Future of the Australian Electricity Market [Archive] - Page 18

Warb

15th December 2023, 10:17 AM

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm always a touch sceptical of these temperature numbers. When I was trained as a scientist (industrial chemist) many years ago, we were taught that for measurements to be meaningfully compared they must be like for like. 65 years ago, most temperature readings were taken by the local postmaster, probably using a max-min mercury thermometer, or something equally "old fashioned". These days they are taken by far more advanced systems, sometimes even satellites. 65 years ago, most local post offices were in small towns, and even the ones in cities had far more green space than they do now. A study by one of the Sydney universities suggested that the ambient temperature of Sydney would be lowered by (from memory) around 3C if all the buildings had light coloured roofs. Do we allow for these changes when we compare the readings?

My original scientific training would tell me that comparing a manually read greenfield reading with an electronic reading from the middle of 12,000 square kilometres of concrete is questionable at best.

I would also note that the historical records have been edited over time. Some of the high readings have been removed, the reason given is that "their accuracy is questionable" (one example I read some time ago stated that the postmaster had "probably misread the reading"). When I first started commercial irrigation, I downloaded all the data I could find at that time for the area I was farming to calculate my required worst case irrigation rates. A few years later I discovered that much of that data is no longer available. For example there are still (last time I looked) rainfall records dating back to the late 1800's, but mysteriously the temperature records now start in the 1960's.

I am NOT a "climate denier" - it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the climate changes constantly - archaeology proves conclusively that areas have changed massively over both short and long timescales. It also seems very likely that man's actions have had an impact on everything around us, including the atmosphere and therefore probably the climate. I am 100% behind the removal of fossil fuels, and many other of our more questionable activities. However, I do think we need to be careful when looking at some of these figures, as "science" sometimes seems to lose track of reality in the desperate need to prove something is happening.

BobL

15th December 2023, 11:04 AM

A WA EV aficionado has bought the first Hyundai "Mighty" EV light truck in Australia and together with another driver are about to drive it round Australia.

Both drivers are seasoned "round Australia drivers". One driver has done the big loop 4 times and holds the current EV record for doing it in 10 days.

MIGHTY Electric Truck | Hyundai Electrified Commercial Australia (https://www.hyundai.com/au/en/cars/ecv/mighty-electric)
Range claimed is 200 km with a full load (7 tons) at 100 kph.
Not cheap - about twice the price of a similar diesel variant.
5year 200k km vehicle warranty, 400k km battery warranty.

BobL

15th December 2023, 11:12 AM

FenceFurniture

15th December 2023, 04:38 PM

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm always a touch sceptical of these temperature numbers. ... 65 years ago, most temperature readings were taken by the local postmaster, probably using a max-min mercury thermometer, or something equally "old fashioned".Yes but that doesn't mean that all the years' records were necessarily as unreliable as they may have been in 1957 or so. That unreliability effect gets diluted as the years of better temp taking methods were implemented.

Furthermore, it could well be that that is the very reason why the long term records available are only back to 1957, given that records were kept for a long while before that. In other words, I suspect that the BOM has already tried to factor out records that may have been dodgy. Katoomba isn't a remote location, and in fact it is part of Greater Sydney these days.

However, I do think we need to be careful when looking at some of these figures, as "science" sometimes seems to lose track of reality in the desperate need to prove something is happening.Jeez, I'm just saying that the first half of this month has been much hotter than the 65 year ave, which is the only info available, and I'll add that anecdotally, it is certainly considerably hotter than the last few years. What do I base that on? Well, I'm pretty sensitive to heat which is why I moved up here from Sydney 13 years ago. All of those summers bar one have been exceptionally pleasant by comparison. In 2010 we even had the firebox going all day Xmas & Boxing day! After the horror summer of 2019 (everywhere, including here) we installed 2x A/C units. They hardly got used used in the 3 summers after, but they have had fairly extensive use this season.

I'll do what I can to get the averages from whatever years are available in the last 2-3 decades, when temp taking should be a bit more reliable. I am always interested in seeing if there are statistical trends.

Warb

15th December 2023, 06:58 PM

I'm starting to think that my experience with science and scientists is very different from that of other people! I was trained as a chemist a long time ago, and that training included various scientific and research principles, such as "use all your effort to try to disprove the concept before claiming it's real". I then went into the commercial sector, where a completely different approach was taken. The commercial approach was basically to design an experiment specifically to show the concept is real, and largely (if at all possible) to ignore any results contrary to what you want. There's a great deal of money floating around, and many companies will write that off against tax by paying for research that just might, perhaps, give a result. The longer you can string them along, the more you get paid! Along the way I also met with scientists, commercial and otherwise, who were emotionally attached to a concept and would make outrageous claims based on very questionable results, and who were apparently completely unable to see why others didn't believe them.

So now we are looking at a world where headlines are everything. A world where "you can't argue with the science" and climate change deniers are ostracised. If you want sponsorship for your research, you relate it in some way to climate change. The best way to get ahead is to do something that other people will like, and which will get you headlines, because science is a business. If the sponsor of a scientist's research would prefer to see a certain result, will that scientist really have the guts to report the opposite, and if they do will the result ever get published? Under these conditions, are we really to believe that all science is 100% unbiased and truthful? Are we to believe that everything that is in the media is an accurate representation of the actual results? Is a journalist better off repeating the actual results, or pulling the most shocking numbers and quoting them out of context? Are the viewers more likely to get worked up about a "meh" statement or an "aaarrggghhh" one?

Is mankind screwing up the planet? Undoubtedly. Do we need to fix it? Absolutely. Do all the scientists, businessmen, journalists, activists and politicians involved (on either side) in process of analysing the problem and coming up with a solution have the moral backbone to tell the truth and do what is best for the planet, regardless of profit or loss, election results, loss or gain of power or prestige, results that disagree with the zeitgeist or personal beliefs etc. etc.? If we believe that they do, then we can go ahead and wholeheartedly believe everything we read, although of course we need to pick a source because they're often at odds!

My experience of scientists (and people in general) is that it's rare to find one that will bite the hand that feeds it!

[Note: I also have met many very good scientists who are dedicated to producing excellent science with an honest and accurate outcome. However, these people have rarely been in "front and centre" high publicity fields and are therefore less exposed to the lure of the almighty dollar.]

It's also interesting how age affects my own interaction with the weather (I'm not sure that interaction is the right word, but I can't think of one better). I know that over the last 20-odd years, on my farm I worked through drought, floods, freezing temperatures and periods where it was 38C+ every day for a week or more. Very rarely did we stop work, though we did sometimes build shade structures to work under. Now, in my retirement and having moved to a somewhat cooler area, I find myself running for aircon when it approaches 30C, or drops below 10C or so. Intellectually I know that I've worked through far worse, but it doesn't feel like it!!

My daughter says I'm a cranky old man. I think she may be right!

BobL

15th December 2023, 07:51 PM

During the 1990's through to 2015 I was a member of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). The main IUPAC Commission I worked on (CIAAW) is one of the oldest scientific commissions (since 1899) in modern science and back in the 1930's included the very famous Madam Curie as a member. While there were a (very) few "difficult", "lazy", and "self serving ie they had an agenda" individual members, most were an absolute pleasure to work with and the difficult ones were just voted out or left cos they quickly worked out they were expected to work. The main subgroup I worked on reviewed data and conclusions from published papers but we always triple/quadruple checked calculations etc and when in doubt always made sure we took conservative stances on major decisions and they are able to say that based on the current state of knowledge at the time CIAAW didn't have to retract any major results due to mistakes. Sure, when new information became available changes were made (lots of them) but that's the way science work.

You can check the CIAAW members list here
Historical Members | Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (https://www.ciaaw.org/historical-members.htm)
I'm the 4th "Robert' on that page.

Warb

15th December 2023, 09:07 PM

Sure, when new information became available changes were made (lots of them) but that's the way science work.

That was the way I was trained, and I fully agree with the sentiment. Sadly, at the present time, when "you can't argue with the science" seems actually to mean "if you disagree you'll be ridiculed and your career ended" and the media are interested solely in a good headline, I'm no longer 100% convinced that the climate information I see reported in the media is truthful, unbiased and accurate in both science and reporting. There's a great deal of pressure to be on the bandwagon, and absolutely no reward in not doing so.

As an example, the other week there was, briefly, a flutter in the media about a new study that had suggested that some climate event, and I don't recall exactly what (perhaps a "tipping point"?) was only five or ten years away. In this case, whether or not the science was accurate is less relevant than the fact that the study actually gave a range of (from memory) between five and well over a hundred years, with the most likely time being somewhere in the middle. The media, however, choose to quote the shortest possible time frame as "when scientists say it will happen".

FenceFurniture

15th December 2023, 10:04 PM

There are a couple of very grave problems that we face: stupidity, and the need to grab a headline. Often they go hand in hand.

GraemeCook

15th December 2023, 10:25 PM

That was the way I was trained, and I fully agree with the sentiment. Sadly, at the present time, when "you can't argue with the science" seems actually to mean "if you disagree you'll be ridiculed and your career ended" and the media are interested solely in a good headline

I share your concerns but source the problem to the multitude of journalism schools which are producing "journalists" who do not have basic numeracy and have a very shallow appreciation of the scientific principle.

