Future of the Australian Electricity Market

[Bushmiller]

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.




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

Graeme

To take your second question first, the production of hydrogen as part of the de-carbonisation process is only a sound proposition if it is made from renewables. There is no process that is 100% efficient and if you are using fossil fueled electricity to make the hydrogen you would be better off simply burning the coal directly for power.

On the first question, the generator in a power station is basically just an enlarged version of that you might find in an old car, but it creates a large amount of heat that has to be removed. The generator has two main components: The rotor and the stator. The rotor spins in a casing of hydrogen. Early generators and smaller units spin in air, but hydrogen has superior cooling properties and is, you may recall, only 1/16th the weight of air. All large generators since the 1970s have used H2. Attached to the rotor is a fan blade which circulates the H2 and this is where, coupled with the rotational speed (3000rpm in a 50Hz system) the windage issue comes into play.

It is of course important to prevent significant leakage of H2 through the generator shaft seals and there is a dedicated seal oil system, kept at a higher pressure than the H2, to ensure leakage is at a minimum. The hydrogen itself also undergoes cooling and this is achieved by separate water coolers. At Millmerran we use demineralised water direct and that water is cooled by large fans in cooling towers. At other stations I have seen a three stage cooling system that used initially demineralised water, which is then cooled by distilled water and finally the DW is cooled by straight dam or river water.

This leads me on to the stator, which also has to be cooled. It too is cooled by demineralised water and this is achieved by the stator having hollow conductors with water running through them. That probably sounds like another last thing you would expect. Water is in fact a very poor conductor of electricity. It is the impurities in water that are the good conductors. Once you remove the impurities, the water is a good insulator.

There is a little more information here if you scroll down to 9.1.3. Although it is for the American 60Hz system where the generators run at 3600rpm, it is exactly the same principle:

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1125/ML11258A357.pdf (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1125/ML11258A357.pdf#:~:text=The%20generator%20rotor%20windings%20and%20casing%20are%20cooled,relatively%20low%20windage%20losses%20and%20good%20thermal%20conductivity.)

Hydrogen and demineralised water have to be managed well to prevent disasters occurring.

This is a diagrammatic video of the hydrogen system:

Bing Videos (https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=how+is+a+power+station+generator+cooled&mid=767282C1CB4B63B76A76767282C1CB4B63B76A76&FORM=VIRE)

I couldn't quickly find one of the stator system that was reasonable.

I hope that helps.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

Thanks, Paul, that all makes a lot of sense.

Being mindful of the Hindenburg I just never thought of hydrogen being used that way.

In the text (para 9.1.3.1.1) it says that the hydrogen must be 90% pure. This implies that impurities up to 10% are tolerable. Am I right in guessing that the main contaminant would be air and that the resultant 2% oxygen is safely below the flash point given the 60 psi pressure and likely temperatures?

On the issue of hydrogen production I was trying to restrict my question to those periods when the price was negative. You cannot switch off a coal fired plant instantly, could you divert the power to a hydrogen generator?

[BobL]

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 think most trains and eventually most trucks will eventually become electric
Rio Tinto hopes electric trains will help company halve emissions - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-12/rio-tinto-to-trial-battery-electric-trains-/100750842)

In case you haven't see this interesting development
https://www.tesla.com/semi

[Bushmiller]

Thanks, Paul, that all makes a lot of sense.

Being mindful of the Hindenburg I just never thought of hydrogen being used that way.

In the text (para 9.1.3.1.1) it says that the hydrogen must be 90% pure. This implies that impurities up to 10% are tolerable. Am I right in guessing that the main contaminant would be air and that the resultant 2% oxygen is safely below the flash point given the 60 psi pressure and likely temperatures?

On the issue of hydrogen production I was trying to restrict my question to those periods when the price was negative. You cannot switch off a coal fired plant instantly, could you divert the power to a hydrogen generator?

Graeme

The H2 purity is in fact maintained at a higher level. Greater than 97%. The introduction of air is the scenario we try to avoid. There is both an UEL (Upper Explosive Limit) and an LEL (lower Explosive limit). The former is around that 90% mark while the latter is about 4%. Any mixture in between is a potential bomb should an ignition source be introduced. When we need to empty the generator, for maintenance or an emergency de-gas, it is first purged with CO2 and only when down to that 4% mark is the CO2 purged with air and it gets tested all along the way.

Yes, we could divert the power making negative prices to H2, but the efficiency has just gone out the door, plus we have now made more CO2 than if we just ploughed the electricity straight into the grid. It's a pity, but that's the reality.

Regards
Paul

Edit: .....maintenance or an emergency de-gas...." ( "of" was a confusing typo)

[Warb]

Yes, we could divert the power making negative prices to H2, but the efficiency has just gone out the door, plus we have now made more CO2 than if we just ploughed the electricity straight into the grid. It's a pity, but that's the reality.

I'm confused by this. The problem is that a coal fired plant can't be switched off, so in times of oversupply it remains running. During that time, it's releasing the same amount of CO2 whether its power goes to the grid, into a battery, or is used to make H2. On the surface it would seem that the only difference between those three scenarios is that the owners have to pay to send the power to the grid, whereas if they charge a battery they can sell the power later, or if they make H2 they can sell that (or convert it to electricity and sell that).

I don't see why efficiency of the power station is impacted*, or why extra CO2 is released. All that is happening is that the financial loss (paying to dispose of unwanted power) is removed, and a useful product is created (or stored). I can understand that the cost of installing a battery or an H2 manufacturing plant might outweigh any punitive cost for overproduction (negative pricing), although the "Warratah Big Battery" discussed earlier would suggest that the storage concept at least has some merit?

*Yes, it's less efficient than an optimised H2 generation system, but the driver here would be to save/recoup the -ve pricing, not to create H2 in the best possible way.

