Future of the Australian Electricity Market [Archive] - Page 19

Bushmiller

12th January 2024, 07:43 PM

Just continuing with the wind farm thingy for a moment, I saw that Twiggy is getting behind it. "There's none so righteous as the converted." :wink: Forgive my little dig. It's good that he is capable of re-evaluation.

Mining magnate makes pitch as wind turbine giant (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mining-magnate-makes-pitch-as-wind-turbine-giant/ar-AA1mM41h?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=aa6be49418be427f98d3be0fee54b522&ei=17)

I still struggle to correlate Andrew Forest with the "Twiggy" (https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=cRH9q%2f1C&id=717BBF94A613BF04677353EABFF56E955EB9810C&thid=OIP.cRH9q_1CKWrdRL7KX4g3hwHaHv&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fflashbak.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2018%2f12%2fTwiggy-wearing-a-fashionable-white-jumper-whilst-sitting-on-a-sofa-1967-1200x1254.jpg&exph=1254&expw=1200&q=twiggy&simid=608041999630277039&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A62FCB68A716C75F0F57D06A1C57B40C&selectedIndex=3&itb=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0) of my childhood.

:)

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

13th January 2024, 03:59 PM

I still struggle to correlate Andrew Forest with the "Twiggy" (https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=cRH9q%2f1C&id=717BBF94A613BF04677353EABFF56E955EB9810C&thid=OIP.cRH9q_1CKWrdRL7KX4g3hwHaHv&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fflashbak.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2018%2f12%2fTwiggy-wearing-a-fashionable-white-jumper-whilst-sitting-on-a-sofa-1967-1200x1254.jpg&exph=1254&expw=1200&q=twiggy&simid=608041999630277039&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A62FCB68A716C75F0F57D06A1C57B40C&selectedIndex=3&itb=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0) of my childhood.

:)

Regards
Paul

Be more worrying if you could!

mic-d

15th January 2024, 12:38 PM

On the topic of modular nuclear reactors. Mentioned by Peter Zeihan on YT here in relation to lack of funding in the US for them. I like this guy, he speculates a lot, and often is not accurate, but he sets out mechanisms by which things change and helps me understand something of how the geopolitical world works:
Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Not the Future of Energy || Peter Zeihan - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXUdalkdniM)

mic-d

15th January 2024, 01:09 PM

More from Sabine on nuclear costs: Is nuclear power really that slow and expensive as they say? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ)

Bushmiller

16th January 2024, 12:34 PM

Mic

Thanks for those links.

I particularly like the videos posted by Elina Charatsidou, who is an Ukranian nuclear physicist. Her style is factual and when she "debunks" statements, she does it in a way that is not demeaning. I certainly haven't watched a lot of her videos so I can't comment on everything she has done, but I suggest it is worth listening to her comment.

Nuclear Physicist REACTS to Cleo Abram The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwr0aOOYtvo)

One point she makes is the economic issue. these things have to be economically viable even if, in theory, they are possible.

Regards
Paul

PS: As always, readers should do their own research on individuals posting views on the internet. Ms. Charatsidou runs a You Tube channel, although that does not imply any detraction of her views. Her aim, apparently, is public awareness.

Warb

16th January 2024, 01:13 PM

One point she makes is the economic issue. these things have to be economically viable even if, in theory, they are possible.

I wonder how long that will continue to be the case. Presumably (?!) there will come a time when imminent death trumps the profit motive..... or maybe we simply fry, choke on fumes or whatever whilst maintaining a death-grip on our cash..... :?

mic-d

16th January 2024, 01:33 PM

Mic

Ms. Charatsidou runs a You Tube channel, although that does not imply any detraction of her views. Her aim, apparently, is public awareness.

Sabine Hosenfelder does the same

mic-d

16th January 2024, 01:36 PM

Mic

One point she makes is the economic issue. these things have to be economically viable even if, in theory, they are possible.

Regards
Paul

PS: As always, readers should do their own research on individuals posting views on the internet. Ms. Charatsidou runs a You Tube channel, although that does not imply any detraction of her views. Her aim, apparently, is public awareness.

I believe the recycling of nuclear waste limitation is more than economic. After one or two cycles it's not worth it on the basis of break-even on energy in for energy out

Bushmiller

16th January 2024, 01:36 PM

I wonder how long that will continue to be the case. Presumably (?!) there will come a time when imminent death trumps the profit motive..... or maybe we simply fry, choke on fumes or whatever whilst maintaining a death-grip on our cash..... :?

Warb

I understand the sentiment and don't disagree, but I think it would be extremely hopeful to think that the private sector will step up to a non-profitable venture. Even if there were philanthropic persons in decision making positions, they have to answer to shareholders.

So, for the moment, I see nothing changing until the governments take control and say, "This is what we are going to do." Until that time comes, the bottom line sweeps all before it. In fact, I think I read somewhere and I may even have posted it on this thread, that nuclear power does not exist unless it has significant subsidies or other financial assistance from the government of the country concerned.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

16th January 2024, 01:42 PM

I believe the recycling of nuclear waste limitation is more than economic. After one or two cycles it's not worth it on the basis of break-even on energy in for energy out

Mic

Not only that, the waste material is apparently now good for weapons! So where does it go? Weapons, of course.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

16th January 2024, 05:32 PM

imminent death trumpJeez, you had me a little excited there for a moment! :D

Warb

17th January 2024, 08:27 AM

I understand the sentiment and don't disagree, but I think it would be extremely hopeful to think that the private sector will step up to a non-profitable venture. Even if there were philanthropic persons in decision making positions, they have to answer to shareholders.

It has been mooted in conversation several times that this is conclusive proof that climate change is a con. The logic goes that if the people in power, those with all the knowledge and wealth, do not see a requirement to do anything other than profit from the panic of the "led by the nose" population, and yet the supposed "disaster" is one from which all their wealth and power will not protect them, then clearly they don't believe that the problem really exists. Given that they do indeed have all the knowledge and power, and stand to profit from the panic of the populace, it is in their interest to allow or even encourage such panic, and harvest the profits whilst paying only lip service to addressing the supposed issue - but only if they are safe in the knowledge that the problem isn't real.

Cynically I would add that much the same logic applies if they do know the problem is real, but they also know that it is unavoidable. Why not just party away the final hours?

Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening. Much the same as the owner of the V8 LandCruiser with the "We want climate action NOW" sticker in the rear window......

mic-d

17th January 2024, 08:43 AM

It has been mooted in conversation several times that this is conclusive proof that climate change is a con. The logic goes that if the people in power, those with all the knowledge and wealth, do not see a requirement to do anything other than profit from the panic of the "led by the nose" population, and yet the supposed "disaster" is one from which all their wealth and power will not protect them, then clearly they don't believe that the problem really exists. Given that they do indeed have all the knowledge and power, and stand to profit from the panic of the populace, it is in their interest to allow or even encourage such panic, and harvest the profits whilst paying only lip service to addressing the supposed issue - but only if they are safe in the knowledge that the problem isn't real.

Cynically I would add that much the same logic applies if they do know the problem is real, but they also know that it is unavoidable. Why not just party away the final hours?

Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening. Much the same as the owner of the V8 LandCruiser with the "We want climate action NOW" sticker in the rear window......

If there were to be a group with all the knowledge, as close as anyone anyway, it would be climate scientists. All of the knowledge and little of the power. Those with power who may have some knowledge, well you’re confusing knowledge and wisdom and you’re aestheticising power, they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…
And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air quality

FenceFurniture

17th January 2024, 09:01 AM

Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening.I don't think that is true, but nevertheless...if we assume that it might be:
Market forces will bring about change whether people like it or not. There are enormous new industries developing (EVs, solar tech, battery tech, heat pumps etc etc). Whilst ever there is a buck to be made (and lots of them in this case) then the market is going to ensure that these changes are brought in. If they don't then they will have capitalised their start-ups for nowt, and would be back to the same tired old ways of doing things.

EVs present bonus money to be made: they need virtually nil servicing, yet in the transition period while people are still gullible and cling to old ideas (i.e. right now) they are sold with "Six year service plans" for significant additional dough.That seems to me to be money for jam: put the EV in the workshop for a few hours while bugger-all is done to it, tell the customer all is well, and get paid up-front for 6 years worth of that bludge. What a deal! (for the car company, that is)

Warb

17th January 2024, 09:18 AM

If there were to be a group with all the knowledge, as close as anyone anyway, it would be climate scientists. All of the knowledge and little of the power. Those with power who may have some knowledge, well you’re confusing knowledge and wisdom and you’re aestheticising power, they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air qualityIt's a very interesting question, isn't it? The climate scientists with "very little power". Really? 40 years ago nobody had heard of "climate scientists", and indeed they had zero power. These days they have conferences in glamorous places and are on the TV all the time. They have found some leverage, and they have profited by it. Almost every piece of research now has "climate change" somewhere in it, because that's what gets the grant $'s rolling in, and that's what gets the results publicised in the media. Is it in their interests to say anything that doesn't reinforce their statements?
they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…Evolution has made us an avaricious species, we'll do whatever we think we can get away with to advance ourselves, almost without exception. I don't think businessmen, politicians or scientists are any different in this regard. We have always created "threats" to steer the populace, whether those threats are based on an angry god, the reds under the bed, or climate change. Is it coincidence that small groups of people have used these (and other) levers to control populations?
And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air qualityI entirely agree, and have said the same myself, but in this case it was a late model V8 LandCruiser 200 SUV.