For example. Who is to say that one person's opinion is weightier than another's? If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.

doug3030

15th December 2023, 10:30 PM

If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.

Yes, but further analysis will most likely show that the 10 flat earthers are all just repeating information they all got from the one source. They were most likely not conducting their own research. Let's suppose the three scientists did theor own research, the actual ratio is three to one that the world is a globe but the one flat earther has more facebook followers. :rolleyes:

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 10:36 AM

BOM long term NSW weather statistics are here (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/ca_nsw_nos.shtml), and you can pick a station number. At the top of the page you can go to a list that is sorted by site name if you don't know the number you want.

GraemeCook

16th December 2023, 11:55 AM

Yes, but further analysis will most likely show ...

Irrelevant, the opinions of FB posters are paramount and infallible.

Next you will be saying that Galileo was right and that PopeUrban VIII was fallible.

More seriously, Doug, the point I was trying to make is that too many journalists lack the scientific training to make the distinction that you just instinctively made. They do not differentiate between gossip and sciebtific fact.

Bushmiller

16th December 2023, 12:15 PM

The problem with all the various groups mentioned by so many of you is that as far as viability is concerned they are just not in the real world. I am including journalists, other commentators, politicians and to some extent even the so-called experts. They all either forget or ignore ( some from ignorance, some from self interest and some for malicious or other nefarious reasons) that in Oz we have a competitive, commercial market. If you can't make a reasonable commercial profit, it is not going to fly.

Talk of shutting down power stations or building another type of station is all irrelevant hyperbole if it does not stack up as a commercial proposition. The fossil fueled stations will shut down when they can no longer make money. The danger is not that they will shut down, but that they will shut down before there is something to replace them. That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more. That value has to be for all hours of the day and not just the sunny hours.

The biggest flaw in the nuclear philosophy is not the ban on nukes in Oz, although I don't agree with a ban as such, but more to do with their commercial viability. In other countries, they may be more viable, but it doesn't look that way here.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 12:30 PM

That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more. It definitely has to be more to cope with the transition away from gas home heating and gas hot water, just for a start. Then there is population growth, followed by the industrial dependence on gas to account for (bearing nett zero in mind, of course).

but more to do with their (nuclear) commercial viability. In other countries, they may be more viable, but it doesn't look that way here.I wonder how viable they are in those countries (with existing nuclear power) going forward from here though? Perhaps many of them are going to find out the real cost of decommissioning them.

Apart from the nuclear power plants that have effectively "blown up", which no doubt causes far more decomm costs, how many have been decommissioned on schedule so far? Are there any at all yet? Did the costs come in around the forecast cost?

ian

16th December 2023, 12:32 PM

A WA EV aficionado has bought the first Hyundai "Mighty" EV light truck in Australia

MIGHTY Electric Truck | Hyundai Electrified Commercial Australia (https://www.hyundai.com/au/en/cars/ecv/mighty-electric)
Range claimed is 200 km with a full load (7 tons) at 100 kph.
Not cheap - about twice the price of a similar diesel variant.
5year 200k km vehicle warranty, 400k km battery warranty.
doing some "simple" maths ...

5 years or 200,000 km warranty equates to 40,000 km per annum.
As a guide, my BMW X3 travels that far every 6 months or so.
But given that the EV truck only has a range of 200km, many operators would require 2 trucks -- one to do the morning deliveries, the other the afternoon ones -- so a 5 year warranty might be reasonable.

For comparison, an ICE semi working the Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane routes would do in excess of 200,000 km per annum, and would carry a warranty of around 400,000 km

GraemeCook

16th December 2023, 12:39 PM

Very well stated Paul.

The danger is not that they will shut down, but that they will shut down before there is something to replace them. That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more. That value has to be for all hours of the day and not just the sunny hours.

I think that the sistualion is even more insidious than yo say, Paul.

We lack the topography of Norway to invest massively in hydro power, natural or pump assisted. But the rapid growth of other renewables means that we have heaps of power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. This is reflected in very low and even negative wholesale prices in times of abundant supply.

A hydro plant is ideally situated to exploit this situation. Switch off the turbines when the prices are low; wait for high prices.

But coal fired plants cannot ramp up and down quickly. They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market.

As more and more alternative energy comes onto the market the price volatility will increase. It may become so volatile that one (or more) of the coal fired generators do not survive - they go bankrupt! This would leave a catastrophic hole in the electricity supply. And before there is a viable alternative source. The economic and social impact would be horrendous.

Ironically, the government may be forced to assist coal fired plants!

ian

16th December 2023, 12:47 PM

For example. Who is to say that one person's opinion is weightier than another's? If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.
who actually gives a toss? and why should flat-earthers be treated as anything other than the marginal cranks?

At least two and probably several millennia earlier, it was known that the only 3-D shape that could cast a circular shadow whatever the object's orientation in space was a sphere. Eratosthenes (the Greek philosopher) may have determined the earth's circumference with a high degree of accuracy in around 200 BC, but the basic concept -- that a sphere is the only shape that casts a circular shadow -- would have been known to the Sumerians, and probably even earlier civilisations.

GraemeCook

16th December 2023, 12:58 PM

who actually gives a toss? and why should flat-earthers be treated as anything other than the marginal cranks?

I think that you should address that question to Mr Trump or Mr Musk or Mr Johnson or Mr Dutton or Mr Jones.

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 01:06 PM

In Katoomba:
For 2023 to be no more than the equal hottest year on record since 1907 (which was 1957 with a monthly mean of 18.9°), the remaining 16 days have to average no more than 17.5° (which is 0.2° less than the coolest ever Dec mean).

It's already ~28° today. :D

If the current daily mean persists (28.8°) then this year will be 0.5° hotter than 1957, which is a pretty substantial increase on the mean monthly temp. (some would say "SMASHED!" :D)

ian

16th December 2023, 01:45 PM

The [temperature] issue is far less about current day readings and more about the reliability of the old readings. Stevenson Screens were invented in the 1880 but not in widespread use especially in remote locations for many years after that. Screens were not always well maintained and spurious results were often found to be associated with damaged or incorrectly installed screens.
given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.

Bushmiller

16th December 2023, 01:58 PM

I think that the situation is even more insidious than you say, Paul.

We lack the topography of Norway to invest massively in hydro power, natural or pump assisted. But the rapid growth of other renewables means that we have heaps of power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. This is reflected in very low and even negative wholesale prices in times of abundant supply.

A hydro plant is ideally situated to exploit this situation. Switch off the turbines when the prices are low; wait for high prices.

But coal fired plants cannot ramp up and down quickly. They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market.

As more and more alternative energy comes onto the market the price volatility will increase. It may become so volatile that one (or more) of the coal fired generators do not survive - they go bankrupt! This would leave a catastrophic hole in the electricity supply. And before there is a viable alternative source. The economic and social impact would be horrendous.

Ironically, the government may be forced to assist coal fired plants!

Graeme

Insidious indeed! very much so.

Hydro has always had a superb response time for frequency control, which really is the grid way of expressing supply and demand. However, the big "potential" of hydro is as a storage facility, but that requires two dams instead of one and consequential extra investment and expense. As you say we don't enjoy the Norwegian topography so our ability (despite that document that "identified" thousands of sites) to utilise this technology is quite limited particularly if you factor in our incompetence in building these projects (Snowy 2.0).

While it is true to say the coal fired plants ramp rates are on the slow side I would not completely agree with

"They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market."

All generators are constrained by AEMO's rules, but there is some wiggle room there. I concede that at some point the "price taking" will become an unacceptable reality.

I am afraid that at some point a generator will shut down and there will be a hole, unless your last sentence finally comes to roost and the Government of the day does come to the party. I have to say that neither party has shown much inclination in this regard so far and is just another reason why the nukes are not going to get off the ground any time soon. Most nuclear stations around the world apparently have some form of subsidy/assistence from the government.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

16th December 2023, 02:09 PM

given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.

Ian

I think comparison between early 20th century stats and today are likely to be inaccurate, but it is difficult to say in which direction they were inaccurate. I think we should agree between us that the figures have some reservations, but do point towards a warming trend. This is borne out by the ice caps melting and the seal level rising. Both these events are happening.

When I was at school the record for the 100 yards was 10.0 secs. It was set back in about 1900 (I don't recall the exact year and no, I wasn't there :wink:). The closest I ever saw anybody get (during the 1960s) was 10.2secs. It was generally accepted that the "record" time was made with a pocket watch and not a stop watch, which conveniently explained why that with people getting bigger and stronger that record was still unbeatable.

It could be a similar issue with early weather records.

Regards
Paul

Warb

16th December 2023, 02:13 PM

given that 70+% of the earth's surface is water, until the widespread deployment of satellites able to measure the earth's surface temperature (in the late 1970s?), no long term temperature record is reliable.

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level. It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.

Tongue firmly in cheek.....

Another way of saying that, is that on a planet that is 4.5billion years old, we've taken measurements for 40 years and decided to panic......