[Bushmiller]

I'm confused by this. The problem is that a coal fired plant can't be switched off, so in times of oversupply it remains running. During that time, it's releasing the same amount of CO2 whether its power goes to the grid, into a battery, or is used to make H2. On the surface it would seem that the only difference between those three scenarios is that the owners have to pay to send the power to the grid, whereas if they charge a battery they can sell the power later, or if they make H2 they can sell that (or convert it to electricity and sell that).

I don't see why efficiency of the power station is impacted*, or why extra CO2 is released. All that is happening is that the financial loss (paying to dispose of unwanted power) is removed, and a useful product is created (or stored). I can understand that the cost of installing a battery or an H2 manufacturing plant might outweigh any punitive cost for overproduction (negative pricing), although the "Warratah Big Battery" discussed earlier would suggest that the storage concept at least has some merit?

*Yes, it's less efficient than an optimised H2 generation system, but the driver here would be to save/recoup the -ve pricing, not to create H2 in the best possible way.

Warb

There is some mileage in what you say, but unfortunately it is not quite as simple as that. How can I explain? Say we are generating at full load and the spot price starts to reduce, the generator will begin to reduce load towards the practical minimum. This will be a different value for each individual plant. Remember that we are only talking about the spot price. There are extensive contracts in place at each station. In fact, it is possible to make money during the negative price periods. How is that done? Reduce load to less than the contract price and then buy back in from the spot market at considerably less than the contract price and without having to burn fuel to do this! :) Unfortunately this is not always possible. :(

The other issue is that the infrastructure to produce the H2 is not there. It is another step that has to be undertaken and of course there is the issue that you need a market to sell that hydrogen into, which is a different scenario to putting your excess energy into a battery. The market issue is the biggest bugbear for the moment. There are two elements to producing H2. Firstly, it has to be made in by an electrolysis method and secondly it has to be compressed for storage purposes and both these processes require very specialised equipment.

I think that lastly there is a mind-set issue. Generators want to keep doing what they have always done without change. It is not an easy task to budge them off that pedestal.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

So Paul, we have a problem for the generator companies when the price is either very low or -ve, and they would like to be able to do something with that power rather than sell it at a compelled loss.
OTOH, we consumers (who use the wholesale system) have a problem when prices spike, as I saw yesterday for 90 minutes (18:00 to 19:30 I think it was).

Both of those events are fairly short term, but fairly painful for different parties. What is to stop a generator from having (say) a salt water battery or 10 that they can dump excess power into when prices are lousy for them, and then sell back to the grid when prices are better and demand is higher? They wouldn't necessarily need to run the generator at full whack depending upon how good the price is at the time. Wouldn't that help to smooth out the bumps a bit?

In anticipation of your answer being "they make more in price spikes than they lose in the troughs" I would suggest that it would then be very prudent for a Govt mandate to employ such a sca scheme.

[Bushmiller]

So Paul, we have a problem for the generator companies when the price is either very low or -ve, and they would like to be able to do something with that power rather than sell it at a compelled loss.
OTOH, we consumers (who use the wholesale system) have a problem when prices spike, as I saw yesterday for 90 minutes (18:00 to 19:30 I think it was).

Both of those events are fairly short term, but fairly painful for different parties. What is to stop a generator from having (say) a salt water battery or 10 that they can dump excess power into when prices are lousy for them, and then sell back to the grid when prices are better and demand is higher? They wouldn't necessarily need to run the generator at full whack depending upon how good the price is at the time. Wouldn't that help to smooth out the bumps a bit?

In anticipation of your answer being "they make more in price spikes than they lose in the troughs" I would suggest that it would then be very prudent for a Govt mandate to employ such a sca scheme.

FF

Ideally a generator stops generating when he runs at a loss: Just common sense. BUT: It really isn't that simple in the coal fired stations combined with their contracts. I noticed our Traders at Millmerran commented that yesterday they saw ten price spikes in excess of $10,000/MWh. Admittedly that was in QLD. If the same happened in NSW, I hope you ran around switching everything off! Jeez, you are going to be so fit!

The general strategy in thermal stations is to reduce load as much as possible down to fixed contract levels when prices are low or negative and to go hell for leather when prices are high, during the even peak especially, and the night in general. This is a complete turnaround from the way it used to be.

There is still a reluctance to embrace renewable technologies and much of this comes down to viability.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

There is still a reluctance to embrace renewable technologies and much of this comes down to viability.

Is this denial of the way the world is going, or some hope/belief that there will be a U turn, or have they simply made a decision to "take the money and then walk away"? Or something else entirely? Perhaps a hope that the government will step in and (effectively) buy everything? I have to assume that they have put some thought into the future, even if it's just an escape plan!

[Bushmiller]

Is this denial of the way the world is going, or some hope/belief that there will be a U turn, or have they simply made a decision to "take the money and then walk away"? Or something else entirely? Perhaps a hope that the government will step in and (effectively) buy everything? I have to assume that they have put some thought into the future, even if it's just an escape plan!

Warb

My own view, and I have to emphasise that it is purely a personal standpoint, is that all this is a result of commercial decisions. In a way I can understand that as companies have to answer to their shareholders or owners. Even if senior executives want to go off on an environmental tangent, they can't. It is the reason why major utilities should be state or government owned. There was an occasion when some state owned electricity entities did generate as much as possible and against commercial considerations, but that didn't last for long as it was in contravention of the market rules. Also, while I would like to say it was the result of altruistic intentions, I have to say it was political. Nothing comes for nothing in this modern environment.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

....companies have to answer to their shareholders or owners. Even if senior executives want to go off on an environmental tangent, they can't.

This is not strictly true. The Directors of a company can do pretty much whatever they like, if it's "in the best interests of the company". They can be removed by the shareholders, but that requires more than 50% of the shareholders to vote for the removal. The point to consider here is whether doing nothing (which seems, to the outsider, to be what the Directors are doing), is actually in the best interests of the company.