Bushmiller

17th January 2024, 09:19 AM

Warb

17th January 2024, 10:05 AM

I don't think that is true,I'd really prefer to think it wasn't true either, but everything I see suggests that it is. How many people have actually given something up, or changed their lifestyle to adopt a better approach? Solar panels, EV's, these aren't a negative impact on lifestyle, or even a change of lifestyle, they're done because they save money, or provide boasting points (or both!). Even if motivated by the right reason, there is zero lifestyle change involved - they might have a net benefit effect, but they still fit the category of "not caring enough to alter their lifestyles". Even leaving the air conditioner off, or switching off lights is too much for most people. I understand your comments about market forces, and I entirely agree. But none of it translates into a belief in the need to change, it is simply an opportunity to profit. If the driver is belief in the need to change, then that itself ensures the change produces a net beneficial effect. If the driver is profit, then can we be sure the same applies? As an example, looks at the number of PV components suppliers and installers who, over the last 20 years, installed systems that now produce vastly less power than specified, or have failed completely, because of poor design, construction or installation. I have seen systems installed on roofs that had almost no sun exposure. The motivator in all these cases was profit, the medium and long term outcomes were negative - those systems now have to be removed and disposed of. I was (though not anymore) licensed to trade REC's, and as a result I used to get updates about components and installers that no longer qualified for REC's due to various issues, almost all of which came down to "profit over quality" somewhere along the chain. Do we believe that the current makers of PV systems (or EV's and other "climate friendly" products"), when driven by the need for profit, are any more intent on a positive long term outcome?
EVs present bonus money to be made: they need virtually nil servicing, yet in the transition period while people are still gullible and cling to old ideas (i.e. right now) they are sold with "Six year service plans" for significant additional dough.That seems to me to be money for jam: put the EV in the workshop for a few hours while bugger-all is done to it, tell the customer all is well, and get paid up-front for 6 years worth of that bludge. What a deal! (for the car company, that is)People aren't always very bright! However..... I know a good many people who only discover that their tyres are bald, or they have bits hanging off the underside of their car, when it gets its annual service. Given that rego checks don't apply for the first 5 (?) years, perhaps some compulsory inspection for service-free vehicles should be required?

GraemeCook

17th January 2024, 10:33 AM

Interesting.

A Chinese Company Has Developed A Nuclear Battery. We Have Questions (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/a-chinese-company-has-developed-a-nuclear-battery-we-have-questions/ar-AA1n5dtR?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=66f4aef195f0454cb2a5f53e2d2e187e&ei=47)

Not much detail on cost, viability, safety and ability to scale up.

Regards
Paul

That coin in the article is a China 5 jiao coin (half a juan) which is 20.5 mm in diameter. So those batteries are hearing aid size - and they last 50 years without charging.

If they never go flat, how many to power a car? And all the charging problems go away!

Warb

17th January 2024, 10:55 AM

If they never go flat, how many to power a car? And all the charging problems go away!From that article it appears that they have a higher energy density than lithium, but a very low power output. From what I can see, a Tesla 5.3kW module is rated at 1000A for10 seconds (or maximum 1500A, or 225A continuous) at around 25V. 1000A at 25V is 25,00watts. It weighs 25kg. The nuclear battery in the article is stated to produce 100 microwatts. So you need 10,000 per watt. Or 250million to produce the same power as the single Tesla module. OTOH, you could go very slowly for 50 years!!!

Bushmiller

17th January 2024, 11:46 AM

Even leaving the air conditioner off, or switching off lights is too much for most people. I understand your comments about market forces, and I entirely agree. But none of it translates into a belief in the need to change, it is simply an opportunity to profit. However..... I know a good many people who only discover that their tyres are bald, or they have bits hanging off the underside of their car, when it gets its annual service. Given that rego checks don't apply for the first 5 (?) years, perhaps some compulsory inspection for service-free vehicles should be required?

Warb

Agreed. We have become incredibly lazy even to the extent of not turning off our own unnecessary power sources. My pet hobby horse is boiling the electric kettle for coffee. I put in just enough water. If i filled the kettle, which would equate to approximately five or more times my need, this process would cost five times as much in heating the water.

I was going to say that not all energy development is for profit and was going to quote my own example where we installed solar PV on the roof of our house we built nearly forty years ago in NSW. Today it is a rental property. I was going to say I don't derive any benefit from having put solar on the roof, but even that is not quite true as I see it as an "attraction" for a tenant to rent that property and in fact an incentive for a tenant not to look for a different property. As to the quality of work etc, this installation burnt out. If the house had been built in weather board it would have burnt down. Fortunately, I couldn't afford timber and used Hardiplank instead. Otherwise the house would have burnt down.

534520

Rego checks vary quite a lot around the different states. In QLD you only require a rego check if you sell a vehicle. Otherwise, none at all. I am not saying this is how it should be, just how it is.

Regards
Paul

Warb

17th January 2024, 12:22 PM

As to the quality of work etc, this installation burnt out. If the house had been built in weather board it would have burnt down. Fortunately, I couldn't afford timber and used Hardiplank instead. Otherwise the house would have burnt down.
Ouch!

I found the number of REC Registry notifications to be quite alarming at times, and it's one of the main reasons why I'm sceptical about "profit" being a good driver in this area. That, and a lifetime spent watching unscrupulous people and companies doing anything they can to make a $ without any concern of who gets hurt.

I'm presently watching the BBC news and hearing how Fujitsu knew that their software was dodgy, even whilst helping prosecute people who were innocent of everything except being users of dodgy software!

And if you consider that a major car manufacturer deliberately made vehicles that cheated the emissions tests, can the same company (or any other) be relied upon to accurately evaluate the environmental benefits of its products, and put those benefits above profit?

I'm old and cynical!!

GraemeCook

17th January 2024, 02:16 PM

I'm old and cynical!! ... and remember Raplh Nader.

mic-d

17th January 2024, 05:41 PM

My pet hobby horse is boiling the electric kettle for coffee. I put in just enough water. If i filled the kettle, which would equate to approximately five or more times my need, this process would cost five times as much in heating the water.

Regards
Paul

When rellies turn up and do this it drives me nuts! They fill the kettle and then make tea in a two cup (at most) tea pot!

Here's a video Sabine made on the recent nuclear battery story
This New Nuclear Battery Could Soon Go On the Market - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtVv1eQki4)

FenceFurniture

17th January 2024, 09:24 PM

Buying a new car? Here'''s how cheaper batteries and new emissions regulations will affect the price - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-01-17/where-are-electric-and-petrol-vehicle-prices-going-in-2024/103306894)

Cgcc

17th January 2024, 10:54 PM

A method of steering the populace could be trying to dismiss climate science by suggesting climate scientists are fooling us to milk a system.

It's a very interesting question, isn't it? The climate scientists with "very little power". Really? 40 years ago nobody had heard of "climate scientists", and indeed they had zero power. These days they have conferences in glamorous places and are on the TV all the time. They have found some leverage, and they have profited by it. Almost every piece of research now has "climate change" somewhere in it, because that's what gets the grant $'s rolling in, and that's what gets the results publicised in the media. Is it in their interests to say anything that doesn't reinforce their statements?Evolution has made us an avaricious species, we'll do whatever we think we can get away with to advance ourselves, almost without exception. I don't think businessmen, politicians or scientists are any different in this regard. We have always created "threats" to steer the populace, whether those threats are based on an angry god, the reds under the bed, or climate change. Is it coincidence that small groups of people have used these (and other) levers to control populations?I entirely agree, and have said the same myself, but in this case it was a late model V8 LandCruiser 200 SUV.

Warb

18th January 2024, 06:54 AM

A method of steering the populace could be trying to dismiss climate science by suggesting climate scientists are fooling us to milk a system.

Absolutely! So now we're back to my original issue - if profit is the motive, how can we tell what is genuine as opposed to what is in the interests of the person "telling the story"? This applies to solutions to the supposed issue, as well as the issue itself.

Much like religion, it seems to come down to beliefs - if an individual believes climate change is true, they believe everything the climate scientist says and dismiss naysayers as liars. If they don't believe it's true, then they dismiss those same scientists and cling to every word of the naysayers.

Also, like religion, I suppose one could examine the actions of the leaders of the movements. A religious leader preaching peace and then declaring war, abusing children etc. is not living the life they are preaching, which in my view diminishes their argument. So, are the two sides in the climate argument living according to their own advice?

FenceFurniture

18th January 2024, 07:18 AM

Well I suppose one can always stick one's head out the window and see if they are noticing anything odd going on. It sure seems that way up here, and various other wild weather events seem to be far more plentiful these days.

Then, if one does come to the conclusion that things seem to be changing at something approaching the speed of light, compared to geological timeframes, one has to wonder why that might be the case, particularly when equipped with incontrovertible truth that methane and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere, and that both these gases have increased their atmospheric % substantially since the industrial revolution.

For me, the science is largely settled, and we have to clean up as best we can. If that means that various corporations will make staggering profits, and that there will be raging greed, then so be it. It's better than the alternative of faffing about arguing the toss until it becomes too late to achieve the goal, and it's not like there isn't astonishing greed running rife already.

Same greed, different smell.

Cgcc

18th January 2024, 07:57 AM

One can both believe in climate science but be insufficiently motivated to do much about it personally for any number of reasons. People do act hypocritically.

Frankly it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that because climate scientists don't as a rule live off mung beans, ride a bicycle exclusively and refuse to ever get on an airplane, that climate science as a whole can all be dismissed.