It's not that I don't think we have a problem (actually any number of problems!), it's simply that sometimes we appear very keen to make definitive statements based on minimal (in the context of the planet) data. Sometimes I think we would be better to stop quoting such numbers and simply spend our efforts trying to make the required changes. Anyone who doesn't think we have an issue isn't going to be swayed by another dubious claim, so why bother?

How many gigawatt-hours of fossil fuel generated power were spent figuring out that it's warmer now than it was first thing this morning? If all the scientists involved in working out how much the temperature has risen over the last 15 minutes were told to put down their thermometers and go and plant trees, don't you think we'd all be better off?

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 02:40 PM

sometimes we appear very keen to make definitive statements based on minimal (in the context of the planet) data. Sometimes I think we would be better to stop quoting such numbers and simply spend our efforts trying to make the required changes.The difficulty is that the people who authorise or implement the required changes are governments and their subsidiaries, and they pretty much demand definitive statements, so I think it's a case of working within the confines of the system.

ian

16th December 2023, 02:49 PM

Ian

I think comparison between early 20th century stats and today are likely to be inaccurate, but it is difficult to say in which direction they were inaccurate. I think we should agree between us that the figures have some reservations, but do point towards a warming trend. This is borne out by the ice caps melting and the seal level rising. Both these events are happening.Paul
my point was that until we had "advanced" to the stage where we could reliably measure the temperature at multiple points across the entire planet -- which required the appropriate satellite mounted sensors -- any temperature comparison was essentially worthless.
Prior to that sea surface temperatures -- "sea surface temperature" requiring that the water having a thermometer stuck into it be collected from 2 or 3 fathoms (12 to 18 feet) below the surface -- were reported, at best, on an ad hoc basis. While there were lots of sea surface measurements from the North Atlantic, other sea routes were less frequently sampled, and whole swathes of the ocean were only sampled as part of scientific exhibitions.

Warb
as recently(!) 540 million years ago (which is less than 12% of the earth's age) the earth is thought to have gone though its most recent "snow ball" phase, where almost all of the planet froze.
so there is geological evidence that the earth was once very much colder than at present.

As far as I know, the only reputable scientists who think that the earth will "survive" its current heating phase are geologists.
But given the time scales geologists work with, and their general view that modern civilisation is less than the blink of an eye on the geological time scale, their definition of "survivable" is somewhat foreign to those of us who are living with the daily reminders of temperature.

GraemeCook

16th December 2023, 02:54 PM

Insidious indeed! very much so.

We are increasingly singing from the same song sheet, Paul.

One of the things that I am becoming increasingly aware of is that all the currently available alternative sources - hydro, pumped hydro and even nuclear - all have lead times of at least ten years. With the increasing escalation of solar and wind power, I am not sure we have ten years before grid instability reaches an implosion point.

Also I am starting to have doubts about the real viability of pumped hydro. This is not just a reaction to the Snowy 2 cost hikes. I would love to see the feasibility studies!
* It takes a lot of energy to pump water up hill, a hell of a lot if that hill is a mountain,
* Is there a better use for that energy elsewhere?
* Why not just build a second hydro scheme - if you have the topography and rainfall.

EDIT: I have edited the embolded sentence. Bill Gate's auto-correct feature changed the phrase "grid instability" to read "grid installation" which is nonsensical.

I think that grid instability is developing into the major issue.

GraemeCook

16th December 2023, 03:02 PM

Tongue firmly in cheek.....

Another way of saying that, is that on a planet that is 4.5billion years old, we've taken measurements for 40 years and decided to panic......

Warb, you exagerate by a mere 4,499,994,000 years. Enough of that scientific nonsense; the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Warb

16th December 2023, 03:03 PM

as recently(!) 540 million years ago (which is less than 12% of the earth's age) the earth is thought to have gone though its most recent "snow ball" phase, where almost all of the planet froze.
so there is geological evidence that the earth was once very much colder than at present.

As far as I know, the only reputable scientists who think that the earth will "survive" its current heating phase are geologists.

I have absolutely no doubt that the earth will survive. Whether humans (or our current civilization) survive is an entirely different matter, and one in which I suspect climate is only a small part.

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 03:17 PM

One of the things that I am becoming increasingly aware of is that all the currently available alternative sources - hydro, pumped hydro and even nuclear - all have lead times of at least ten years. With the increasing escalation of solar and wind power, I am not sure we have ten years before grid installation reaches an implosion point.Which brings me back to thinking that Gas generated sparks may well be our best interim solution. Surely quicker and cheaper to build and decomm, and takes all the -ve prices out of the wholesale market.

This is not just a reaction to the Snowy 2 cost hikes. I would love to see the feasibility studies!Do/did they exist?

Warb

16th December 2023, 04:01 PM

The difficulty is that the people who authorise or implement the required changes are governments and their subsidiaries, and they pretty much demand definitive statements, so I think it's a case of working within the confines of the system.

Only if we assume the required changes don't involve "us" making changes directly. The generation, storage and transmission of power are controlled by the government and large corporations, but the usage of power is largely controlled by "us". How much less power would we use, and therefore how much less generation and storage would we require, if we put a bit of thought and the tiniest amount of effort into using less?

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 05:27 PM

Previously I said I would look for all the data on Katoomba and then break it into 10 year periods. A few caveats on those records:

The BOM records start in 1907, but there are two enormous gaps. There are no records from 1942 to 1956 (15 years!), and none from May 1967 to June 1973.
For the sake of completeness I have substituted the monthly mean temps into one 6 month period, and one other month, which were all blank.
Looking at 10 year periods where possible allows some chance of evening out an El Niño or La Niña effect, e.g. 1978 was 15.4° but only 2 years later 1980 was 17.7°.

All of the following only refers to Katoomba.

It's a month or so since I last saw one of the charts, but I think 2023 is on track to be more than 2 degrees warmer than what it was in around 1980.:2tsup:
1984–93 was 16.1°
2014–23 was 18.1°

The thematic charts and line graphs displayed by the ABC's weather persons over the past few months clearly show that 2023 is the hottest year on record, and that the earth's mean temperature has already exceeded the IPCC's 1.5 degrees Celsius warming level.As I posted before, 2023 will be hotter than the previous hottest year (1957 at 18.9°). Probably it will be in the range 19.1 to 19.3°

I charted the Mean° for the decades (as described in the charts), and then split that into the 6 warmer months and the 6 cooler months to see what differences it might show: nil difference whatsoever in recent decades (from 1984). That is, there is 2.0° difference between 1984-90 and 2014-23 for the overall temps, the warmer months, and the cooler months.

533497

If we accept that more accurate records started to be kept from about 1980, the trend is quite alarming at 2.0° in just 40 years.

Notes:

I had to slightly fudge the charts to ensure that the temp scales were all the same scale - some weird Excel thing going on.
The first period 1907-1911 was, ahem, a "short" decade!
The periods can be seen on the amber chart (for the warmer months).
The last plot on the right is for 2023 only, and you can see a distinct up-tick due to the crazy temps we had in July-Sept.
It looks to me like the warmer month temperatures are probably higher than reality between 1912 and the 1970s. There is quite a hump and a prominent "V" which seems unlikely, given that I am using 10-year periods. The cooler months chart is a bit more realistic, I think.

Some other points to note:

6 of the monthly records for the hottest months on record have all occurred in the last 6 years. These were the months of Jan, Apr, May in 2018, and Jul, Aug, Sep in 2023
3 of the monthly records for the hottest months on record occurred in 1957 (Jun, Nov, Dec) and it was the previous hottest year at 18.9° until 2023 which will be 19.1° or more)
The Feb and Mar records were set in 1939 and 1940 respectively.
The Oct record was set in 2014.

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 05:30 PM

Only if we assume the required changes don't involve "us" making changes directly. The generation, storage and transmission of power are controlled by the government and large corporations, but the usage of power is largely controlled by "us". How much less power would we use, and therefore how much less generation and storage would we require, if we put a bit of thought and the tiniest amount of effort into using less?True Warb, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for overall consumption to go down (even relative to population). On top of that, gas usage has to largely become sparks usage.

FenceFurniture

16th December 2023, 05:34 PM

Warb, you exagerate by a mere 4,499,994,000 years. Enough of that scientific nonsense; the Earth is only 6,000 years old.That's odd. My mother says it's 14,000 years old, but then again, she says that lesbians were only invented some time after the early 1930s. :roll: I guess she doesn't know about 1920s Berlin.

ian

16th December 2023, 06:22 PM

We are increasingly singing from the same song sheet, Paul.

One of the things that I am becoming increasingly aware of is that all the currently available alternative sources - hydro, pumped hydro and even nuclear - all have lead times of at least ten years. With the increasing escalation of solar and wind power, I am not sure we have ten years before grid intallation reaches an implosion point.

Also I am starting to have doubts about the real viability of pumped hydro. This is not just a reaction to the Snowy 2 cost hikes. I would love to see the feasibility studies!
* It takes a lot of energy to pump water up hill, a hell of a lot if that hill is a mountain,
* Is there a better use for that energy elsewhere?
* Why not build a second hydro scheme - if you have the topography and rainfall.
Hi Graeme

to answer your implied questions ...