Whilst I have had dealing with a good many company directors of smaller companies who are brain dead, and only in their roles because they had (often inherited) enough money to buy their way in, the directors and senior executives of large companies are normally a bit more on the ball these days - most of the old "family" companies have gone by the wayside, largely because of incompetent family directors who buried their heads in the sand. I would have expected them to have spent some considerable time and effort investigating the path forward and coming up with an optimum approach. If that involved a paradigm shift in operations, that would, from experience, normally be "sold" to the shareholders in glossy brochures and with great fanfare. I find it hard to believe they have no plan whatsoever, given that the world in general is clearly on a crusade to be "carbon neutral", or at the very least to profit from marketing itself in such a manner. That in turn leads me to suspect that they do indeed have a plan, but that the plan is not an adaption of business methods, rather (as I hinted at earlier) a financial "cut and run" escape plan based on public money being used to cover the fairly obvious need for unprofitable coal-fired base load generation during the transition. Interestingly, if that is indeed "the plan", then any attempt by them to improve the situation by installing batteries or any other green/storage capability is (for them) counterproductive as it lessens the need for public money to be spent propping them up. If they do nothing, then someone else will eventually have to step in and pay, either to buy the whole thing and run it at a loss, or give them the money to fix the issues!

[Bushmiller]

The Directors of a company can do pretty much whatever they like, if it's "in the best interests of the company". They can be removed by the shareholders, but that requires more than 50% of the shareholders to vote for the removal. The point to consider here is whether doing nothing (which seems, to the outsider, to be what the Directors are doing), is actually in the best interests of the company.



Warb

I probably should have not been so general with my comment, but I would suggest that any decision made by the senior executives has to be commercially viable. The ubiquitous bottom line. The problem for the moment is that entry into the renewable sector is a minefield. If it were not for the subsidies for both rooftop and commercial farms, solar would not be anywhere near the stage it is at now as an example of this. The Australian market in particular is dogged by a very conservative approach at best and a sceptical tending towards scathing attitude at worst.

On your second point I did distinguish between shareholders and owners, but I would agree not well enough. Shareholders require majorities while owners have only themselves. However, I am approaching the boundary of discrete information here and it is not my perogative to share that information.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

....but I would suggest that any decision made by the senior executives has to be commercially viable. The ubiquitous bottom line.

Absolutely, but the "bottom line" is ongoing - a short term loss is often a required and acceptable penalty to ensure future profitability. At present I'm struggling to see any effort being put into ensuring that ongoing profit, and given the increasing calls for the shutdown of coal fired generators, I find that interesting....... and possibly a signal that the plan is indeed "cut and run", or an assumption of future public funding. I strongly suspect the latter.

[Bushmiller]

Here is a question for everybody. How many industries are there with a price range for a particular good as extreme as that for electricity? The price for 1MW can range from -$1000 to $16600.

Effectively, the price is the first level in the frequency control and the effect of supply and demand.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

How many industries are there with a price range for a particular good as extreme as that for electricity? The price for 1MW can range from -$1000 to $16600.

Economists have some jargon for that, Paul.

It is what happens when an inelastic supply curve meets an inelastic demand curve.

Pity is did not apply to breweries!

[Bushmiller]

Another article on the future of hydrogen as propulsion for vehicles:

Will hydrogen overtake batteries in the race for zero-emission cars? (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/will-hydrogen-overtake-batteries-in-the-race-for-zero-emission-cars/ar-BB1ic8VE?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=8bb32ea2578d44e29524c4d3f1cac653&ei=63)

It acknowledges problems, particularly around refueling, but there I think back to the early days of the ICE. I think I read that fuel was obtained from the local pharmacy until fuel stations abounded. It also concludes that H2 will not be for every application even if it is adopted, but seems more likely for heavier goods vehicles and coincidentally that seems an application which tests the limits of batteries.

Regards
Paul

[Simplicity]

“Future of Victoria electricity market”
Wow I thought this thread would have been like a lightbulb on steroids yesterday an today, well apart from the members in Victoria with out power.

Cheers Matt.

[GraemeCook]

I am far less sanguine than you, Paul, on the future of hydrogen other than in very small niche markets. The reason is contained in the first paragraph of your articles.
"When (hydrogen) reacts with oxygen it produces only water and releases abundant energy. "
The laws of conservation of energy say that to create that you need an equal amount of energy; in practice you need more energy because nothing is 100% efficient. Energy costs money, abundant costs lots. Then there are problems of storage, safety, transport, etc.

The costs seem insurmountable.


I think back to the early days of the ICE. I think I read that fuel was obtained from the local pharmacy until fuel stations abounded.l

I think that was true for a short period. Then petrol was supplied in square 4 gallon tins, packed in 4-tin pine crates, sold by general stores. Then in the twenties hand pumped petrol bowsers were installed on the kerbside outside those general stores. Some of them were still existant in the fifties and disappeared in the sixties.

More recently, in the fifties and sixties, you could only buy olive oil at pharmacies, in quite small bottles. No mention as to whether it was extra virgin!

[Warb]

"When (hydrogen) reacts with oxygen it produces only water and releases abundant energy. "
The laws of conservation of energy say that to create that you need an equal amount of energy; in practice you need more energy because nothing is 100% efficient. Energy costs money, abundant costs lots. Then there are problems of storage, safety, transport, etc.

The costs seem insurmountable.

For commercial transport, you require abundant energy to drag a 55tonne B-double hundreds of kilometres across the country, and you can't sit around waiting for it to recharge. You also need to consider the weight of the power source, as each tonne of battery, hydrogen+tank (or diesel for that matter) takes a tonne off your load capacity. In the case of a battery, it also removes the option to increase your load capacity by only half-fuelling for a short trip. I don't know how the weights of these renewable power sources compare, but a friend tells me that a B-Double drinks about 80l/100km - at 0.83k/L that's about 66kg of fuel per 100km travelled - and has a range of around 2000km.