Absolutely! So now we're back to my original issue - if profit is the motive, how can we tell what is genuine as opposed to what is in the interests of the person "telling the story"? This applies to solutions to the supposed issue, as well as the issue itself.

Much like religion, it seems to come down to beliefs - if an individual believes climate change is true, they believe everything the climate scientist says and dismiss naysayers as liars. If they don't believe it's true, then they dismiss those same scientists and cling to every word of the naysayers.

Also, like religion, I suppose one could examine the actions of the leaders of the movements. A religious leader preaching peace and then declaring war, abusing children etc. is not living the life they are preaching, which in my view diminishes their argument. So, are the two sides in the climate argument living according to their own advice?

BobL

18th January 2024, 08:19 AM

Just finished a book called "Powering Up" by Australian Former Chief Scientist (Alan Finked) on how we "unleash the Clean energy supply chain".
Worth a read.

RE; Appearances can be misleading. About 20 years ago I met a senior US climate scientist and he took me for a ride in his beautifully maintained 1970? 454 ci Chevy V8 that gave him about 7mpg. His daily commute of ~4 miles was a bicycle but on really cold or snowy days (about 20 days a year) he would drive the Chevy to work. On weekends and holidays he would occasionally take the Chevy out for short runs, but for any long distance travel he drove hie wife's Hyundai. He'd had the Chevy since new and done ~ 230,000+ miles in it and reckoned it was good for at least another 100,000 miles which he said would easily get him through to retirement.

Warb

18th January 2024, 08:27 AM

Well I suppose one can always stick one's head out the window and see if they are noticing anything odd going on. It sure seems that way up here, and various other wild weather events seem to be far more plentiful these days.

I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......

Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder? Or is it that we notice things far more when our attention is drawn to them by outside influences? Have you ever found yourself itching when you see someone else scratching? Or yawning when someone else yawns? There's an ad on CNN, I have no idea what it's for, but it talks about humans and their ability to "see" shapes and patterns where none exist. It's a survival trait - we take odd hints, bits and pieces, and our brain processes them and "realises" that there's a lion behind that bush. But the same system also "sees" faces in clouds, or a dragon in the tree down the valley. Put these things together and you have "the power of suggestion".

A year ago I bought a car, because my "farm ute" is too tall for the carparks in Canberra. At the time, I didn't think there were many of the particular model of car on the roads. Since buying it, I have realised that every other vehicle in Canberra is the same as mine. Or maybe I just notice them more?

Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever. Very often, if you actually think about it, you'll find that you are watching predictions (forecasts), rather than outcomes. Additionally, we are being shown weather events that in the past would never have reached our TV screen because they weren't newsworthy TO US. They were the other side of the planet, and irrelevant. These days they are front and centre in the media, so we notice them. In the past, a tree falling down in a street somewhere wouldn't have been news. It still happened back then; it just wasn't publicised. Now it is, and we think "wow, this never happened before".

Then we have the man-made disasters. We build houses on flood plains, because it's the only land left. We cover all the rain-absorbing ground with concrete, run the stormwater it into a budget-friendly sized drain, allow that drain to be blocked with rubbish, and then act surprised when our house floods.

We can also get confused because we tend to move around and live in different places. I moved from mid-west NSW down to the Canberra area, and in the middle of summer I had to buy warmer clothing. And an umbrella!

So; remove the news articles and rose tinted hindsight, and consider whether there are really more wild weather events in your immediate vicinity (assuming you have lived there for 20+years!) than there were in the past. If you do that honestly, then you have your answer!

FenceFurniture

18th January 2024, 08:32 AM

Just finished a book called "Powering Up" by Australian Former Chief Scientist (Alan Finked)That's either Freudian or deliberate Bob, because Alan Finkel certainly got finked by the Prime Minister of the time.

Cgcc

18th January 2024, 08:43 AM

You are doing the politician's / pundit's method of, instead of stating a position and justifying it, just throwing out rhetorical questions or observations to avoid actually having to defend a position.

The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is measurable and objectively ascertainable.

If you want to suggest extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency and severity, say so and identify your source, rather than musing about the ways in which humans can make faulty conclusions.

I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......

Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder? Or is it that we notice things far more when our attention is drawn to them by outside influences? Have you ever found yourself itching when you see someone else scratching? Or yawning when someone else yawns? There's an ad on CNN, I have no idea what it's for, but it talks about humans and their ability to "see" shapes and patterns where none exist. It's a survival trait - we take odd hints, bits and pieces, and our brain processes them and "realises" that there's a lion behind that bush. But the same system also "sees" faces in clouds, or a dragon in the tree down the valley. Put these things together and you have "the power of suggestion".

A year ago I bought a car, because my "farm ute" is too tall for the carparks in Canberra. At the time, I didn't think there were many of the particular model of car on the roads. Since buying it, I have realised that every other vehicle in Canberra is the same as mine. Or maybe I just notice them more?

Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever. Very often, if you actually think about it, you'll find that you are watching predictions (forecasts), rather than outcomes. Additionally, we are being shown weather events that in the past would never have reached our TV screen because they weren't newsworthy TO US. They were the other side of the planet, and irrelevant. These days they are front and centre in the media, so we notice them. In the past, a tree falling down in a street somewhere wouldn't have been news. It still happened back then; it just wasn't publicised. Now it is, and we think "wow, this never happened before".

Then we have the man-made disasters. We build houses on flood plains, because it's the only land left. We cover all the rain-absorbing ground with concrete, run the stormwater it into a budget-friendly sized drain, allow that drain to be blocked with rubbish, and then act surprised when our house floods.

We can also get confused because we tend to move around and live in different places. I moved from mid-west NSW down to the Canberra area, and in the middle of summer I had to buy warmer clothing. And an umbrella!

So; remove the news articles and rose tinted hindsight, and consider whether there are really more wild weather events in your immediate vicinity (assuming you have lived there for 20+years!) than there were in the past. If you do that honestly, then you have your answer!

FenceFurniture

18th January 2024, 09:29 AM

I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......What's the point of that, in this case?

There would only be a point to that if there was any doubt that the climate is changing at an unprecedented and very rapid rate.
If there is no doubt then consideration of the non-existent alternative is just a waste of pixels.

Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder? AFAIK, you are a scientist in the field of Industrial Chemistry (if I'm not mistaken), and you no doubt put that knowledge to great use and effect in your farming days. Do you not believe the opinions of 99% of the climate scientists – experts in their field – that climate change is largely man-made? They forecast more frequent and more extreme weather events.
Do you not think that all of those climate scientists are massively frustrated with the various Govts and bureaucracies faffing about kicking the can down the road whilst we hurtle towards the point of no return?

2023 has been declared as the hottest on record for the whole planet. (yes I know reliable records are not all that old, but ice core samples etc are backing up many of these findings)
It was the same in Katoomba.
We had 3 records (in a row) for hottest months here.
Icebergs as big as Manhattan breaking off Antarctica.
Pacific Islanders freaking out because they can see what is happening, know that it is not their doing, but are powerless to act to prevent their homelands from becoming uninhabitable to a greater or lesser extent.
An El Niño was forecast, but so far it is the exact opposite. BOM is yet to explain what is going on, but I'm sure they will when they can figure it out properly – and that's the whole point: their forecasts these days are pretty reliable, so there must be some new "curve ball" going on to make that forecast so ridiculously wrong. I'm awaiting the update eagerly.

Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever.I'll accept that as rhetoric. I don't even have a TV, and I generally read my news from a number of sources, watching occasional videos that are embedded. I see nil advertising, and nil promos (sensational or otherwise) for whatever it might be that any broadcaster might be pushing.

I doubt I've ever been better informed.
I have enough nouse to stop reading or watching anything that smells like bollocks, and seek an alternative view if I consider it worthwhile.
I am not generally thinking "Wow, this has never happened before", I am thinking "this seems to be happening more frequently and with increasing devastation".

Trying to correlate suddenly seeing more of the latest vehicle that one owns with suddenly seeing lots of weather events is.... a bit of a stretch. Moving-pictures-media always wants the most sensationally explosive footage, especially for promos, because they almost exclusively rely on advertising revenue. Eyes glued to the tube is what they need. I doubt they give a toss about the program content – it just needs to attract viewers to be bombarded with adverts, just as long as those adverts get watched.

I have lived here for 14 years. Prior to that I lived within Sydney for all but 2 of the previous 53 years.

Warb

18th January 2024, 09:40 AM

You are doing the politician's / pundit's method of, instead of stating a position and justifying it, just throwing out rhetorical questions or observations to avoid actually having to defend a position.

The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is measurable and objectively ascertainable.

If you want to suggest extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency and severity, say so and identify your source, rather than musing about the ways in which humans can make faulty conclusions.

I'm not really defending a position, I'm simply having a conversation and, in part, questioning blind obedience to a cause.

The difficulty with things like declaring an increasing number of extreme weather events is one of timescales, and measurement techniques and locations (and, of course, media coverage!). We have records of varying degrees of accuracy, measured using a wide array of ever-changing technologies, from an increasing number of ever developing locations for perhaps 150 years. During that time, we have gone from almost zero communication (man on a horse), to instantly knowing everything. We are using those disparate measurements and observations from a trivially small dataset to draw conclusions about a system that is immense and has a timescale of millions of years. This is not to say that those conclusions are inherently incorrect, it's just something to consider.