I've said before that Snowy 2.0, might be better described as Snowy 20 -- as in it's expected cost is 20 BILLION

Yes, it does take considerable energy to pump water uphill, but the energy cost is approximately the same for every 100 metres of head you achieve. Actually it might cost more in energy terms to pump water 100 metres up a small hill than to pump it to the same elevation gain up a mountain. The friction loss in the longer pipe or tunnel up the "hill" would likely be the major contributor to the additional cost.

Is there a better use of energy elsewhere? I'm thinking NO. In essence pumped hydro is just a long discharge battery. On those days when electricity generated from roof top solar leads to wind and solar farm electricity being "switched to idle", Snowy 20 will be able to use that reserve electricity to pump water uphill. Something within the chemistry of current battery technology limits the draw-down time to something like 4 hours regardless of the battery's total MWh capacity. Snowy 20 is designed to deliver power for several days.

However, there is another source of longish term battery storage and that is Australia's aluminium smelters. The molten aluminium pot lines within those smelters are very hot and if we could capture the IR radiation from them, they could become useful as GWh batteries. Capturing IR radiation has been done at laboratory scale with efficiencies around 2x that of regular solar panels. The beauty of this approach is that the high capacity feeder lines and transformers are largely in place.

I really like your optimism around building a second Snowy scale hydro scheme. The original Snowy Scheme essentially captured all the NSW snow melt and similar dams in Victoria's high country capture the bulk of the rest of the snow melt.
Tassie is pretty much built-out hydro wise -- I highly doubt that you would be able to get environmental approval to construct another dam, let alone concurrence from the Greens.
Which just leaves the rivers of Queensland's tropical north. Apart from the challenge of getting the electricity from FNQ to Sydney, there is the small challenge of obtaining environmental approval, not to mention First Nations and Greens by-in.

Bushmiller

16th December 2023, 06:38 PM

I wonder how viable they are in those countries (with existing nuclear power) going forward from here though? Perhaps many of them are going to find out the real cost of decommissioning them.

FF De-commissioning is almost never talked about. In fact I had never really considered the implications until BobL alerted me to this way back in the depths of this thread. You can't just demolish them and haul the steel off to the recyclers, because the so much material is contaminated. I don't pretend to know all the implications of de-commissioning a nuke, but it is no walk in the park. There are quite a few nukes past their use by dates, but I have no information as to how the owners are coping with that issue.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

16th December 2023, 07:05 PM

As a small exercise and because almost everybody else seems to be climbing on the statistical bandwagon (Only joking - I very much appreciate all the time and research that people have made), I went back to see the incidence of negative pricing during the day on the wholesale market. This was just for QLD and it probably is the worst situation from that point of. The other states not too far behind.

Please note that this negative pricing only applies to the spot market and I estimate the spot market could be as little as 25% of the total. The spot market varies in size while the contracts are inflexible. That 25% might be the case during the day, but for the evening peak it could represent a much larger slice. Perhaps 35% or 40%.

I went back until 13 June. During that time the daytime prices were negative most days, although for varying periods of time. There were only 9 days when the price did not go negative at some point. 5 of those days the minimum price was $0.00. 2 days were $1.00, 1 day was $7.00 (still nowhere near a viable level for generators as it doesn't even pay for the fuel) and the only day where it may just have been a viable price point it reached $39.00. That would not have been economic for everybody.

I am mentioning this to illustrate the difficulties a fossil powered station encounters. Solar, Wind and Hydro simply shut down, but of course they still don't make any money. Actually, the situation is still not that simple, but I am not at liberty to divulge more information there and every station will be different.

If the power generators can't make enough money during the night to cover their losses through the day, they are history. That is the problem looming and the one the government of the day is not tackling. The previous government was disgraceful in that regard and the current government does not appear to have done much to head us in the right direction either. maybe they think it will fix itself. :rolleyes: :no:

Regards
Paul

ian

17th December 2023, 04:16 AM

If the power generators can't make enough money during the night to cover their losses through the day, they are history. That is the problem looming and the one the government of the day is not tackling.

The previous government was disgraceful in that regard and the current government does not appear to have done much to head us in the right direction either. maybe they think it will fix itself. :rolleyes: :no:
I'll say watch this space -- my prediction is that when the lights start going out on consecutive hot days, governments (state and/or federal) will step in and prop the power generators up with non-recourse loans, designated as "commercial-in-confidence".
Given the quantum of cash the previous federal government gifted major corporations during Covid -- cash which ultimately ended up in the hands of their owners -- I have little doubt similar (up to full nationalisation) arrangements will apply. It's a classic case of privatise the profit, draw on the public purse for the losses.

As to the direction being taken by the current government, my understanding is that the current government has undertaken to underwrite -- a.k.a. take on the ultimate liability -- so that the private businesses proposing to purchase grid scale batteries can obtain bank loans at market rates. Which is a step in the "right" direction.

GraemeCook

17th December 2023, 12:19 PM

Do/did they exist?

Good question.

Agree, gas may be the only feasible stop gap.

GraemeCook

17th December 2023, 12:52 PM

There are quite a few nukes past their use by dates, but I have no information as to how the owners are coping with that issue.

It is the same business model as for worked out mines, Paul.

The company stops earning revenue, it stops paying its bills, a liquidator is appointed, he examines the lovely agreement about site regeneration but there is no money to do this so it becomes irrelevant. The liquidator recovers what he can and pays 2 cents in the dollar, takes a very generous fee and closes his books.

Muggins the taxpayer is left to either ignore or clean up the mess.

FenceFurniture

17th December 2023, 01:27 PM

Good question.

Agree, gas may be the only feasible stop gap.Well I suppose the question is: if not gas (as a stop-gap) then what else? Hydro, Coal, Nuke are all too slow to build (apart from myriad other problems) so is there actually anything else available?

How long to build a gas-fired PS? 4-5 years maybe?
How much cleaner are they than coal?
Is it feasible to build smaller gas plants and put them in a few locations (e.g. near the industries that will need them)
Is it indeed feasible for some of those larger industries to build their own, more or less on-site?

Some months ago I posted that there were (from memory) 5 coal-fired plants shutting down by 2028, representing a little under half the production capacity off ff-powered plants, and that's if everything goes to plan. I wouldn't think that renewables will be ready by then (storage wise).

FenceFurniture

19th December 2023, 11:38 AM

The New York Times is reporting:
BREAKING NEWS (paraphrased by FF)
Volcano Erupts in Iceland Near Power Plant, in ‘Worst-Case Scenario’

Iceland’s weather service had warned that a volcanic eruption was likely after thousands of earthquakes were recorded this month.

A volcano in Iceland began erupting, with lava fountains reaching up to 330 feet and the glow visible from central Reykjavik.

The location of the fissure poses a risk to the nearby Svartsengi Power Plant and the town of Grindavík, which was evacuated in November following heightened seismic activity.

The Eyjafjallajokull (pronounced EYE-a-fyat-la-jo-kutl) volcano had been dormant for nearly two centuries before it sprang back to life more than 13 years ago.

It will be on other news platforms soon enough. The very first thing I wanted to know was (and which was not addressed): "What type of plant is it? Surely they are not stupid enough to have a nuke in Iceland?"

No, they are not, it's a Geothermal.

Bushmiller

19th December 2023, 01:26 PM

Well I suppose the question is: if not gas (as a stop-gap) then what else? Hydro, Coal, Nuke are all too slow to build (apart from myriad other problems) so is there actually anything else available?

How long to build a gas-fired PS? 4-5 years maybe?
How much cleaner are they than coal?
Is it feasible to build smaller gas plants and put them in a few locations (e.g. near the industries that will need them)
Is it indeed feasible for some of those larger industries to build their own, more or less on-site?

Some months ago I posted that there were (from memory) 5 coal-fired plants shutting down by 2028, representing a little under half the production capacity off ff-powered plants, and that's if everything goes to plan. I wouldn't think that renewables will be ready by then (storage wise).

FF

A few questions there. There are typically two types of gas plant. The first and most simple is a "once-through" installation where the gas turbine drives a generator and the exhaust gas goes straight to atmosphere. it is relatively inefficient and has a carbon intensity of .8 ( I'll come back to the carbon intensity). They are basically a jet engine coupled to a generator and can be installed within a couple of years probably as they are off-the-shelf type products delivered on the back of a truck. They are relatively easy to site and are fairly compact. They are expensive to run particularly with the way Australian gas has gone. These are the installations that are commonly referred to as "peaking" plants.

The more advanced gas stations are the HRSG (Heat recovery Steam Generator) plants. These capture the exhaust gases and divert them through a low steam pressure conventional boiler. Consequently, the heat from the exhaust is utilised and a much more efficient process results. Their carbon intensity is around .6 (providing the low pressure boiler is being utilised). Their response time for the gas turbine aspect is similar to the "Once Through" types but the steam generator would be much slower.

Australia already has quite a few (a lot) of these plants, but the expense of running them limits how much they are used. The fuel is expensive so they tend to come online when prices are elevated.