Tesla is quite shifty about how much its Semi weighs, but they say it has a range of 500miles (800km). Without knowing how much it weighs (tare weight, including batteries), it's not really possible to compare with a diesel truck because the load capacity is "GVM - tare", so we don't know what load could be carried, but Melbourne to Sydney (880km-ish) in a single hit looks very doubtful*.

*Because truck drivers are regulated in respect of working hours and rest hours, "unnecessary" refuelling stops are unpopular (at least with the owners/drivers that I know!).


Trains have similar requirements for massive amounts of stored energy, I'd assume.

[Bushmiller]

Trains have similar requirements for massive amounts of stored energy, I'd assume.

Warb

Trains, as BobL pointed out, are a good candidate for overhead direct electrical power, so apart from "shunting" there may not be much takeup on the railways for hydrogen.

Something that occurs to me surrounds all the hype, both positive and negative, over electric private vehicles. It seems to me that large vehicles and other forms of bulk transport (ships and aeroplanes?) are far more problematical.

The hype around an electric vehicle not making a pleasant sound, the lack of charging stations, the time taken to charge etc. are all either ludicrous or surmountable and are largely thrown into the debate because of prejudice, self interest or, mostly, reluctance to change.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

The report on the Callide C4 damage (nearly three years ago now) has been released.

CS Energy releases technical report into 2021 Unit C4 incident - CS Energy (https://www.csenergy.com.au/news/cs-energy-releases-technical-report-into-2021-unit-c4-incident)

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

The hype around an electric vehicle not making a pleasant sound, the lack of charging stations, the time taken to charge etc. are all either ludicrous or surmountable and are largely thrown into the debate because of prejudice, self interest or, mostly, reluctance to change.

I must admit that I do like the sound of a sporty petrol engine, but it wouldn't stop me buying an EV. Apparently I'm not alone in that "like", because I saw an ad for an EV yesterday on the TV, and I'm sure I heard an engine sound when the "sporty" version was on the screen.

There are additional issues that worry people, me included. Firstly, and this also applies to some modern ICE cars, what is the longevity of these machines? It costs a lot to buy one, but at what point does it become worthless, or at least start to require big $ spends to keep it on the road? This, of course, also applies to anything else where single components like computers cost more than the vehicle is worth. I know the theory that third party companies will make replacements, but I also know that this doesn't always happen - a friend had to write off a John Deere tractor after a small engine bay fire (itself due to poor design of fuel lines) because the electronics got toasted and they cost more than was economical to repair. I've also seen the lengths that some companies go to in order to prevent third party products being used. Then, of course, there's the problem that it requires enough market volume to warrant a third party even bothering! I have read that in the US, an EV drops 60% of its value in the first three years. Unfortunately it's hard to compare that to anything else, given that we're only just recovering from the post-covid shortages where 3-year-old cars cost more than new ones, because you couldn't actually buy a new car!

Depending on the individual, another big issue is design. There are some very attractive EV's out there, but also some seriously unattractive ones!

I think the amount of tech can also be off-putting, though that also applies to some modern ICE cars. I picked my (ICE) car up from a service yesterday, and they'd upgraded the firmware. I no longer had a speedo on the dashboard, only on the HUD (which after a year I still haven't really got accustomed to using), and various other "features" were set differently from how I left them. When added to the raft of features disabled for the Australian market (but still in the manual, so you get excited and then find you can't use them) or designed for other markets where the rules, roads and driving styles are very different from Australia, there's a certain desire to return to a car that has simple buttons and does what you tell it, rather than you having to fight the steering wheel to avoid an enormous pot-hole because the car is trying to "lane assist"......

On the other hand, I do like the EV mode on my wife's hybrid - you can sneak up on people in carparks!

[BobL]

It acknowledges problems, particularly around refueling, but there I think back to the early days of the ICE. I think I read that fuel was obtained from the local pharmacy until fuel stations abounded. It also concludes that H2 will not be for every application even if it is adopted, but seems more likely for heavier goods vehicles and coincidentally that seems an application which tests the limits of CURRENT batteries.


Due to thermodynamics H as a transport fuel is unlikely to be much more efficient than it is today.
OTOH Batteries as a technology are likely to have some way to go.
Existing batteries are already used in delivery vans, light trucks, mining machinery and even trains.
The one thing that existing batteries still cannot do easily is compete with long distance haulage trucks although the Tesla Semi is already producing some surprising long range performances. The weak link with long range electric road haulage is the need for specialised very high wattage (ie 750kW) re-charging systems but these are on par with the cost and amount of tech required for H transport but once built won't need to continually require fuel delivered to them.

Interesting article heR bout how Pepsi in the US is using electric Trucks to haul up to 22.5 tons of product
Pepsi Reveals Everything About The Tesla Semi Trucks | NextBigFuture.com (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/10/pepsi-reveals-everything-about-the-tesla-semi-trucks.html)
In the same article there's also a list of other large electric trucks undergoing testing.

[Chief Tiff]

The report on the Callide C4 damage (nearly three years ago now) has been released

That was fascinating to watch; clearly explaining the cascading failure events. What I don’t understand though is why the DC interconnector wasn’t immediately re-closed to restore DC power from Station battery to C4; that would have allowed the emergency generator supply interconnector breakers to close restoring critical AC power to the C4 auxilliaries.

The animation showed the DC interconnector being a big-arsed hand operated switch; do you think that is an accurate representation? Certainly if I opened a hand switch and the lights went out I’d be somewhat tempted to close it again rather sharpish…. with it being DC I wouldn’t have to worry about phase alignment…

[GraemeCook]

For commercial transport, you require abundant energy to drag a 55tonne B-double hundreds of kilometres across the country, and you can't sit around waiting for it to recharge.
....
a friend tells me that a B-Double drinks about 80l/100km

A friend has quoted 100l/100kms. Same ball park.

