it and when you get really good at it you progress to quality.

In the early 1900's the USA was not regarded as a quality producer like the UK and Germany,
Korea also followed the Japan route,
ditto Taiwan,
ditto Thailand, with hiccups,
and India?

We were in China not long before lockdown; it is so big and so complex. They do produce crap, but they also produce some very high quality stuff.

Virtually all Apple products have been produced in China; no one criticises their quality.

We saw lots of Chinese made Mercedes Benz cars. They are identifiable from German made Mercedes by:

Letter "L" added to model number,
About 150mm longer - all in rear seat leg room where owner sits,
Better paint job.


I saw power tools that looked, felt and sounded like Festool at about half the Ozito price.

My theory is that the buyers for Aus Big Chains are so addicted to absolute minimal price that they just do not see the available quality options.

[Mr Brush]

Have to agree with that - often the difference in factory gate price between something that will last 5 minutes and something better that will last 5 years is only a few $$$, but Bunnies et al will always go the cheap option. Often it might be something as simple as a metal gear wheel instead of a plastic one.

Reminds me of an experience with a project home build years ago. The builder went for the cheapest possible materials throughout, including crappy "set in" plastic sinks in the bathrooms. After only a few years these were all scratched up and attracting dirt, so before selling the place I decided to replace with proper ceramic sinks if possible. Off to the local plumbing supplies.....where I find that an exact drop in ceramic replacement for the plastic sinks cost $10 more than the original plastic version. Apparently an extra $30 to upgrade all three sinks in the house just wasn't possible on the $230,000 original build price?

[Warb]

Apparently an extra $30 to upgrade all three sinks in the house just wasn't possible on the $230,000 original build price?

But....

If the additional $30 is added to the price the customer pays, and repeated across every item in the house, then the resulting $ increase of the total price may either cause the project to be shelved or the customer to go to another supplier, and the builder loses out.

Or

If the additional $30 is an extra cost to the builder and reduces his profit, then when repeated across every item in the house and every house the builder puts up in a year, then the builder loses a substantial amount of profit.


The same applies to Bunnings (and all other suppliers). The extra $0.50 profit on a single item isn't much, but when replicated across every item the company sells it becomes a phenomenal amount.

A very long time ago, in my first career, I spent a lot of time researching ways to cut a few pennies from the cost of some of the company's products. The savings per unit were trivial, but when totalled across the globe the additional profits were staggering.

[FenceFurniture]

I put a post in my thread about "Getting a better energy deal". There is a newish kid on the retail block, and they have been inundated with people changing over to them.

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f28/getting-energy-deal-joke-217233#post2317957

[Bushmiller]

It appears there is a new ceiling price for the wholesale market. Yesterday QLD nearly reached it at $14,777 per MW/hr and NSW did get there at $16,599 per MW/hr! These prices normally only last at that level for a single five minute segment, but yesterday, in QLD, it ran for two segments.

Regards
Paul

[woodPixel]

good news everybody!

Move over lithium-ion: Zinc-air batteries a cheaper and safer alternative - ECU Newsroom (https://www.ecu.edu.au/newsroom/articles/research/move-over-lithium-ion-zinc-air-batteries-a-cheaper-and-safer-alternative)