The carbon intensity is a reasonable comparison of how polluting different types of power plant are and reflects the amount of CO2 they pump into the atmosphere for each MW they produce: In tonnes! The best coal fired stations have an intensity of .9, which includes the supercritical units, but the older stations would be >1.0 up to around 1.2. The old hazelwood, brown coal station, which has been shut down for some time was around the 1.6 mark! The carbon intensity is also an indicator how much they cost to run and at what price they are economic, but I emphasise it is not the only consideration. Debt levels and other commercial impositions would also play a large part.

At the rate we are going in the storage stakes, by 2028 there may well be some large gaps if authorities don't wake up. My solution for the moment, is to make Canberra the first region off the rank when it comes to load shedding.

Regards
Paul

Edit: In talking about construction time I ignored approval time. Double the figures for approval too.

doug3030

19th December 2023, 01:37 PM

My solution for the moment, is to make Canberra the first region off the rank when it comes to load shedding.

But since we all know that the decision on load shedding priorities will not be made in Millmerran, it's pretty safe to say that, as usual, Canberra will look after Canberra.

Now, if only they could harness the energy in all that hot air that Canberra produces ... :rolleyes:

ian

19th December 2023, 01:47 PM

But since we all know that the decision on load shedding priorities will not be made in Millmerran, it's pretty safe to say that, as usual, Canberra will look after Canberra.

Now, if only they could harness the energy in all that hot air that Canberra produces ... :rolleyes:
Given that ACT electricity is 100% green, i.e. solar, wind or hydro -- even if a big chunk is sourced from NSW's coal plants, the ACT has contracts in place that "prove" otherwise -- so turning the lights off first in Canberra won't happen.

Bushmiller

19th December 2023, 03:31 PM

Given that ACT electricity is 100% green, i.e. solar, wind or hydro -- even if a big chunk is sourced from NSW's coal plants, the ACT has contracts in place that "prove" otherwise -- so turning the lights off first in Canberra won't happen.

Ian

Generally speaking, when demand outstrips supply, AEMO has a schedule for which areas are switched off first. As an example, it is different in NSW to Queensland. In QLD industry is prioritised and the general populace is sacrificed. In NSW it is the other way around with industry being the first to go. It is a completely different scenario if the supply deficit is due to a failure of the lines or power plants.

As for Canberra, I don't know what goes on there. Apparently not very much that is ultimately worthwhile or beneficial to the public in general. However, I am starting to step on the political boundaries there so no more of this.

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

19th December 2023, 03:53 PM

At the rate we are going in the storage stakes, by 2028 there may well be some large gaps if authorities don't wake up. My solution for the moment, is to make Canberra the first region off the rank when it comes to load shedding.

Too logical to be implemented. Obviously derived by an engineer and not by a political operative.

Bushmiller

19th December 2023, 04:46 PM

Too logical to be implemented. Obviously derived by an engineer and not by a political operative.

Graeme

I really only adopted the philosophy surrounding going to war. If the Bureaucrats who made that decision had to lead the first charge, there would be no wars. Point out that when the electricity goes out they are first to go without (make that wherever they chose to reside and not just Canberra) and we will see how soon things get fixed.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

19th December 2023, 04:56 PM

GraemeCook

19th December 2023, 04:56 PM

Still too logical, Paul.

Bushmiller

19th December 2023, 05:04 PM

Federal Parliament sits 3-4 days per week for 18-20 weeks per year. That's top whack 80 days per year, which gives them a 21.9% chance of being in Canberra when a load shedding happens. Not exactly a shed load of a chance.

FF

That did occur to me so I had already slightly modified the proposal in post #one thousand seven hundred and forty nine :D . I think you were typing at the same time.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

21st December 2023, 09:01 AM

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 09:24 AM

I had no idea about this scheme until my local member sent me an email this morning. There are 400 batteries being installed across the country. One of them is in Blaxland (lower Blue Mountains), and the other at Hobartville, near Richmond.

Community Batteries for Household Solar
| Your Say Endeavour Energy (https://yoursay.endeavourenergy.com.au/community-batteries-for-household-solar)

I can see any mention of the capacity ( or in the pdf), but it's certainly a great step in the right direction.

FF

While I was aware that pilot schemes had been introduced in new communities, in principle allowing them to be independent of the grid, I was not aware of the extent of the link you posted so thanks for that.

There is a little more information here on the extent and sizes, although I am not sure how many are just proposed and how many are up and running. As you said: " A step in the right direction."

Community Batteries for Household Solar program - DCCEEW (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/community-batteries#stream-2)

The largest individual battery looks to be 0.525MW so these are fairly small. The largest installation (11 batteries) was 1.44MWs.

Regards
Paul

Warb

21st December 2023, 09:57 AM

Mr Brush

21st December 2023, 11:28 AM

CSIRO finds renewable energy cheaper than nuclear, coal and other fossil fuels (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/renewables-cheaper-than-nuclear-coal-now-and-into-the-future-csiro-20231219-p5esga.html)

As if nookular ever made sense......

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 11:45 AM

I find myself growing a little tired of the repetitive chorus, particularly from a certain media outlet although not exclusively, that Australia will be defacing the countryside with solar panels and wind turbines. Typically, these installations are on grazing country (as opposed to "farming" country) and usually that land continues to function much as it did before. The land beneath wind turbines can be grazed by a range of domestic animals, while solar farms welcome sheep only as larger animals can potentially damage the arrays.

In fact sheep can form a type of symbiotic relationship with solar farms as they keep the grass down, which would otherwise have to be mechanically managed, and in return the panels provide shade for the animals. Increasingly the same media outlet continues to invite only opponents of renewable energy to discuss the electricity crisis and it is clear those guests are closely associated with the fossil fuel industry or have other agendas.

The latest in this line was from Dr. Adi Paterson, who was proposing nuclear power for Oz.

He stated:

"the queue is forming to build the next generation of nuclear."

I am not sure where. Not in Australia. He went on to say:

“It’s safe, it’s reliable, it can live with renewables.”

What he didn't say was whether it can compete with renewables in Oz on an economic basis, whether they can sustain negative prices throughout the day, who would build them and who would finance them.

Never having heard of him before and wondering about his credentials, I looked him up:

Adrian Paterson - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Paterson)

I did take this extract:

"In 2006, he became General Manager of Business Development Operations at the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_reactor) Company in South Africa, and held the position until December 2008. The Company downsized significantly following his departure. In 2010, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Hogan) described the project in Parliament saying that "between 2005 and 2009, it became increasingly clear that, based on the direct-cycle electricity design, PBMR's potential investor and customer market was severely restricted, and it was unable to acquire either [investors or customers]."[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Paterson#cite_note-5)"

Now everything is clear.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 12:11 PM

Ignoring, for the moment, the problematic flaws in the nuclear power plant question, one aspect is whether they could replace directly a fossil fired station. Typically, they appear to either be made as base load facilities or in more recent times as load following utilities. France may be the only country that has significant load following nukes, primarily because it has up to 70% nuclear power. However, I have also read (if this information is correct) that because of breakdowns, maintenance and other issues their actual nuclear composition in their grid could be as low as 35%.

I saw one comment that nukes could ramp at up to 63MW/min. That is very fast. I am a little doubtful. I looked a little further and came across this site. It describes both base load and load following machines. I have linked to the load following information:

Load Following Power Plant | Definition | nuclear-power.com (https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/reactor-operation/normal-operation-reactor-control/load-following-power-plant/)

I am something of a charlatan with regards to the nukes, so if anybody can update us with information, please go for it. One distinction I would caution over is whether something actually exists or whether it is proposed as a potential development. The SMRs are an example of where they are frequently mentioned as if they exist without any having yet been built.

Regards
Paul

Warb

21st December 2023, 12:13 PM

I find myself growing a little tired of the repetitive chorus, particularly from a certain media outlet although not exclusively, that Australia will be defacing the countryside with solar panels and wind turbines. Typically, these installations are on grazing country (as opposed to "farming" country) and usually that land continues to function much as it did before. The land beneath wind turbines can be grazed by a range of domestic animals, while solar farms welcome sheep only as larger animals can potentially damage the arrays.

In fact sheep can form a type of symbiotic relationship with solar farms as they keep the grass down, which would otherwise have to be mechanically managed, and in return the panels provide shade for the animals. Increasingly the same media outlet continues to invite only opponents of renewable energy to discuss the electricity crisis and it is clear those guests are closely associated with the fossil fuel industry or have other agendas.

1/ Both sides seem to always conclusively "prove" that they are correct, yet both seem to cherry pick and ignore reality. For example, the CSIRO report mentioned above - does anybody really think that any of the numbers quoted have any bearing on reality? Snowy 2's costs have gone from $2bn to $12bn (last time I read about it), not including Humelink, so is the CSIRO claim that the cost of renewable power will fall by nearly 30% over the next 7 or so years credible, or based on desire and belief? Equally, nuclear is clearly not going to happen as there is too much public opinion stacked against it (never mind any cost issues!).