One "solution" might be that B-doubles become B-two and a half's, towing a smallish battery trailer, which they drop off every 500 kms and replace with a fully charged one.
But how do you recharge a B-battery trailer out the back of woop-woop, with a diesel generator?

And I don't think hydrogen is sufficiently compact or safe for long distance haulage. Doesn't liquefy like LPG, doesn't dissolve like acetylene, not compact like diesel.

But we might seem an entirely different solution. Long distance haulage might revert to ships and trains which are cost effective when they do not have to compete with heavily subsidised semis.

[Bushmiller]

And I don't think hydrogen is sufficiently compact or safe for long distance haulage. Doesn't liquefy like LPG, doesn't dissolve like acetylene, not compact like diesel.



Graeme

The transport issue might not be as dire as you imagine. We used to get our H2 delivered from Brisbane (200Km). Now it comes from Orange (not the fruit :rolleyes: ) which is about 800Km. In the future I could envisage H2 plants cropping up all over the place.

Transportation may becomes less of an issue than moving petrol and diesel around all over the country. Large Depots could conceivably have their own H2 making plants. You only require electricity and water for the raw materials. A lot easier in some regards than an oil refinery.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

That was fascinating to watch; clearly explaining the cascading failure events. What I don’t understand though is why the DC interconnector wasn’t immediately re-closed to restore DC power from Station battery to C4; that would have allowed the emergency generator supply interconnector breakers to close restoring critical AC power to the C4 auxilliaries.

The animation showed the DC interconnector being a big-arsed hand operated switch; do you think that is an accurate representation? Certainly if I opened a hand switch and the lights went out I’d be somewhat tempted to close it again rather sharpish…. with it being DC I wouldn’t have to worry about phase alignment…

Chief

I only viewed the link after I had posted. I don't think it is the final appraisal of the sequence of events. There is still a further investigation to occur and, of course, the animation is a little sanitised and probably doesn't convey the sheer terror of the moment. However, I agree with you that it was a pretty good explanation and there were at least two levels of emergency back up that failed them. The first being the C4 battery itself (wasn't connected yet, which was very unfortunate but they could not have two batteries in parallel) and the second being the Emergency Diesel Generator that ran but couldn't be connected to the unit. Both these are usually designed to keep essential auxiliaries running during times of crisis.

As to reversing the throw of that isolator connecting the standby DC charger from C4, I would need to know more about what indication there might have been in the switch room. Were the people doing the switching aware that everything had gone pear shaped? The people switching should have been in communication with the control room, the control screens went blank and for some while they would not have known where they were except the alarm screen was still working and it had just gone ballistic. Perhaps the people switching were waiting for the DC charger to "pick up" the load and were unaware that it was incapable of doing this.

I am not sure how or when the reality dawned on them as to what what had happened. The alarms would have alerted them to being in deep excrement. It would have been truly frightening. If we lose even a single screen here, we freak out: The loss of all screens except the alarm screen would have been a nightmare. Clearly they realised they had lost control of the unit except it hadn't tripped, which was the fundamental problem, as they initiated a site evacuation and I think the other units were all tripped manually. This enabled everybody to exit except for a skeleton crew of operators to supervise the safe shutdown of the remaining units and another couple to ponder the C4 dilemma. I am guessing the numbers there from what we would do.

The surprising thing is that this was the third battery charger to be upgraded and returned to service. They had already replaced two chargers and this situation did not arise before. Something must have been done differently. For example, was the time between running the two chargers in parallel (station and C4) and opening off the station charger isolator longer? Did that allow the C4 charger voltage to decay too low and consequently fail when it was required to pick up the charging regime? Was anybody aware that could potentially happen.

I guess there is still more to come out of the investigations. There is also a question, and this was not raised in the animation at all, as to whether Powerlink was asked to disconnect their circuit breaker in the switchyard. That may have prevented the generator motoring at 50MW for some of the time. Clearly there would have been extensive damage still with the bearings wiped and significant rubbing and other heat related distortion, but not as bad as eventuated.

My impression is that this system was a so-called UPS (uninterruptible power supply), but I have seen in the past at other places that it is far from uninterruptible. So still some questions, but a very informative video.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

A friend has quoted 100l/100kms. Same ball park.

It probably varies with route and driving style, and they drink more at higher speeds - I've seen figures as poor as 160l/100km quoted. The guy I was talking to has several trucks and we were discussing a brand new one he's just got specifically for long distance hauling of (if I remember correctly) bitumen. The conversation also included the fact that the new truck had a tare weight of 3tonne or so less than his Western Star, which means he can carry 3T more load, which makes $x more per trip and pays the loan off y months earlier. I don't remember the details, but he'd gone through it quite thoroughly!


But we might seem an entirely different solution. Long distance haulage might revert to ships and trains which are cost effective when they do not have to compete with heavily subsidised semis.

I've always thought that a return to trains for long distance work would be the best solution, but there's so much money tied up in the haulage industry that it's another issue where there would be a lot of resistance to change on that scale.

[twosheds]

Re Callide C4

From an outsider with no knowledge of the industry one thing struck me immediately as I watched the animation. It stated the ACS (which I assume is a last ditch type of failsafe mechanism) had been damaged in a previous incident and was inoperable. Then nothing further was mentioned about this switch. If this damage to the ACS was known, why it had not been repaired or replaced prior to the maintenance on C4 DC system being completed. Am I correct in thinking that had this ACS operated at the time the destruction of the generator may have been averted?

Your thoughts from those more knowledgeable?

Twosheds

[BobL]

Transportation may becomes less of an issue than moving petrol and diesel around all over the country. Large Depots could conceivably have their own H2 making plants. You only require electricity and water for the raw materials. A lot easier in some regards than an oil refinery.