Tongue in cheek:

It is also the case that the predictions have followed an interesting pattern. 30odd years ago, the message was that by 2020 the earth would be like Venus (I genuinely read this, back in the 1990's). Such predictions were largely laughed at (though there were a few devout believers) and were subsequently wound back to more believable levels. The movement gained traction, and we went through the "you can't argue with the science" wars. Then we had the purge, where all non-believers were cast out, and we mocked and derided any who did not share the faith. Then the predictions once again accelerated, because nobody was allowed to "argue with the science". Which brings us to today. We have now declared a tipping point at 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures, and stated that 2023 was 1.4C above pre-industrial. Pretty close, eh? We have also declared 2023 to be the hottest in 100,000 years. So largely speaking we're screwed, and yet we're still not doing much about it! Let's be honest, planting a few trees and claiming that they'll each sequester 20odd tonnes of carbon over the next 50 years isn't making any difference today.....

Warb

18th January 2024, 09:53 AM

What's the point of that, in this case?

Twofold, I guess.

Firstly I think it is wise for all of us to THINK about things. Not just climate, but everything. It is very easy to be led around, to believe what we are told without ever considering the motives of those who are telling us.

Secondly, because if what we are told is genuinely true, then why are we not trying to fix it? And I'm not talking about accounting the problem away by planting trees. If the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has caused the planet to warm to within 0.1C of the tipping point (as we are currently being told), then continuing to bucket out additional CO2 on the basis that a tree might absorb it 50 years into the future isn't going to help. Insulation keeps the heat in, and therefore it is logical to think that the current amount of CO2 will cause continued warming for several years until a new equilibrium is reached. And we only have 0.1C to play with, if the numbers are to be believed. We need to reduce the levels of CO2 right now, surely? But we're not. I find that to be concerning, and to mean either that the whole thing is a lie, or that we are literally suicidally stupid.

Warb

18th January 2024, 10:06 AM

By the way, for anyone new to the thread, I am not a climate skeptic. I use zero grid power or water, and grow an increasing amount of my own food (now that I have time!). I do not have an EV, because there hasn't been an electric "farm" ute available in Australia and historically range was an issue for our rural location, though these days I drive minimal distances anyway. I have no doubt that my wife's next vehicle will be electric, to replace the hybrid she currently drives.

I genuinely believe we need to change our ways, but I don't automatically believe everything I read!

Warb

18th January 2024, 10:50 AM

AFAIK, you are a scientist in the field of Industrial Chemistry (if I'm not mistaken), and you no doubt put that knowledge to great use and effect in your farming days.

Surprisingly, yes. Not just the chemistry (soil balancing etc., I actually did some extra courses), but also simple analytical thinking. After being an industrial chemist, I moved into IT and ended up owning a consultancy company. Even that helped, as I found it easy (and fun) to cover my entire farm with WiFi, have GPS guidance and data logging on the tractors, surveillance of livestock, gates, water troughs, remote and automated control of pumps etc.

Do you not believe the opinions of 99% of the climate scientists – experts in their field – that climate change is largely man-made?

A tricky one! We all know (I assume) that the climate has always changed. Not only year to year, decade to decade changes, but also over long periods. We know that there have been ice ages. I watched a program a few years ago that mentioned a coastal defence castle in the UK that is miles from the current coast (it was a program about coastal walks, if I remember correctly). It is also fairly normal for humans to believe that they are responsible for everything, and that nothing can possibly happen that is not under our control. It is also undeniable that all the fossil fuel CO2 was, at some point, in the atmosphere and yet the planet didn't explode. However, with all that said, I would say that I do believe that making wholesale changes to the make-up of the atmosphere will inevitably impact the climate, and many other aspects of the planet and its environment. That seems perfectly reasonable!

Trying to correlate suddenly seeing more of the latest vehicle that one owns with suddenly seeing lots of weather events is.... a bit of a stretch.

It's not an attempt to correlate the two, it is simply to point out that once our attention has been drawn to something we tend to be more alert to it and notice it far more, even if we're not consciously looking for it. Later today I'm intending to spray some St John's Wort on my new property. I, and now also my daughter, can pick it out in a patch of almost_but_not_quite exactly the same colour weeds from 100m away, because I'm "attuned" to it. I have no doubt that you can do the same thing, and instantly notice things that I would either not see or not consciously recognise, because you are attuned to noticing them. It's the way humans are!

Bushmiller

18th January 2024, 11:09 AM

Just a few generalities that are not specific to any individual posts, but more a comment on the way we, as humans, perform.

We often have very firm beliefs on an issue whether these are right or wrong, but instinctively we latch onto anything that backs up our views. It is human nature to support anything that supports our standpoint. This is unfortunate as it severely restricts our ability to think beyond and question even what we believe in.

Perhaps we all need one of these blokes (apologies to M. Rodin):

534535

It is very difficult to distinguish between the ratbags and the geniuses who have vision ahead of their time.

Records, as has been observed, may not always be correct and the means of attaining records has vastly changed over the course of time. This can distort our views

We don't always know everything that is going on. An example would be that the global temperature was not in fact increasing as fast as the scientists were predicting and that was both troubling and ammunition for the naysayers. Then global dimming was discovered following the Twin Towers attack. It became apparent that pollution building up on the clouds was in fact reflecting heat back into the upper atmosphere and slowing the warming effect.

There are many that none of the above or below pertains to as their only motivation is greed, which is why I say "look for the agenda."

My point is that we should continually question even our own beliefs as it is just remotely possible we are not as perfect as we think.

:(

Regards
Paul

BobL

18th January 2024, 11:43 AM

For over 12 months, twice each week I have been driving across the city of Perth through some of the ritzier western Suburbs to a physio/gym where I lift weights which supposedly prevents me from getting my knees reconstructed. While it's a 25 minute drive each way, driving an EV means the cost of fuel is largely irrelevant and I really like the attention the Physio pays to my particular condition and as it's all sort of working..

Anyway, what I have noticed on the roads in these western suburbs is the high numbers of new, higher end, European vehicles and immaculately clean 4WDs. What I don't understand is why more of these vehicles are not EVs. If these people are buying a $100+k vehicle anyway, why not buy an EV? Most of these vehicles will be driven just a few kms a day (shops and picking up kids from sport and school) and parked at night standalone homes or fancy apartments where home charging is a doddle. My guess is these vehicles rarely if ever leave the city and if they do, they probably just go to Vineyards and holiday homes on the south west coast where they can also charge overnight and there are now adequate charging facilities in several of the larger towns. The same applies to vehicles in my local Swan River foreshore suburb where I walk my dogs every morning and observe the gaggles of new fancy European vehicles that spend a lot of time just sitting in driveways. My next door neighbours are another example - they have 3 new high end 4WDs (European, Japanese, Korean). Yes they do rent and tow a caravan a few times a year but as they largely work from home their vehicles are parked in their drive way for almost the whole day everyday. Surely two of those 3 vehicles could be EVs? When I asked my neighbour had he ever thought of getting at least one EV he said yeah, but he's not worried about fuel cost as his business pays for it all anyway.

After attending the Perth EV show last year and talking with the European EV reps I think they are part of the problem as I was really surprised to observe that even though they sell EVs, they are woefully uneducated about EVs in general (even the EVs they sell) and so simply cannot provide the customers with the level of detail and reassurance they need. The other significant thing is that many ICE dealers dislike EVs because they make a lot of money on servicing ICE vehicles and stuff all on servicing EVs. Another major factor is the media that continue to report on BS like how EVs always catch fire, how they cannot tow anything and how difficult they are to charge.

I strongly agree that EVs are not (yet) for everyone but there are folks out there that could easily afford and use them that just don't care. In the meantime I am very pleased to educate all these high end European vehicle owners by dragging them off at the lights at every available opportunity. :D

Warb

18th January 2024, 02:12 PM

.... there are folks out there that could easily afford and use them that just don't care.

In the eastern suburbs of Sydney we know people who have done "renovations" (basically knock down your house a build something waaaay bigger) that cost, in some cases, millions. The new houses have no solar panels and no rainwater tanks - in a city that is now proposing using treated sewage to supplement its water supply. None of them drive EV's, but many own a holiday house (that has, surprise surprise, no solar panels or rainwater tank).

The funny thing is that almost all of them "want climate action". They purport to care, and indeed are 100% behind building a windfarm out in the sticks where they can't see it. They join the relevant FaceBoast groups and so forth, but when it comes to actually doing something... not so much. Except, perhaps, cutting down the 100year old tree that is obscuring their harbour view - that counts as climate action, right?

GraemeCook

18th January 2024, 02:26 PM

Anyway, what I have noticed on the roads in these western suburbs is the high numbers of new, higher end, European vehicles and immaculately clean 4WDs. What I don't understand is why more of these vehicles are not EVs. If these people are buying a $100+k vehicle anyway, why not buy an EV? Most of these vehicles will be driven just a few kms a day (shops and picking up kids from sport and school) and parked at night standalone homes or fancy apartments where home charging is a doddle.

I have noticed the same thing, Bob and two of the factors involved seem to be range phobia bordering on paranoia and an obsession with fast charging.

Most EV's nowadays seem to have a theoretical range of ~500 kms. But cars used for commuting, shopping and mum's taxi will rarely do more than 100 kms per day. Few private cars (Not business ones) do more than 20,000 kms per year; with 250 working days in a year that is an average of 80 kms per day. If the car was electric then it would use less than 20% of capacity on an average day.