2/ The grazing under solar concept is very persuasive, and sounds great, but I'm not 100% convinced of the reality. Weed control is still required in grazing land, and it's potentially very hard to use a boomspray in a solar farm. That would presumably push the management in the direction of longer term (residual) chemicals, which often have long withholding periods and, in some cases, may not be grazed at all. Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge, as both visibility and vehicular access would be compromised. I certainly believe that grazing under solar is possible, but I'm not convinced that it's the simple task that is often presented!

Mr Brush

21st December 2023, 12:13 PM

Exactly. Nuclear doesn't stack up financially even today, and stands even less chance of doing so many years into the future when any plants that started construction even right now would come online.

As we've discussed many times here, the most pressing requirement is going to be storage, in various forms, not generation.

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 12:33 PM

2/ The grazing under solar concept is very persuasive, and sounds great, but I'm not 100% convinced of the reality. Weed control is still required in grazing land, and it's potentially very hard to use a boomspray in a solar farm. That would presumably push the management in the direction of longer term (residual) chemicals, which often have long withholding periods and, in some cases, may not be grazed at all. Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge, as both visibility and vehicular access would be compromised. I certainly believe that grazing under solar is possible, but I'm not convinced that it's the simple task that is often presented!

Warb

You are quite right that nothing is ever as simplistic as it sounds and everything presents it's own particular challenges. I am not even sure of the spacing of the arrays so much is conjecture on my part. The sheep grazing aspect was actually mentioned to me by a company that is proceeding with a solar farm near our town. Sheep are not really good for country in the first place, but that is another story! The real issue is that if sheep are allowed, they will clear the land down to bare dirt, which then creates the climate for vigorous weed growth. I suspect that chemicals can be used that don't have withholding periods such as Grazon, but if the production is for wool only, that would not be a problem. Good dogs are the best for mustering sheep anyway (getting a good dog is an issue of course. I have never been that lucky), but here we are getting into the nitty gritty. I think those issues are relatively minor.

Regards
Paul

mic-d

21st December 2023, 01:19 PM

Warb

21st December 2023, 01:45 PM

You are quite right that nothing is ever as simplistic as it sounds and everything presents it's own particular challenges. I am not even sure of the spacing of the arrays so much is conjecture on my part. The sheep grazing aspect was actually mentioned to me by a company that is proceeding with a solar farm near our town. Sheep are not really good for country in the first place, but that is another story! The real issue is that if sheep are allowed, they will clear the land down to bare dirt, which then creates the climate for vigorous weed growth. I suspect that chemicals can be used that don't have withholding periods such as Grazon, but if the production is for wool only, that would not be a problem. Good dogs are the best for mustering sheep anyway (getting a good dog is an issue of course. I have never been that lucky), but here we are getting into the nitty gritty. I think those issues are relatively minor.

I suspect that making the co-existence easy would require the system to be designed that way in advance, rather than simply shoving sheep under existing panels. I also suspect that the optimal co-existence would require some compromise to the design of the solar installation, such as mounting the panels slightly higher than "minimal cost", and probably with bigger spacing between rows than "required for best PV output". An approach that included fencing (and water supply) to allow sheep movement without human intervention would be ideal, AKA cell grazing whereby each area is rested and the animals are moved (or in fact move themselves when a gate is left opened) to the next cell where the vegetation has regrown. Laneways would be required to allow the mobs of sheep to be moved to the yards for treatment or loading on to trucks. My doubt here is whether the energy producers are going to want to spend the extra money to set such a system up, as their main concern is greatest PV output per unit area - sheep are rarely a high return proposal which is why the solar farm is able to acquire the land at all!

Dogs are certainly the best way to muster sheep, but without the ability to see what the dog is doing and "steer" it, you need a really good group of dogs!

If such a project was approached wholistically, perhaps including a mob or two of goats in the rotation for weed control, I have no doubt it could be a great success, but not so much if the intention is simply "more watts", or if sheep are just thrown into a lowest common denominator solar farm.

Whilst this is indeed the finer details, it is the finer details rather than the pipe dreams that actually decide success or failure or a project (see "Snowy 2.0"!!).

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 03:04 PM

I'm late to the conversation so apologies if this has come up before, but seeing the phrase 'nuclear power' was mentioned on this page I thought I'd throw up a link to a physicist who I respect very much to hear what she has to say on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

It's seems pretty balanced to me. The one point from the vid that sticks in my memory is that nuclear power is not renewable (I know this seem obvious) but the reserves of Uranium ore is much smaller than you would think, which means that a massive ramp-up in traditional reactors would exhaust the reserves much faster than you might imagine (caveat here, 50 years ago we were talking about the limit of reserves of coal, but there seems no end to the bloody stuff on a timescale that removes it from the apocalypse vs she'll be sweet equation)

mic

That is quite a good appraisal. There are some things I might have a different take on, but generally OK. She seems to conclude that nuclear is just too expensive, although she qualifies this by saying it does depend on where you live in the world and the level of other resources available to your country.

I note you are new to the thread. You only have 118 pages on which to catch up. :)

Regards
Paul

mic-d

21st December 2023, 03:45 PM

I note you are new to the thread. You only have 118 pages on which to catch up. :)

Regards
Paul

yeah nah, can you sum up? :q:U

FenceFurniture

21st December 2023, 04:06 PM

That is quite a good appraisal. There are some things I might have a different take on, but generally OK. She seems to conclude that nuclear is just too expensive, although she qualifies this by saying it does depend on where you live in the world and the level of other resources available to your country.Yes, pretty even handed assessing., but she also seems to think that the only lives that matter from a nucular accident are human lives. No mention of the sealife with the Fukushima mess, for example. Nor did she mention the environmental contamination of an accident.

Another problem with nuke reactors is that they become a bigger target for either terrorists or invaders (looking at Ukraine recently). Not only can they wipe out your power source, they can contaminate a pretty big area at the same time.

GraemeCook

21st December 2023, 04:44 PM

I suspect that making the co-existence easy would require the system to be designed that way in advance, rather than simply shoving sheep under existing panels.

I think that that is crucial.

Wind Farms. Lot of wind farms in Tassy and they are placed where the wind blows, often in areas too wet for sheep. It is routine to have cattle under them - both beef and dairy. The cows don't seem to mind.

Solar Farms. I have only seen a couple and both had the panels placed almost at grond level. I can see potential problems, including:

Low edge is vulnerable to farm machinery and stray stones from mowers,
Sheep may attempt tp climb them, especially lambs,
Rams may back up to them to do their business.
Difficulty in managing weeds close to the panels, etc.

If their height was raised by a foot or two, they would also provide shelter for the sheep.

Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge You have gratulously insulted every border collie and kelpie in the country, and the NZ huntaways support them. Those lanes should actually help the dogs - where can the sheep bolt to?

The lanes should also facilitate cell grazing with minimal cost.

The better graziers will adapt quickly, the mob will eventually follow their lead.

It has always been so.

The other key factor will be the impact of solar system shading on grass growth rates. How significant will it be. What is the impact of panel height and density.

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 05:10 PM

The other key factor will be the impact of solar system shading on grass growth rates. How significant will it be. What is the impact of panel height and density.

Graeme

I think the shading will help grass growth as the evaporation rate will be less. However, the sun has to get in somewhere so there must be a balance. There may also be a trend towards farmers and solar farms having a co-operative agreement rather than purchasing land outright: A lease agreement if you like. That is probably more likely to have e beneficial outcome for both parties.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

21st December 2023, 05:14 PM

yeah nah, can you sum up? :q:U

Mic

Yep.. I can narrow it down to 115 pages....!

Actually, very briefly, the governments, both state and federal need to wake up, get off their ars.s and do something before they miss the boat. "Manyana" just doesn't cut it.

Regards
Paul

Warb

21st December 2023, 05:24 PM

You have gratulously insulted every border collie and kelpie in the country, and the NZ huntaways support them. Those lanes should actually help the dogs - where can the sheep bolt to?

I've worked sheep with both Kelpies and Collies, but never in an area where I 100% can't see what is going on. I've never been in a solar farm on foot or bike, but from the outside it looks like you'd not see anything beyond the first row of panels. If that is true, there'd be zero communication between man and dog. Not my idea of fun!

The "lanes" you mention, are you talking about the panels or is there internal fencing? The only solar farm I've been close to (though not inside) looks like one huge paddock. The whole thing becomes far easier if there's internal fencing!

Graeme

I think the shading will help grass growth as the evaporation rate will be less. However, the sun has to get in somewhere so there must be a balance. There may also be a trend towards farmers and solar farms having a co-operative agreement rather than purchasing land outright: A lease agreement if you like. That is probably more likely to have e beneficial outcome for both parties.

Given the comments in an earlier post about power companies (and mines) reneging on land rehabilitation agreements, I'd expect the farmers to be the ones leasing the land back after selling it to the power companies!!

Mr Brush

21st December 2023, 05:34 PM

Warb

21st December 2023, 05:48 PM

I was going to suggest goats rather than sheep to keep foliage and weeds down on solar farms, but (a) I've seen how high they can jump - you'd find them on top of the solar panels, and (b) any even slightly exposed wires would be fair game, possibly leading to LEGs (Light Emitting Goats).

Jumping, yes absolutely.