Humm . . . . if electrical power is being generated to make H, why not put it straight into a swappable battery?
People make out that making H is a doddle and this is indeed the case making small amounts on a lab bench. Making it to scale is a different proposition, the large H plant in Melb can only make enough H for 6 regular cars, or about one truck a day. To scale that up to say 6000 cars a day requires a very large plant

Check out this large battery swapping operation for Sandvik underground mining equipment

https://youtu.be/GAJpXij-PEs?si=1Su31DshUXpe5lmP

Technology enabling electrification journey (https://www.home.sandvik/en/stories/articles/2021/09/technology-enabling-electrification-journey/)


Here's a 620kWh swappable battery, semi development in Sydney - 90 ton haulage.
This is already being used for local/regional deliveries

https://youtu.be/9eYLtPSf7PY?si=5zGFKVrG6R0IE_i7

[havabeer69]

I guess there is still more to come out of the investigations. There is also a question, and this was not raised in the animation at all, as to whether Powerlink was asked to disconnect their circuit breaker in the switchyard. That may have prevented the generator motoring at 50MW for some of the time. Clearly there would have been extensive damage still with the bearings wiped and significant rubbing and other heat related distortion, but not as bad as eventuated.
Regards
Paul

I thought it was answered in the video.

they didn't want do disconnect from the grid and cause an overspeed event from all the left over steam? I also wonder if in that last few minutes no one really knew what the machine was doing and so making the call to disconnect from the grid. As you could imagine 5 minutes of that big orange thing clanging and grinding away would be scary as hell in the PCR

[Bushmiller]

I thought it was answered in the video.

they didn't want do disconnect from the grid and cause an overspeed event from all the left over steam? I also wonder if in that last few minutes no one really knew what the machine was doing and so making the call to disconnect from the grid. As you could imagine 5 minutes of that big orange thing clanging and grinding away would be scary as hell in the PCR

HAB

I think they did answer. I was watching the link at work as one of our managers sent us the link for information. It has some extra significance for us at Millmerran as our holding company is the IG (Intergen) mentioned in the JV (Joint Venture). It is a financial involvement as CS Energy operate the plant on behalf of IG. I do have to be mindful that some information is sensitive and consequently I am only divulging details you can find on the net and within those links. Also my role at Millmerran has no involvement with Callide. While I was watching I got called away to attend an ash crusher blockage on the other unit (not mine) and missed that part as a result. I may also have interpreted, not necessarily correctly, some other information I had.

At this point I should reiterate that it would have been the most horrendous situation I can imagine and my heart goes out to the operators who remained to deal with the catastrophe during those 34minutes. Also, I would remind everybody that hindsight is a wonderful thing. There are no doubt things that could have been done differently. Who has seen "Sully?" The movie about landing a plane on the Hudson river.

Just before I continue, there are another couple of articles available. This is a press conference held on 13 Feb 2024:

CS Energy press conference - C4 tech findings - 13 Feb 2024.m4a (dropbox.com) (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/713s21humv2jsrb97adjx/CS-Energy-press-conference-C4-tech-findings-13-Feb-2024.m4a?rlkey=ik091zabnmw1grzayz7qlxlnd&e=1&dl=0)

and this is a more detailed report, on which the animated video is based. The timeline is quite interesting.

CSE C4 TURBINE REPORT FINAL.pdf (file:///C:/Users/Paul%20Brittan/Downloads/CSE%20C4%20TURBINE%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf)

HAB has touched on the ever-present bad dream of all operators, which is a turbine overspeed. Although a physically large lump of machinery, a turbo generator spins very easily and not much energy, in the form of steam, is required to get it moving. The usual technique of disconnecting a machine from the grid is to reduce load until the machine is making either no load or very little load (a small amount is being consumed by the unit's own auxiliaries) and an alarm is created "Generator Motoring." At that point it will either trip automatically or it can be tripped manually. Before that happens it is important that the steam valves shut. There may be two pairs of stop and control valves or four pairs of valves. If the generator continues to make power and the "Motoring" alarm doesn't initiate it means one or more valves are leaking steam. Under those conditions you must not disconnect from the grid via the GCB (Generator Circuit Breaker). If you do, the turbine is no longer physically held by the grid at 3000rpm and it will overspeed.

In the case of C4, loss of AC and hydraulic power would cause the stop and control v/vs to slam shut. Back in the control room they couldn't be sure if the v/vs had shut because they had lost all indication with the screens being down. This was referred to in the press conference as being "black." Consequently they were hesitant in asking Power Link to disconnect them from the switchyard.

Even if they could ascertain it was safe to disconnect from the grid, they had lost all remote control and would have had to go to the GCB locally and tripped it manually. That would have been really scary and very, very inadvisable.

The incident would not have occurred if when the Battery Chargers were separated, the voltage on C4 was higher than the station charger. I guess that when the two previous chargers were replaced (C3 and the Station) the relevant battery had the higher voltage and the incident slipped by. In this incident "all the holes in the cheese lined up."

Regards
Paul

[havabeer69]

yeah to help clear up millers post

putting the generator onto the "grid" acts like a huge big electric handbrake on the generator/turbine so if you need to make more mega watts, you need to over come the big electric force so the answer is more steam pressure.


the problem is, if you suddenly take the grid handbrake away BUT all that steam pressure is still available for use (stop and throttle valves not closed) it will just full send the turbine, there's no brake or anything you can apply either. 90tons of steel with blades already spinning at speeds like mach2 is just free to launch its self. It's actually quite a real danger and there are other mechanical safety devices in place to top this happening.

[GraemeCook]

Humm . . . . if electrical power is being generated to make H, why not put it straight into a swappable battery?

Makes a lot of sense, Bob. Possibly, they could also be connected to the grid during peak demand periods.