Most EV's have battery capacity between 60 - 100 kWh and a charging efficiency around 90% (Put 110 kWh in to get 100 out). Car connected to a standard 10 amp extension lead overnight (12 hrs) should charge 26 kWh - way above average daily usage.
(10 x 240 / 1.1 * 12 / 1000 = 26.18)

Quite a few fancy apartments deliberately limit the outlets in parking areas to 7 amps to stop them being used as workshops. Even then, one could still charge 18 kWh overnight.

GraemeCook

18th January 2024, 02:32 PM

I use zero grid power or water, and grow an increasing amount of my own food (now that I have time!). I do not have an EV, because there hasn't been an electric "farm" ute available

I never suspected that you were a prepper!

Warb

18th January 2024, 02:42 PM

I never suspected that you were a prepper!

I do have an Australian Army Perentie in my collection, and if I could buy an ex-military underground bunker in the middle of nowhere, I'd be living the dream! It'd be even better if Woolworths and Uber Eats delivered to my bunker....:wink:

Bushmiller

18th January 2024, 02:46 PM

I have noticed the same thing, Bob and two of the factors involved seem to be range phobia bordering on paranoia and an obsession with fast charging.

Most EV's nowadays seem to have a theoretical range of ~500 kms. But cars used for commuting, shopping and mum's taxi will rarely do more than 100 kms per day. Few private cars (Not business ones) do more than 20,000 kms per year; with 250 working days in a year that is an average of 80 kms per day. If the car was electric then it would use less than 20% of capacity on an average day.

Most EV's have battery capacity between 60 - 100 kWh and a charging efficiency around 90% (Put 110 kWh in to get 100 out). Car connected to a standard 10 amp extension lead overnight (12 hrs) should charge 26 kWh - way above average daily usage.
(10 x 240 / 1.1 * 12 / 1000 = 26.18)

Quite a few fancy apartments deliberately limit the outlets in parking areas to 7 amps to stop them being used as workshops. Even then, one could still charge 18 kWh overnight.

Graeme

I think your comments are very valid. I suspect that these same people base their view on the one or two days per year that they think they may undertake a long trip. This jolts them in to "freak out mode." Of course, there are people for whom an EV, for the moment, may be impractical. Still, at this time the only impediment for the majority of car buyers to go electric (say 60%, but probably more) should be the initial cost. The cheapest ICE cars, I think, are less than $25,000. The cheapest EV is closer to $40,000. Admittedly this could come down in the future.

I agree that range phobia is exactly that: It is a phobia. Propensity to catching on fire is another phobia and so it goes on. Where I am uncertain of the EV's value, is the second hand market. While an ICE that is ten years old does not enjoy the same efficiency or performance as when it was new, I don't think they have deteriorated to the same extent as an EV (the battery primarily) may have. The corollary to this is that an EV may depreciate more rapidly, but I am surmising here.

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

18th January 2024, 02:48 PM

in a city that is now proposing using treated sewage to supplement its water supply.

Lots of country towns have been quietly recycling sewerage for years.

Go to a town on a river. They will pump water upriver from the town, put it through a treatment plant that filters it, adds chlorine and fluoride and zaps it with UV, and they then reticulate it around the town. The water is later recollected via the sewerage system, goes through another treatment plant and settlement ponds, and then is discharged back into the river downstream from the town.

But upstream from the next town.

Warb

18th January 2024, 03:11 PM

Lots of country towns have been quietly recycling sewerage for years.

And in addition to these, ahem, less upfront processes, some fairly major projects have been undertaken worldwide. My point was that in a city faced with the need to build desalination plants and propose the use of treated sewage, these people still won't install a minimal cost rainwater tank to flush their toilets, water the plants etc.

This has, however, reminded me of the webpage of a Canberra Water Tank company I saw a while back. Canberra has (apparently) passed laws specifying water efficiency measures be installed in new developments in the ACT. This company have developed a small water tank that is easy to hide (I recall it was a tank that functioned as a seat, or similar). They have also developed a system whereby the poor Canberrans who have to abide by their own regulations can select from a matrix of other "point scoring" measures, such that they can minimise the size of tank required. I was amused at the "letter of the law, not the spirit of the law" approach, especially as I have no doubt that the restrictors on the taps and shower heads used to score those points will be poked out the minute the house is certified!

FenceFurniture

18th January 2024, 03:25 PM

It is also undeniable that all the fossil fuel CO2 was, at some point, in the atmosphere and yet the planet didn't explode.I doubt that is strictly correct, and even if it was, it wouldn't have all been at the same time – it would have been spread over eons. In other words there is no chance that all the fossil fuel was formed at the same time.

The reason I doubt that it's strictly correct is (with my very limited retention of High School chemistry) the CO2 doesn't necessarily start as CO2, become fossil fuel through millions of use, only to be released again as CO2 – there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on to bring C and O2 together. (perhaps you or Bob could assist with that).

In 1800 the CO2 level was 283 ppm, or 0.0283% of the atmosphere. Now it is 424 ppm, or 0.0424%. That's a 49.8% increase in CO2! This is the whole point that the wilful fool Alan Jones chose to ignore. He's all up in arms about what a ridiculously small % of CO2 there is, but when you increase it by 50%, and add an enormous amount of Methane as well, you've got a problem.

This graph (https://sealevel.info/co2.html) shows it. In 1960 it was 317 ppm, an increase of only 12% in 160 years. In the 63 years since then we've added the other 38%. That's ridiculous!
I doubt those 1960 levels would have made much of a difference to the climate actually, but when you quadruple that increase in only 63 years, it'll start making the weather spin out, apparently. I'll wager that's why we are seeing such rapid and unpredictable change. Too much CO2 too quickly.

BobL

18th January 2024, 04:06 PM

Earth’s original atmosphere (eg 4 billion years ago ) was primarily methane, ammonia and water vapour. The methane got converted slowly to CO2 and the ammonia to nitrogen. Some of the first single cell organisms (cyano bacteria) produced a kind of photosynthesis slowly converting some of the CO2 into O2 so that around 2.4 billion years ago there was enough oxygen to rainfall to dissolved some types of rocks which helps to form many of the old iron or and even U ore bodies. The bacteria and later multicellular organic forms of primarily carbon continually settled out in the oceans forming the large organic deposits in a major way. All the while O2 levels rose enabling land animals to become bigger and for large land plants to develop. So yes CO2 was a big component of the atmosphere up until relatively recent (in geological terms) times. Don't worry about the earth - it will survive but its likely we wont.

Bushmiller

18th January 2024, 04:39 PM

Don't worry about the earth - it will survive but its likely we wont.

And that is exactly the crucial aspect: The part that is conveniently, or more precisely, stupidly missed.

The dinosaurs were eradicated from the planet after 150million years on the planet, but the planet is still here: For us: For the moment. 6 million years so far and maybe not for much longer (geologically speaking) if we don't wake up. That would be more than a little ironic bearing in mind the pea sized dinosaur brain compared to our supposedly giant-sized brains. A dinosaur existence that was twenty five times longer than us!

Regards
Paul

Warb

18th January 2024, 05:44 PM

Don't worry about the earth - it will survive but its likely we wont.

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.

Yep.

Cgcc

18th January 2024, 06:19 PM

This is not to apply to sharpening threads :)

Just a few generalities that are not specific to any individual posts, but more a comment on the way we, as humans, perform.

[snip]

My point is that we should continually question even our own beliefs as it is just remotely possible we are not as perfect as we think.

:(

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

19th January 2024, 09:07 AM

Warb

19th January 2024, 04:11 PM

There was mention in the article of approvals for batteries and while these batteries were large it did not state their duration ability. It mentioned both an 850MW and 700MW battery. Typically these have a 0ne to two hour capability at that level and sometimes less than their full rated power. Such batteries are a very small partial replacement for Eraring's 2880MW capability each hour and every hour. I noted that Eraring currently supplies up to a quarter of NSW's power.

A bit more info here Waratah Super Battery | EnergyCo (https://www.energyco.nsw.gov.au/projects/waratah-super-battery)

Bushmiller

19th January 2024, 08:00 PM

Thanks Warb.

I read that as continuous 700MW for one hour and with a storage capacity of 1400MW, it may be able to do that for two hours. May be able. I also note that the nameplate capacity is more than that to (a) allow for battery degrade over time and (b) leaving a reserve in the battery so it is not completely drained, although that was not stated.

It is going in the right direction, but I leave it to others to decide if it is enough. :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

havabeer69

19th January 2024, 09:12 PM

It looks as though the first of the major coal fired stations has come up on the radar.

Lights to stay on if biggest 'coal clunker' powers down (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/lights-to-stay-on-if-biggest-coal-clunker-powers-down/ar-AA1nbLRG?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d4f21eef7e804511873dce045a1c4d27&ei=13)

There was mention in the article of approvals for batteries and while these batteries were large it did not state their duration ability. It mentioned both an 850MW and 700MW battery. Typically these have a 0ne to two hour capability at that level and sometimes less than their full rated power. Such batteries are a very small partial replacement for Eraring's 2880MW capability each hour and every hour. I noted that Eraring currently supplies up to a quarter of NSW's power.

However, it is a start.