I never had any problems with goats chewing wires, possibly due to our extensive usage of electric fences - they learnt very young to keep away from the fences! Interestingly, I would see them intensely studying the electric fences from time to time, getting very close but not touching the wires. My conclusion was that they could sense whether the fences were still "live", because why else would they do it? I've never noticed sheep or cattle do the same thing.... Not related to green power, but training pigs to live with electric fences was interesting, because when they got zapped they would jump forward (into the fence) rather than backwards and away from it like everything else. We had to build training paddocks with very solid fences and electric offsets, such that the pigs would bounce off the main fence after getting zapped by the offset and jumping forward! They learnt very quickly, however! Pigs are smart....

Mr Brush

21st December 2023, 06:05 PM

mic-d

21st December 2023, 06:43 PM

Sorry to report that some cattle can definitely sense the electric field around a fence that is live. When we first built about 20 years ago we had cattle on the property and put up electric fence tape just around the house to keep them out. One cow in particular would wander up to the fence, stop to check it out, and if it wasn't turned on at the energiser proceed to walk straight through the tape like it wasn't there. I never saw her get a belt from the fence - it it was on, she always backed off. Somewhere on disc I have a photo of a cow peering through one of bedroom windows of the newly-built house. As you're probably aware, most cattle fancy themselves as electricians, plumbers, etc.... :D.

There have been horses at our pony club over the years that seemed to know if it was on, came to the conclusion they could hear the faint tick through the wire after they seemed even more careful of it if there was a slight arc from a short nearby. Most seemed to get one boot and then respect the tape.

Bohdan

21st December 2023, 08:22 PM

Had a yearling steer come up to a new electric wire, looked at it, sniffed it and then he went and picked a fight with one of his brothers.

A real head to head shoving match. He slowly maneuvered his brother around and pushed him into the wire tail first. His brother reacted violently.

I don't know if he knew that the wire was live or he was just testing it but you would swear that he just stood back and laughed.

GraemeCook

23rd December 2023, 02:33 PM

The "lanes" you mention, are you talking about the panels or is there internal fencing? The only solar farm I've been close to (though not inside) looks like one huge paddock. The whole thing becomes far easier if there's internal fencing!

I was careful to note that I have only seen two solar farms, so others may be different.

The panels were lined up like soldiers in nice straight lines, about 100 mm from the ground and at an angle of ~55°. The space between the rows of panels formed the lanes.

Viewed front on and all you see is a wall of panels. Viewed side on and you look straight down the lanes and the sheep are both highly visible and corralled. Each lane could be used as a grazing cell.

Bushmiller

23rd December 2023, 03:53 PM

One of my biggest criticisms of media reporting is the blatant bias in one direction or another and in an attempt to maintain some degree of minimal prejudice myself I have been researching more on the nuclear question and in particular the SMRs (Small Modular Reactors for newcomers to the thread).

In the past the "Nukes" have been towards the top end of the scale in that once you committed to such a project there was an economy of scale. An individual unit may have been 800MW or larger, which would make even the smaller machines bigger than anything we have in Australia. The SMR design is usually between 30MW and 300MW.

As I have pointed out before, the SMR so casually touted by some as the saviour and real alternative to fossil fuelled power were not in existence and only at best in design stages. That may not have been entirely correct. I chanced upon this article:

What are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)? | IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs)

However, while not overly glossy in it's reporting, it is not unbiased either.

What I was really trying to find out was where there were SMRs already in active service. Contrary to my earlier beliefs, I had read that there were three plants up and running. One each in Russia, China and India.

This is the Russian one:

Akademik Lomonosov - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov)

While the Russian plant is the first SMR, it is marine based. China has the first land based plant:

World’s First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Starts Producing Energy in China (interestingengineering.com) (https://interestingengineering.com/science/the-worlds-first-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-is-sending-power-to-the-grid)

India and Korea are still "looking" at these projects. Argentina is pouring the concrete for it's plant. There may be another plant in Russia. The Chinese installation is the largest at 125MW.

Canada has also been used as an example of a country adopting SMRs. However, it is more of a "plan" at this stage than actual plant:

Canada's Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan (smractionplan.ca) (https://smractionplan.ca/)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is important to note the source, who is promoting the concept and whether the idea exists or is a proposal at best or a dream at worst.

Just going back to the first link I made, I took this excerpt, which is probably rather telling seeing as how it comes from the IAEA:

"Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed."

It is also interesting to note that the developmental and approval processes will still be the same as for their larger brethren. There may, in fact, be no savings to be had on a cost/MW basis and they may be more expensive. It may make a small plant affordable in some situations, but then it comes down to whether it is the best way to spend the money for the electricity budget.

Regards
Paul

Edit: A correction. The Chinese reactor is 200MW. I don't know where I got 125MW!

FenceFurniture

23rd December 2023, 04:02 PM

One each in Russia, China and India.Three countries not particularly well known for their environmental conscientiousness.

Bushmiller

23rd December 2023, 04:50 PM

Three countries not particularly well known for their environmental conscientiousness.

FF

Indeed.

Russia and China in particular. Just have a look at the Three Gorges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam) hydro station and the amount of people displaced there (1.3m ?). A DA is not so much of an issue there if the powers to be support it. However, I did note that the project received one of the lowest approval rates seen.

Strangely to my mind, it is the approvals and safety issues that seem to have hampered India's development in this direction.

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

23rd December 2023, 08:08 PM

Three countries not particularly well known for their environmental conscientiousness.

Or the credibility of their reporting.

Bushmiller

24th December 2023, 12:50 PM

This is some more information on the Chinese SMRs installed at Shidao Bay by the CHG company, who may be the third largest electricity producer in China with a capacity of more than Australia in total.

Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shidao_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

It looks as though initially two SMRs have been installed with eight more to follow, although there is no indication of a time frame. Also contemporaneously, two more conventional large PWR (Pressurised Water Reactors) units of 1500MW each are being built. It may be that the SMRs are a trial to establish how well they can be integrated. My understanding is that CHG are quite open to trialing new technologies and are a large enough company to do this.

The SMRs have only just reached full operational capacity and it has been a journey started back in 2009. It was held up by the implications of the Fukushima debacle for a while.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

5th January 2024, 09:16 AM

Finally, there has been a successful attempt to create more power in a fusion reaction than was used to generate the reaction:

Nuclear fusion for dummies: The energy breakthrough that could change everything (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/nuclear-fusion-for-dummies-the-energy-breakthrough-that-could-change-everything/ss-AA1mp2Sb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c4171f0407624a64a79b72ea0ccf2340&ei=27#image=1)

Unfortunately, the title is a little misleading as all this stuff is a long, long way off. It still has to be economic and it has to be on a much larger scale. One of those times when size matters hugely! :wink:

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

5th January 2024, 09:31 AM

One little piece of information I did take from the link in the previous post is that atomic bombs today are in fact Fusion bombs, commonly referred to as H-Bombs. I had not appreciated that. We are not really exposed to such production here in Millmerran.

Just as an aside, where do you think is the best place to be should a nuclear bomb be exploded in your vicinity? Well, really, anywhere where you can still say "What the f@&k was that?" Actually, you probably need to be many times further away than that as the effect ranges from vaporisation at the detonation site, through blast to long term radiation effect: Hmmm...The moon is starting to sound more attractive than it ever was before.

This is a further aside showing an interactive timeline of every nuclear test conducted:

Map of Every Nuclear-Bomb Explosion in History (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/map-every-nuclear-bomb-explosion-history-2015-10)

Apologies for being the harbinger of doom. I think we are at least alright for the rest of the week.....

:D

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

5th January 2024, 10:11 AM

You'd probably only get up to "What the..." anyway.

Bushmiller

5th January 2024, 11:24 AM

You'd probably only get up to "What the..." anyway.

:D

FF

You had just mis-calculated how far away you should have been. :( It is similar to judging how far away lightning occurs. Roughly five seconds between the flash and the sound for every mile. 4.7 seconds if you wish to be more accurate and 4.69 seconds if you are being pedantic. Speed of sound all depends on altitude and temperature too.

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

5th January 2024, 01:34 PM

:D FF You had just mis-calculated how far away you should have been. :( It is similar to judging how far away lightning occurs. Roughly five seconds between the flash and the sound for every mile. 4.7 seconds if you wish to be more accurate and 4.69 seconds if you are being pedantic. Speed of sound all depends on altitude and temperature too. Regards Paul But does the shock wave travel at the speed of sound, or the speed of light, or something else?

Bushmiller

6th January 2024, 09:35 AM

But does the shock wave travel at the speed of sound, or the speed of light, or something else?

Graeme

Very good question. I have to go and do some welding, so I will leave that one to the super sleuths that I know abound here. However, I am pretty certain it is a lot faster than I can run.

Regards
Paul

PS: I couldn't help myself....Close to the speed of sound and still a lot quicker than my ute! Then the question becomes how far does it travel with devastating consequence?

KG Lang

6th January 2024, 01:09 PM

Here is a video from an ex-gov detailing some intel about wind farms that I invite the thread participants to watch and/or consider?

GraemeCook

6th January 2024, 06:52 PM

Here is a video from an ex-gov detailing some intel about wind farms ...