PS: Swappable batteries are a better idea than my battery trailer. Just like swapping BBQ bottles, only faster.

[Bushmiller]

It's actually quite a real danger and there are other mechanical safety devices in place to top this happening.

HAB

Thanks. I like your analogy and in fact I often use automotive analogies to describe what is happening in both the boiler and the turbine.

Absolutely, but if the DCS control has been removed maybe not. At Bayswater there were both mechanical and electrical overspeed trips, but at Callide, with both electrical and mechanical systems out of service the operators had an unenviable dilemma. The steam valves were shut as it happens, but they could not really tell for sure.

I hope to retire before I ever find myself in that position.

Regards
Paul

PS: I am not sure the blades reach twice the speed of sound or else we would have a continuous sonic boom occurring, but the tip speed is awfully bloody fast and possibly just under the speed of sound. It is why the 660MW units at Vales Point and Bayswater have two LP cylinders. Otherwise, the blades with just a single cylinder would have to be too long, be rotating too fast and be exerting significantly increased centrifugal forces. As it is when turbines overspeed their longest blades (LP cylinder) may let go. The 60Hz units as seen in the US tend to be longer (in the case of the generator) and slimmer as they run at what would be above (3600rpm) the overspeed trip point of the Australian units.

[russ57]

You may have heard that there were some significant events in Vic. On the 14th Feb. Apart from a pretty serious fire, a storm hit much of the state. Some of the casualties included 5 or 6 hv transmission towers near Geelong. When they went down, 2 500kv lines to the Latrobe Valley tripped, followed by all 4 units at loy yang A. As a result, power prices peaked at $16k/Mhw. And stayed there for about 4 hours...
My Amber tarrif is attached.. 535518

As I was watching I was able to switch from charging battery to exporting and managed to earn a few dollars as well as supporting the grid.:U


What I don't understand is why only loy yang a tripped. I believe aemo did a fair bit of load shedding. ( as did the storm itself, with up to 500k households off grid, including 20k or so still off.)

[FenceFurniture]

I saw an ad for an EV yesterday on the TV, and I'm sure I heard an engine sound when the "sporty" version was on the screen.I've heard that for those who must have engine noise there are things available to provide that. I just hope that they are only audible within the vehicle itself.




There are additional issues that worry people, me included. Firstly, and this also applies to some modern ICE cars, what is the longevity of these machines? It costs a lot to buy one, but at what point does it become worthless, or at least start to require big $ spends to keep it on the road?
I have read that in the US, an EV drops 60% of its value in the first three years.EVs are far simpler than ICEVs and there is not much servicing required. Who knows whether or not they will last longer, but I'm sure that they could be made to last longer. However, it is important to remember that we are in a huge state of transition that has only recently begun, and as that progresses the current EVs for sale are going to be replaced by more mature versions. Hence why at the moment the value plummets in the first 3 years – I believe that should be expected, particularly as new battery tech emerges, because everyone wants the latest battery tech. Tesla are apparently offering (for vehicles purchased in 2023) to swap out the batteries for their new-tech "game changing" batteries that they claim will be available in 2024.




On the other hand, I do like the EV mode on my wife's hybrid - you can sneak up on people in carparks!It occurred to me quite some time ago that people who are hard of hearing are going to have the bejesus frightened out of them by close range EVs that "suddenly" appear behind them, particularly at <30kmh when there is hardly any road noise. All pedestrians are going to have to be far more vigilant. Depending upon pedestrians' reactions to EVs as they become more prevalent, it wouldn't surprise me to see a compulsory low speed noise emission somehow incorporated – perhaps when the car knows it is in a <=50 kph zone, and if it detects that there are mammals around. Think of undercover carparks – ICEVs are easy to hear at 5 kph or indeed motionless idling, but an EV is damn near impossible even at 20 kph (apart from possible tyre squeal on smooth concrete).

[Mr Brush]

Sporty Hyundai 5N EV pipes simulated engine sounds into the cabin, but also does 0-100 in 3.8 seconds :oo:

There is no compulsory reuqirement for low speed pedestrian warning sound in Australia YET, but I've heard that this may be coming. My BYD Atto 3 already emits a droning sound through external speaker at low speed, which at least wakes up the people ambling along in front of it gawking at their mobile phone....

[Mr Brush]

Checkout the first few minutes of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10GF-vBwqs

It even has simulated paddle gear changes...even though the car itself has no gearbox, just a reduction gear.

[BobL]

I've heard that for those who must have engine noise there are things available to provide that. I just hope that they are only audible within the vehicle itself.

Some EVs have external speakers and a variety of user selectable modes/sounds dependent on speed and directions. From a V12, high speed turbine, farts, or a for reversing, a forklift type Beep, Beep, Beep. On Tesla's lower end models, external sounds were only available as an add on accessory "Boom Box" but last time I looked on were no longer available although I believe the wiring is still in there for an external speaker. As far as I know it's also no longer in the software but would be a doddle for it to be reinstated with a software update.


EVs are far simpler than ICEVs and there is not much servicing required. Who knows whether or not they will last longer, but I'm sure that they could be made to last longer. However, it is important to remember that we are in a huge state of transition that has only recently begun, and as that progresses the current EVs for sale are going to be replaced by more mature versions. Hence why at the moment the value plummets in the first 3 years – I believe that should be expected, particularly as new battery tech emerges, because everyone wants the latest battery tech. Tesla are apparently offering (for vehicles purchased in 2023) to swap out the batteries for their new-tech "game changing" batteries that they claim will be available in 2024.

To be more specific, it's the drive train that is simpler in that it has fewer parts, and far fewer parts that need servicing. in terms of electronics and software EVs are considered more complicated.