Regards
Paul

I always chuckle when I see this line in articles

After two years of bill shock, wholesale prices and retail costs are tipped to fall as renewable energy supply increases.

because all the renewables so far have really helped to lower bill prices :U

My hot take on the Eraring issue...
the won't shut it down... it'll get sold back to the government or the government will force the sale to another mob who will be more then happy to keep it chugging away. (someone like this who already power stations and coal mines in australia and all over the world Portfolio | Sev.en Global Investments (https://www.7gi.com/portfolio/#sev.en-royalties))

I've talked to a couple of people that work at Eraring and they're spending heaps of money on the place. When they first announced the closure Origin started paying for people to do training to start looking for outside work, that is all starting to stop and they're actually hiring people. I've be VERY... VERY surprised if the place turns off.

Bushmiller

20th January 2024, 11:01 AM

I've talked to a couple of people that work at Eraring and they're spending heaps of money on the place. When they first announced the closure Origin started paying for people to do training to start looking for outside work, that is all starting to stop and they're actually hiring people. I've be VERY... VERY surprised if the place turns off.

HAB

Thanks for that additional information. It had seemed strange to me that the largest station in Oz, which had been upgraded from 660MW units to 720MW units would be shutting down just yet. However, much depends on their economic viability and in particular their cost of fuel about which I have no idea other than it is probably not cheap coal because of where they are located.

As far as buying Eraring out is concerned, Sev.en, which is Czech based and owned, is exclusively focused on coal fired entities in power generation and coal mining itself and would be a prime contender if the opportunity presented. I think that some government intervention in the form of guarantees may have to be in place to make it sufficiently attractive as that Czech company is a tough negotiator.

I would also add that it is difficult to envisage a quarter of NSW's power being removed from the grid at one fell swoop without it having a negative effect. Unless, that is, there was something to replace it.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

21st January 2024, 08:47 AM

An El Niño was forecast, but so far it is the exact opposite. BOM is yet to explain what is going on, but I'm sure they will when they can figure it out properly – and that's the whole point: their forecasts these days are pretty reliable, so there must be some new "curve ball" going on to make that forecast so ridiculously wrong. I'm awaiting the update eagerly.

Here'''s what'''s been pulling the strings on Australia'''s weather recently — and it'''s not just El Nino - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-21/whats-been-driving-australia-climate-recently-weather/103365614)

"The event is still underway, which means it may be contributing to the warmer-than-average temperatures that have continued into summer too, along with climate change, according to Dr Reid.
El Niño doesn't have much of an influence on rainfall during summer months, which she said made the recent rainfall over eastern Australia less surprising.
However, there have been some signs El Niño is not playing by its normal rule book this year, which Dr Reid said may have softened its overall influence."

Bushmiller

21st January 2024, 10:09 AM

I would be interested to know what is happening in S. America at this time as when we have an El Nino, they have a La Nina: Usually and vice versa.

I have mentioned before that weather forecasting is historical in that it is based on records of similar patterns. In other words, we look back and compare what happened under the same conditions previously. In recent times weather forecasting has improved markedly because there are more instances on which to compare. However, it relies on underlying conditions remaining reasonably constant. My guess is that the underlying conditions are changing so comparisons are no longer as predictable.

For example, last week we received 90mm of rain overnight. A day ahead of this event there was no rain forecast and in this part of the world 90mm is a big deal.

Regards
Paul

mic-d

21st January 2024, 10:44 AM

BobL

21st January 2024, 12:10 PM

As far as buying Eraring out is concerned, Sev.en, which is Czech based and owned, is exclusively focused on coal fired entities in power generation and coal mining itself and would be a prime contender if the opportunity presented. I think that some government intervention in the form of guarantees may have to be in place to make it sufficiently attractive as that Czech company is a tough negotiator.
l

WA is lucky that it gets gas from the NW self at guaranteed prices so can continue to provide reasonable electrical power prices using gas but it has still managed to stuff up its coal power transition caused in part by the rapid uptake of home solar.

Blue Waters Power station (400MW) in Collie in WA is privately owned, and is Australia' youngest coal fired power station built in 2009. in 2010 it received approval to double its size but in 2020 its value was written down by the owners to "Zero" as it simply cannot make money without a significant Govt subsidy which the WA Govt has been doing since 2022. I think it still supplies around 12% of the South West Grid but once sufficient gas and wind power generation is up and running it will be shut down. The WA Govt also heavily subsidises the Collie Coal miner (Griffin) that supplies coal for the Bluewaters power plant. The two other njpr coal fire plants are scheduled for closure by 2029.

During last week, a major storm knocked down a bunch of HV towers running power out to Kalgoorlie and unfortunately the back up diesel generators failed - typical maintenance cock up. Given the year round searing sunshine and huge mineral royalties the Govt pulls in from around Kalgoorlie why there aren't several renewable energy farms with huge effin batteries servicing that area is beyond me. Horizon Power is in the process off installing some 50 remote Solar Community Power systems for small towns all over WA as it's increasingly cheaper than maintaining the long distance transmission infrastructures. Now they need to step it up a level to cater for larger towns. One of the major blockers to all this is lack of people power. 6 months ago it took me 4 weeks to get 3 quotes for my 7kW wall charger for my eV and once I selected the sparky it took 4 weeks for him to do the job as he was installing remote Standalone electrical power systems in the boonies. Today I believe its taking even longer to get a decent sparky.

Bushmiller

21st January 2024, 02:45 PM

The South American weather should be available on eg Weatherzone. What you say is not quite right. We have El Niño, they have El Niño, we have La Niña they have La Niña. It’s just they (usually) have opposite effects on rainfall in the two regions.

Mic

Thanks for the correction. I did read that when we are having a dry spell, the other side of the world is having a wet one, but I may have interpreted it wrong in attributing it to El Nino and La Nina. As you have said, El Nino will be on both sides of the world, but over there the effect is different and they welcome El Nino. Whereas we in Oz despair, sell our livestock, go bankrupt handfeeding and small towns run out of water while people in cities tend not to notice anything.

Regards
Paul

PS: One theory for the Mayan civilisation collapse was one of those drought events caused by a La Nina event, which for them was bad news.

Bushmiller

22nd January 2024, 11:28 AM

There were some ugly temps and prices yesterday on the spot market. Unusual for a Sunday.

534646

Huge demand with elevated temps were responsible for this: $16,600 is "Voll," which is the maximum.

The forecast for today is only a slightly lower maximum, although the average may be higher.

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

22nd January 2024, 03:06 PM

A bit more info here Waratah Super Battery | EnergyCo (https://www.energyco.nsw.gov.au/projects/waratah-super-battery)

Remember, a coal fired power station is heavy industry, very heavy industry.

The defunct Munmorah Power Station had a capacity of 1,400 MW (Infallible Wiki) and its theoretical maximum daily output was 33,600 mWh. The proposed battery farm has a capacity of 700 mWh - about 2% of the daily output of the defunct plant. And look at the scale, the old Munmorah Power Station is in the background:

534651 Proposed Munmorah Battery Farm

I presume that the market for this stored electricity is largely in Sydney which is about 100 kms away, with inherent transmission losses. If the battery farm is commercially viable, would it not be even more viable if located closer to its market?

This smells like a political solution ... and undisclosed mates.

FenceFurniture

22nd January 2024, 04:06 PM

I presume that the market for this stored electricity is largely in Sydney which is about 100 kms awayThe smart move would be to use those sparks on the Central Coast.

Warb

22nd January 2024, 04:37 PM

This smells like a political solution ... and undisclosed mates.

Indeed. OTOH, do we have any real idea of what storage capacity might be required?

My assumption has always been that we'd have a massive oversupply of renewables, such that (very simplistically) we'd have enough solar to cover the windless days, and enough wind to cover the cloudy days. With sufficient oversupply, and excellent distribution across the country, the storage only needs to cover windless (over large areas of the country) nights, and geographically widespread windless, cloudy days.

The real difficulty here, I suspect, is that the "needs to make huge profits 24/7" motive means that nobody will ever build the massive oversupply of generation capacity, because much of the time it won' be needed and will therefore not be profitable. This is why I can't see how it will ever come to fruition, because it's not profitable to make either storage or generation capacity that is only needed sporadically under certain circumstances. But that seems to be part of the very fabric of a renewable power environment.

It's also why I'm constantly amazed that we're not pushing the "use less power" angle.

BobL

22nd January 2024, 05:13 PM

Remember, a coal fired power station is heavy industry, very heavy industry.

The defunct Munmorah Power Staion had a capacity of 1,400 MW (Infallible Wiki) and its theoretical maximum daily output was 33,600 kWh. The proposed battery farm has a capacity of 700 kWh - about 2% of the daily output of the defunct plant. And look at the scale, the old Munmorah Power Staion is in the background:.

BTW, 1400 MW x 24 = 33,600 MWh not kWh

Its easy to get tangled up in maximums and leave out the big picture like what else is making power.

When there's nothing but a coal fired power plant making juice then that's all you have.
But
When there's other processes making power then all that's really needed is enough storage to fill in the gaps. That battery farm is also not intended to be the the end of the storage on that (or other) site but just the beginning, and in terms of space on the site there's plenty of room including going upwards still to be used.

It's foolish to immediately completely replace coal fired plants with massive storage because;
1) there's unlikely to be enough excess renewable power to fill the storage and
2) In due course there will be more of other generation options like Wind and Hydro that means the cost of installing huge amounts of storage may be wasted.

The scale in that the photo is over blown because of the photo's perspective.
This image is a better indicator of scale.

I'll bet those people living in the surrounding suburbs are very pleased the plant is shut down.

534655

FWIW at Collie in the South West of WA a 220MW/880 MWh battery is being installed and while approval has been granted for up to 1GW/4GWh whenever this is ever achieved will depend on those things I mentioned above. Even now batteries mostly about short term generation stability rather than complete replacement.