Either yet more fake news ... or a profound analysis of the competence of political advisors and their employers.

GraemeCook

6th January 2024, 07:08 PM

... FenceFurniture (https://www.woodworkforums.com/members/62924-fencefurniture) wants picture(s) for this post ...

Happy to oblige, FF, but I do need some technical advice.

From your experience, should the camera be hand held or on a tripod? And what shutter speed have you found works best?

Bushmiller

6th January 2024, 08:57 PM

Here is a video from an ex-gov detailing some intel about wind farms that I invite the thread participants to watch and/or consider?

KG L

Welcome to the Forums and thank you for subscribing to this thread. I did in fact see that video some while back as it was sent to me by one of my BILs. I was intrigued for two reasons. Firstly, it seemed low key and appeared to come from the ABC, who while far from perfect are not normally the scallywags some other media outlets are. Secondly, I had never heard of wind turbines being powered up by diesel engines.

So... I looked a little further. Smaller wind turbines are simply driven by the wind. End of story. Some of the very large wind turbines do have a small motor to "kick them away," but as soon as momentum has occurred, inertia keeps them rotating. These "starter" motors are usually electric and only operate for a very short time. An analogy would be the starter motor in your car.

If that video appeared on Mythbusters it would go firmly and unequivocally in to the "Busted" category.

Regards
Paul

havabeer69

7th January 2024, 09:42 AM

KG L

Welcome to the Forums and thank you for subscribing to this thread. I did in fact see that video some while back as it was sent to me by one of my BILs. I was intrigued for two reasons. Firstly, it seemed low key and appeared to come from the ABC, who while far from perfect are not normally the scallywags some other media outlets are. Secondly, I had never heard of wind turbines being powered up by diesel engines.

So... I looked a little further. Smaller wind turbines are simply driven by the wind. End of story. Some of the very large wind turbines do have a small motor to "kick them away," but as soon as momentum has occurred, inertia keeps them rotating. These "starter" motors are usually electric and only operate for a very short time. An analogy would be the starter motor in your car.

If that video appeared on Mythbusters it would go firmly and unequivocally in to the "Busted" category.

Regards
Paul

I don't recall diesel being mentioned in the video?

I also instantly went into the video with a closed mind as soon as I saw the "unvaccinated" T-shirt she was wearing. I don't actually care about what her vaccincation status is, but it instantly tells me she most likely has an anti-government agenda which may bias some of her opinons.

I guess something I should note, a lot of what she is saying doesn't actually seem to be daming wind turbines.... it seems to be more of a policy issue and mishandling of money (if its true).

also here's a youtube version for anyone struggling to download that direct file link (if you want a chuckle read the comments)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSAQYpcGqwE

Bushmiller

7th January 2024, 11:40 AM

I don't recall diesel being mentioned in the video?

HAB

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't watch the video this time, but relied on my memory from some while ago: A mistake!!

Yes, Ms. Nicol pointed out that the initial power comes from Thermal power and not diesel. However, this is still only a brief "starter motor" moment. While she is correct in implying that the wind turbines are either on or off and that they are unable to move with the variation in demand, I don't think she grasped the way in which the thermal stations control frequency. They are the ones to control the frequency.

Before I explain that, the solar farms and the wind farms typically do not have the ability to generate according to the demand. They could have that ability, but they don't. It would of course be more expensive and that is why they have not built in that feature., although it is likely they will have to include that capability in the future. At the moment, if only wind and solar were available, it would be a disaster, but while ever there are other forms of thermal power (and hydro, particularly hydro) available it is not an issue.

Thermal stations are required as a condition of supplying power to the grid to have a frequency control capability. It is referred to as PFC (Primary Frequency Control). The extent of this capability varies from station to station, but AEMO's aim was for it to be around 15MW up or down. All the thermal generators have to comply with this and there are no extra monies for providing this facility, although that may change in the future: For the moment it is a condition of generating into the grid. The PFC is extremely fast acting and considerable work was put in by the thermal stations to be able to achieve this: Some can only partially comply, but do so within the limitations of their plant.

There are many reasons why supply can be interrupted and it was very glib in the video to point to SA. The big one there was the storms that went through. I don't think that was because of renewables. Nothing I can think of would have survived that.

Just as a point of interest, there is a 500MW interconnector from Vic into SA. SA maximum demand is not normally very much above 2000MW (talking very rounded figures here) and not for very long. The other day I saw their demand was a mere 600MW and at that instance was quite a bit lower than even Tasmania.

I don't know anything about the yearly money she claimed was given to the Wind farms. What Ms. Nicol could have mentioned, but didn't, was Solar companies enjoy a $40/MWhr subsidy. They keep generating until the spot price dips to -$40 and then they pull the plug. The thermal stations in that situation (-$40) back off to their minimum and still lose money. In fact, they begin to back off well before that: Probably more like +$40!!!

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

7th January 2024, 11:47 AM

Wave Energy, Compressed Air, Thermal, Flow batteries.... It's all happening....Maybe.

:)

How to solve our looming energy storage crisis? These companies are exploring high-tech solutions (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/how-to-solve-our-looming-energy-storage-crisis-these-companies-are-exploring-high-tech-solutions/ar-AA1mt9kY?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8fd1cf7d307945b7baed2934842bb308&ei=37)

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

10th January 2024, 09:01 AM

mic-d

10th January 2024, 03:38 PM

A little bit more on how a wind turbine is started:

Wind Turbine Startup Process (spinningwing.com) (https://www.spinningwing.com/wind-turbines/wind-turbine-startup-procedure#:~:text=Wind%20Turbine%20Startup%20Process%201%20First%2C%20an%20event,operation%20and%20the%20startup%20procedure%20is%20complete.%20)

Regards
Paul

Here’s a little bit on how they are stopped :D (The grin is for my segway because no one gets my sense of humour -not for them being stopped :(). But you’ve got to get your approvals in whether it’s green energy or not…
403 Forbidden (https://reneweconomy.com.au/irreparable-injury-courts-order-dismantling-of-wind-farms-in-us-france/). <- not sure why the link looks like that but it still seems to work. It's 403 Forbidden (https://reneweconomy.com.au/) <- darn that didn't work either

has this site been mentioned in the thread? I find it quite useful for keeping up with news

Bushmiller

10th January 2024, 08:29 PM

Thanks for both those links Mic.

I think it emphasises that in this burocratic world you have to get the paperwork right if you are going to avoid trouble down the track. Both the instances quoted, where the farms have to be pulled down, had ploughed on without approval. I am mindful that Adani started their mining project in QLD before all the approvals were in place. Hmmm.

Perhaps we should start a complete list of pros and cons of the various forms of electrical power as I have noted an increasing tendency in Australia for offshore wind farms to be knocked back on the grounds of visual pollution. Also while the median size of wind turbines is, say 7MW to 9MW, the largest so far is 15MW made by a Chinese company.

Nothing is perfect.

Regards
Paul

Optimark

11th January 2024, 02:46 PM

My wife and I were lucky enough to inspect the innards of a second or third generation wind turbine in Germany in 2014, this is a ground level wind turbine housing open for public viewing on one of the wind farms in northern Germany, this turbine was of the generation of the bigger types of wind turbines.

I understood from the technical literature and pictures on the boards inside, that the way the blades start spinning was to have the gearbox in neutral to allow free spinning and once the blades were spinning the gearbox was connected to the shaft and things got underway. I'm not sure if the clutch mechanism was a friction clutch, or a toothed dog clutch, whichever it is, it would have to be strong. Current wind turbines run direct I think, not totally sure, but I think that is how the latest do it.

The gearbox alone, on the ground level wind turbine housing open for inspection to all and sundry, is around the size of a mid-size to slightly bigger automobile, it really is impressively huge, as is almost everything in the rectangular box typical of those early units.

Mick.

GraemeCook

11th January 2024, 03:53 PM

Here’s a little bit on how they are stopped :D

In Oklahoma, they were forced to dismantle their windfarm because ... “developers failed to acquire a mining lease during or after construction, as well as after issuance of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision holding that a mining lease was required.”

It seems that they failed to get a mining lease to mine the gravel that was used in constructing the wind farm. That made it an illegal construction and the Court rule demolition - after an earlier ruling that a Mining Lease was required was ignored. Crazy!

GraemeCook

11th January 2024, 04:22 PM

Also while the median size of wind turbines is, say 7MW to 9MW, the largest so far is 15MW made by a Chinese company.

The gearbox alone, on the ground level wind turbine housing open for inspection to all and sundry, is around the size of a mid-size to slightly bigger automobile, it really is impressively huge, as is almost everything in the rectangular box typical of those early units.

Mick.

The largest cruise ship in the world is the Icon of the Seas at 250,000 gross tonnes, and it has diesel-electric propulsion - multi-fuel burning LNG, diesel or heavy fuel oil. It has 6 main engines: -

3 × Wärtsilä (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4) W14V46DFA - 16,030 kW
3 × Wärtsilä W12V46DF - 13,740 kW

The largest wind turbines, 15,000 kW, are now generating similar power to the engines in the largest ships in the world! That is a lot of grunt.