FenceFurniture

22nd January 2024, 05:24 PM

534655I should just point out that Lake Macquarie State Con Area (top right) is NOT a prison. :D
Nor is it anything to do with Clive Palmer.

Bushmiller

22nd January 2024, 05:32 PM

Indeed.

It's also why I'm constantly amazed that we're not pushing the "use less power" angle.

Generally speaking, the vast majority see it as a right to use as much power as they want when they want. It is only when they can't afford it, which is for most people when the bill comes in, do they start to regulate their use. I would suggest that the Amber company's system that Fence Furniture uses could be much more widespread over the next few years (providing they still remain viable).

As far as renewable generation is concerned, solar only operates for, say, one third of the day. Wind is less easy again to nail down. I think that solar is probably double the generation of wind, but even if it isn't, I think you can start to see the problem. Until now the solar farms have only put in place their panels. Even today the amount of storage capacity, which is primarliy batteries, is miserably small. Really, any future solar or wind should be accompanied by a minimum of equal storage facilities.

It is not an easy balancing act and investors want to go with the easy money.

Regards
Paul

Warb

22nd January 2024, 05:55 PM

It is not an easy balancing act and investors want to go with the easy money.

I understand. What I don't understand is how we will ever transition to renewables under those circumstances. As you say, solar is for a limited time each day, and (from experience) on a cloudy day the production is minimal. Wind might (?) be more reliable, and can work at night, but again for much of the time it is probably nowhere near 100% nameplate capacity and sometimes near zero. Then there are long periods where neither is producing any significant power. That seems to mean that we need, as I said, a massive oversupply of generation and distribution capacity - but most of it won't be doing anything for much of the time. That's simply not profitable......

Storage could cover the shortfall, but that requires sufficient storage to cover a worst-case scenario, which in turn requires a sufficiently oversized generation system to both supply the user load AND recharge the now depleted storage (quickly enough to cover further poor generation periods). So both generation and storage sit idle until required by circumstances. That's not profitable either!

So, how's it going to work? I can't see how private investment, driven by profit, will ever build enough capacity. As soon as the $ income isn't reliable, surely they'll stop investing?

FenceFurniture

22nd January 2024, 06:47 PM

I would suggest that the Amber company's system that Fence Furniture uses could be much more widespread over the next few years (providing they still remain viable).Well, I have an update on that, which I was going to post about earlier when you posted about yesterday's prices.

Amber sent me a text at 19:09 warning of a price spike. We had both split aircons going, and the problem was that I was in the shower getting ready for the Skype call, coupled with Amber being 39 minutes too late to warn of $1.78 /kWh for 30 mins from 18:30. Apparently that isn't a price spike worth texting about.

Then the proper spike happened at 19:00 (so the text was still late) and it was $4.73 pkWh, then a whopping $9.30 at 19:30, $2.65 and then $1.34 at 20:30.
That meant that we used 11.7 kWh yesterday where we normally use 5-9 per day, and yesterday's usage price was $14.42 for general usage. That is sick!

This is the graph so far this month:
534659

For the first two months Amber was less overall than Origin's "We love you so much, we'll run you at a loss":
Sept 18.7% less, Oct 15.2% less
Then, as things got warmer, that changed:
Nov 8.4% more, Dec 4.5% more.

Origin's "We think you're an ignorant idiot" rates are always 22-28% more than their "We love you" rates.

To sum up, given that Origin's rates haven't gone up for six months, it's watch and see. Two months don't make a trend, and one bad day isn't a deal breaker. We'll see.

Bushmiller

22nd January 2024, 06:57 PM

I understand. What I don't understand is how we will ever transition to renewables under those circumstances. As you say, solar is for a limited time each day, and (from experience) on a cloudy day the production is minimal. Wind might (?) be more reliable, and can work at night, but again for much of the time it is probably nowhere near 100% nameplate capacity and sometimes near zero. Then there are long periods where neither is producing any significant power. That seems to mean that we need, as I said, a massive oversupply of generation and distribution capacity - but most of it won't be doing anything for much of the time. That's simply not profitable......

Storage could cover the shortfall, but that requires sufficient storage to cover a worst-case scenario, which in turn requires a sufficiently oversized generation system to both supply the user load AND recharge the now depleted storage (quickly enough to cover further poor generation periods). So both generation and storage sit idle until required by circumstances. That's not profitable either!

So, how's it going to work? I can't see how private investment, driven by profit, will ever build enough capacity. As soon as the $ income isn't reliable, surely they'll stop investing?

Warb

Yes to all of that. As I said, transition is a balancing act which nobody has come close to getting right so far, primarily because there is no co-ordination through the various governments and certainly not from the private investors. We have to remember that at the moment the solar farms enjoy a guaranteed price of $40/MWhr. I am not sure if wind also gets this guaranteed subsidy. Without this, renewables may well have been a non-starter. In fact, the subsidy has only relatively recently been reduced.

It is not a level playing field yet.

Regards
Paul

FenceFurniture

22nd January 2024, 06:58 PM

FenceFurniture

22nd January 2024, 07:07 PM

transition is a balancing act which nobody has come close to getting right so far, primarily because there is no co-ordination through the various governments and certainly not from the private investors.Yeah.
And we're minimum 10 years behind where we should be.

havabeer69

22nd January 2024, 08:52 PM

the old Munmorah Power Staion is in the background:

534651 P.

ummm I'm pretty sure you'll find that's the 4x gas units of the colongra power station in the background (built at the back of the station and sold for around 230mill a hand full of years ago after costing around 500mill to build) it was basically built a huge insurance policy if the rest of the stations couldn't meet their demand

ironically that gas plant can only run for about 12 hours max (at full load) as it taps off the main gas line from newcastle to sydney. its basically has a big set of pipes underground that loop back on its self as storage... the problem is if they ever want to top it up or for some reason run longer then 12 hours they have to ask the transmission company as it would drain off the pressure in the mains causing mass gas problems in sydney.... so it actually takes around 12 hours to fill the thing back up again.

FenceFurniture

22nd January 2024, 09:42 PM

ummm I'm pretty sure you'll find that's the 4x gas units of the colongra power station in the backgroundI think this might be spot on. If you have a look at Maps aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lake+Munmorah,+New+South+Wales+2259/-33.2150365,151.5376576/@-33.2149827,151.5397712,2220m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6b72d8e4956cdc6f:0x5017d681632dae0!2m2!1d151.5774613!2d-33.1901368!1m0!2m3!6e0!7e2!8j1705513020!3e0!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), the four gas units match up, AND the picture in Graeme's post show the units in almost total broadside, so the battery must be south-west of the old PS. That means the old PS has been eliminated from that pic (or it's to be built right on top of it....possible?).

havabeer69

22nd January 2024, 10:25 PM

I think this might be spot on. If you have a look at Maps aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lake+Munmorah,+New+South+Wales+2259/-33.2150365,151.5376576/@-33.2149827,151.5397712,2220m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6b72d8e4956cdc6f:0x5017d681632dae0!2m2!1d151.5774613!2d-33.1901368!1m0!2m3!6e0!7e2!8j1705513020!3e0!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), the four gas units match up, AND the picture in Graeme's post show the units in almost total broadside, so the battery must be south-west of the old PS. That means the old PS has been eliminated from that pic (or it's to be built right on top of it....possible?).

well yeah the decommission of Munmorah started in like 2012... I know this because I did 6 months there as an apprentice... decommissioning it. (mainly draining oils from things nothing overly exciting.)

https://vimeo.com/344934795

Bushmiller

23rd January 2024, 07:21 AM

well yeah the decommission of Munmorah started in like 2012... I know this because I did 6 months there as an apprentice... decommissioning it. (mainly draining oils from things nothing overly exciting.)

HAB

Apprentices rarely get the plumb jobs!

Thanks for the demolition video. Most interesting.

Just for comparison, the video referenced the "massive" nature of the units. There were 4 x 350MW generators. I consider the two units at Millmerran small being only 425MW each. Times change. One interesting aspect of Munmorah was that the boilers were unusual. We called them "upside down" boilers.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

23rd January 2024, 10:44 AM

There is a little more information on Munmorah in this article

Munmorah Power Station - Engineering Heritage Australia (engineersaustralia.org.au) (https://heritage.engineersaustralia.org.au/wiki/Place:Munmorah_Power_Station)

In terms of geographical size from the above:

" Not including the ash disposal and associated coalmines the Munmorah site covered approximately 570 hectares. "

So not really that small. I am sure BobL was correct when he said he thought the locals would be pleased it is gone and substituted by solar panels.

Regards
Paul

russ57

23rd January 2024, 04:37 PM

Warb

26th January 2024, 11:38 AM

How king ridiculous is that eh?

I swear they must be doing this just to wear me out. That's the last I'll be doing that though – it's a dumb game.

Just a thought.... I believe Amber has an API to access their current price (and historical, forecast etc.). If the prices are now regularly going -ve, could you not leverage that API, using Home Assistant or some other automation system, and just switch on an old electric heater or three at any time it becomes profitable to burn power?

Obviously the ideal solution would be to have a battery/charger/inverter and be paid to store the power, then use it when the price goes +ve again, but that would require capital to set up. Home Assistant (free, last I checked) running on a Raspberry Pi (cheap) with a cheap switch (like a TP-Link Tapo, as long as Home Assistant supports it!) would enable automated "unnecessary power usage"...

For the common good, we need people like you to use the excess power, make the generators profitable and thus encourage the building of more renewable power plants. Err... I think....

FenceFurniture

26th January 2024, 12:59 PM

The problem is, that as Russ points out, the pricing is in 5 minute intervals and then averaged for a 30 min billing block. Within that 30min block it can be +ve, -ve, etc. On the day in question it was -ve then 53c, then -ve again snaking back towards +ve, then 2c.

TBH, I think any capital investment in a Pi or anything else would take a fair while to break even, and that was the first time in 5 months that I've seen it -ve. No doubt it has been before but I must have been doing something other than staring at the Amber page! (I only happened to see it the other day because that page just happened to be the selected tab).

Bushmiller

26th January 2024, 01:26 PM

While I was assembling that post I noticed that the price had gone negative (-34c) and then changed to -17c a few minutes ago. Apparently it will still be -38c from 19:00 to 19:30.
So I went around and turned on every light, mini-oven big oven, desk hi-fi just idling (nah, bugger it I'll play some tunes – something with heaps of bass to get the sub cracking), aircon to 25°, down to the shed, all lights on, thicknesser, dusty, all running. I am determined to claw back some of yesterday's fiasco! :D

How king ridiculous is that eh?

Footnote: From 19:00 the price was supposed to still be -ve but it changed to 53c so I had to race around and turn everything off. :B
Well that lasted for about 3 minutes and it went back to -ve again, so off I raced again. :~
I swear they must be doing this just to wear me out. That's the last I'll be doing that though – it's a dumb game.

FF

Welcome to the antics of the wholesale market. :)

In fact you are better off than us in so far as you can switch off and turn on a device at 186,000 miles/sec. Well, you yourself might not be quite as quick as that, but the switch is (once activated). We ramp at speeds a lot less than that. It might take us half an hour or an hour to change significant load.

You may need to invest in a few more of those point and click on/off devices I seem to remember you had.

Having said all that, AEMO quoted yesterday how prices for Q4 in 2023 had almost halved compared to Q4 2022.

534754

That sounds fairly encouraging, but don't go out and buy your Ferrari just yet. I did a quick calculation on the spot market averages this year so far.

The Spot price has averaged $155/MWhr for the 25 days of January despite negative prices at some point on most (but not all) days. The spot price became noticeably elevated around 8 January. Up until then the average was $53. The next 18 days averaged $195/MW hr.

I should point out that AEMO were quoting national figures while I have quoted QLD prices. However, QLD tends to have the lowest prices of the Eastern states so probably not too far off the money. It remains to be seen how prices this quarter compare to Q1 2023. Averages for the Q1 in 2022 and 2023 were about $80 and $75 respectively (interpreted from AEMO's graph). On that basis we have a way to go even to only be twice as expensive as previous quarters. We should also remember that any change in pricing tends to have a long period before it filters down to the consumer. Retail prices might not increase, but whether they reduce is something on which I am not prepared to wager body parts. I feel that retailers will be hedging their bets for some time yet. Price reductions will only eventuate by changing providers.

I have the impression that AEMO are not reckoning on the great unwashed looking closely at the figures.

Regards
Paul

ian

29th January 2024, 05:37 AM

I presume that the market for this stored electricity is largely in Sydney which is about 100 kms away, with inherent transmission losses. If the battery farm is commercially viable, would it not be even more viable if located closer to its market?
Have you studied Sydney land prices recently?

Almost all land south of Munmorah is either national park (i.e. don't event think of developing a battery farm on it) or residential (existing or potential).
The cost of transmitting power from Munmorah to Sydney is less then trivial compared to actually trying to get approval -- let alone purchase the land required -- to locate the battery closer to it's market.

FenceFurniture

29th January 2024, 09:32 AM

Bushmiller

29th January 2024, 10:09 AM

FF

Interesting article and emphasizes horses for courses. Up until now H2 has been seen as more suitable for a truck of other large vehicle application. What is does not discuss is the cost of hydrogen fuel. I was pleased to note that the Melbourne facility used solar for their electrolytic process.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

29th January 2024, 10:17 AM

Having said all that, AEMO quoted yesterday how prices for Q4 in 2023 had almost halved compared to Q4 2022.

534754

The Spot price has averaged $155/MWhr for the 25 days of January despite negative prices at some point on most (but not all) days. The spot price became noticeably elevated around 8 January. Up until then the average was $53. The next 18 days averaged $195/MW hr.

I should point out that AEMO were quoting national figures while I have quoted QLD prices. However, QLD tends to have the lowest prices of the Eastern states so probably not too far off the money. It remains to be seen how prices this quarter compare to Q1 2023. Averages for the Q1 in 2022 and 2023 were about $80 and $75 respectively (interpreted from AEMO's graph). On that basis we have a way to go even to only be twice as expensive as previous quarters. We should also remember that any change in pricing tends to have a long period before it filters down to the consumer. Retail prices might not increase, but whether they reduce is something on which I am not prepared to wager body parts. I feel that retailers will be hedging their bets for some time yet. Price reductions will only eventuate by changing providers.

I have the impression that AEMO are not reckoning on the great unwashed looking closely at the figures.

Regards
Paul

Uh.Oh.... Not looking good....

534836

Note that huge spot prices do not exclude negative prices at some point. However, the average is the crucial figure. My take is that these figures are significantly elevated for a weekendperiod.

Regards
Paul

PS: Note again that the averages are for QLD and not the NEM as a whole.

Warb

29th January 2024, 10:17 AM

Toyota is pushing hydrogen cars but will they ever be as cheap to run as EVs? - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-29/toyota-hydrogen-cars-future-electric-vehicles-uptake-challenges/103390084)

Sabine Hossenfelder has a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE) on Youtube about hydrogen. If I remember correctly she wasn't massively hopeful, though it was a while ago that I watched it.

Bushmiller

29th January 2024, 10:50 AM

Warb

The video is about a year old so not too far out of date.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it will be horses for courses. I think trains could be the easiest application for H2 power. I have been "involved" with H2 for over forty years as power stations use hydrogen as the cooling medium in their generators because of the thermal properties and minimal windage compared to air. At Millmerran we buy the gas in from an outside supplier, but at Bayswater we made our own and also supplied Liddell, which was just across the road, literally.

The weight of Hydrogen, even when compressed is minimal compared to the weight of the tanks in which the gas is stored. One of our supplier's drivers told me the difference between his semi-trailer full and empty is only about five tons! The pressure, however, in the "torpedoes" is 16MPa! They are thick walled to combat initially the pressure and, down the track, hydrogen embrittlement.

Regards
Paul

GraemeCook

29th January 2024, 12:48 PM

I have been "involved" with H2 for over forty years as power stations use hydrogen as the cooling medium in their generators because of the thermal properties and minimal windage compared to air.

Could you please expand on this, Paul. To a lay person like me it is the last place that I would expect hydrogen to be used. Simply the risk of a bang.

At Millmerran we buy the gas (hydrogen) in from an outside supplier, but at Bayswater we made our own and also supplied Liddell

Could that be a solution to negative/low spot prices? Make some hydrogen?

GraemeCook

29th January 2024, 01:25 PM

Deleted.

ian

29th January 2024, 01:42 PM

My only commercial encounter with hydrogen revealed it was extremely expensive.

In the very early 1970's I did a pro-diving course. Normal air contains 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and most of the diving used this combination in both tanks and hookah. We also did some mixed gas diving:

Ten dives on nitrox - 40% oxygen, 60% nitrogen - which extends bottom time, reduces risk of bends but limits maximum depth to 30 m.
One dive on heliox - 20% oxygen, 80% helium - which extends bottom time, extends depth limits and eliminates risk of nitrogen narcosis.

The tank of medical grade helium was so mind blowingly expensive that I almost withdrew from that part of the course. Then about $200 (1970's $$$'s), about a week's salary or a Landcruiser load of beer!
Greame, you are confusing He (the Nobel gas Helium) with H2 (Hydrogen).

The cost of Hydrogen is at least an order of magnitude less than that of Helium and possibly as much as two orders of magnitude (i.e. 100 times)

GraemeCook

29th January 2024, 01:50 PM

Greame, you are confusing He (the Nobel gas Helium) with H2 (Hydrogen).

The cost of Hydrogen is at least an order of magnitude less than that of Helium and possibly as much as two orders of magnitude (i.e. 100 times)

I am. Silly me. Very silly me! Thanks, Ian. I have deleted it.

ian

29th January 2024, 01:59 PM

Could you please expand on this, Paul. To a lay person like me it is the last place that I would expect hydrogen to be used. Simply the risk of a bang.

Originally Posted by Bushmillerhttps://www.woodworkforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/future-australian-electricity-market-240514-post2327482#post2327482)I have been "involved" with H2 for over forty years as power stations use hydrogen as the cooling medium in their generators because of the thermal properties and minimal windage compared to air.

Hi Greame, I'm not Paul but I think I can respond on this.

Hydrogen (H2) has a molecular weight of 2, compared to the molecular weight of air which as around 31. Air is a mixture of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) and argon (about 1%).
It's the lower molecular weight of Hydrogen (2 vs 31) that contributes to the low windage within the generator itself.

Could that be a solution to negative/low spot prices? Make some hydrogen?
I doubt it.
The negative spot price is what the generating company gets for supplying electricity to the grid. Even if you switch the electricity's usage to manufacturing hydrogen, you still have all the other costs of running a coal fired power station.
It would be much cheaper to diver the output of wind or solar farms to making hydrogen.