From a previous post

A German Taxi driver has driven a 2014 Tesla model S for more 1.6 million km [EDIT by now its almost 2 million].
During this time he has had the battery replaced twice. Once at 290,000 km under warranty, and once at about 1,000,000 km
He had the single electric drive motor replaced 3 times by 680,000 km when known motor faults were being worked on, and a fourth one at 1,000,000.
Replacing a EVs motor is also quite a bit easier than most ICE motors
Multi motor units put less load on each motor so should fare even better.


The lack of noise issue makes me pay much more attention than I would driving an ICE car.

At home I almost always back my car into my drive/carport so that I exit my driveway forwards so I can see if any pedestrians are walking on the footpath. I also a tend to reverse into parking spaces as my Tesla's has 3 rear facing cameras (it has a total of 8 camera) provide an excellent 270º view of the rear (even at night) and are auto shown on the drivers screen when reverse is engaged. There are 3 fwd facing cameras but they are located almost in the same plane as the driver and are not automatically shown on the drivers screen when moving fwd. What is really needed is a camera right at the front of the vehicle such as the Cybertruck has. This would also show a driver what is below the drivers line of vision over the bonnet when moving at say <20km/h. Most newer including mine use ultra sonic sensors for this short range stuff but I don't think that's as useful as a camera.

[FenceFurniture]

My BYD Atto 3 already emits a droning sound through external speaker at low speed, which at least wakes up the people ambling along in front of it gawking at their mobile phone....Perhaps they could attach a microphone to this: "HEY! EYES UP!". :D

[FenceFurniture]

From a V12, high speed turbine, farts, or a for reversing, a forklift type Beep, Beep, Beep.It might be more appropriate to have a the sound of a Wankel Rotary engine.




To be more specific, it's the drive train that is simpler in that it has fewer parts, and far fewer parts that need servicing. in terms of electronics and software EVs are considered more complicated.Yes, I should have specified that I meant the drivetrain.




Tesla's has 3 rear facing cameras (it has a total of 8 camera) provide an excellent 270º view of the rear (even at night) and are auto shown on the drivers screen when reverse is engaged.
What is really needed is a camera right at the front of the vehicle such as the Cybertruck has. This would also show a driver what is below the drivers line of vision over the bonnet when moving at say <20km/h. Most newer including mine use ultra sonic sensors for this short range stuff but I don't think that's as useful as a camera.The current Mazda 3 (in at least the Astina model) gives bird's eye view of the whole car and surroundings when required – it's excellent for parking and reversing. It looks like there is a camera 5m above the car. It can be called up at will but there is probably a maximum speed to allow this.

Agreed re front camera view. Actually, both cameras and ultrasonic sensors are required (for when the driver is not watching the screen).

[Mr Brush]

I won't be really happy until I can have this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NgSZ8sjDgU

It would be fairly easy to implement on a phone app, playing on internal car speakers via Android Auto. Leave windows slightly open so the outside world can benefit? The app could vary the tone of the sound according to speed using GPS vehicle speed data from the phone.

Even better......WHERE'S MY PERSONAL JETPACK ????

[ian]

There is no compulsory requirement for low speed pedestrian warning sound in Australia YET, but I've heard that this may be coming.
The lack of audible sound, apart from road tyre noise, from a BEV or Fuel cell vehicle was an emerging issue when I left NSW government employment 9 years ago and BEVs were as common as hen's teeth.

Now that BEV's represent a significant and growing number of registered vehicles, the issue is becoming critical -- especially for those who are visually impaired.

Personally I support the requirement that all BEVs and fuel cell vehicles emit an auditory warning at all speeds.

[Mr Brush]

So do I - which is why I left the low speed sound generator on my BYD enabled. Ironically, in a recent OTA software update, BYD made it possible for users to turn the pedestrian warning sound OFF........presumably because it isn't yet compulsory. Even before that, some BYD owners were unplugging the speaker to kill the warning sound. Self-entitlement is alive and well in the EV community it seems, with no consideration for others at all.

[Warb]

The current Mazda 3 (in at least the Astina model) gives bird's eye view of the whole car and surroundings when required – it's excellent for parking and reversing. It looks like there is a camera 5m above the car. It can be called up at will but there is probably a maximum speed to allow this.

The Rav4 has a similar system, it's very useful but also relates to what I was saying about the life of these modern vehicles (EV or ICE). The front camera on the Rav4 is very exposed to stone chips, birdstrike etc. My wife collected a stone on hers, and Toyota quoted nearly $1500 to replace it. Whilst it might be possible to find/bodge an aftermarket replacement, that would be beyond the skills of many, assuming that Toyota haven't hard-coded a recognition code into it to make sure only genuine parts are used. It doesn't take too many specialised parts failures to render a modern car uneconomical to keep on the road, or to reduce its resale value dramatically.

You get 5 or so years of warranty, which doesn't cover "damage" (i.e. a busted camera!), and after that you're on your own. Those computers, sensors, touchscreen control systems etc. don't come cheap! How long will they last when left in the Australian sun?

On a related note, I was talking to a mechanic the other day (a "factory" trained and employed guy). We were discussing the touchscreen controls in modern vehicles. Apparently they have/had an issue where the control systems would shut down when they got too hot, much like an iPhone that has been left in the sun. This caused dramas in QLD because people had their sunroof open, overheated the controls, and were then faced with a sudden rainstorm - with the control system locked due to being overly hot, and therefore unable to close the sunroof.......

[GraemeCook]

Apparently they have/had an issue where the control systems would shut down when they got too hot ... This caused dramas in QLD because people had their sunroof open, overheated the controls, and were then faced with a sudden rainstorm - with the control system locked due to being overly hot, and therefore unable to close the sunroof.......

Sounds like a very efficient cooling system.

[ian]

But we might seem an entirely different solution. Long distance haulage might revert to ships and trains which are cost effective when they do not have to compete with heavily subsidised semis.
I've always thought that a return to trains for long distance work would be the best solution, but there's so much money tied up in the haulage industry that it's another issue where there would be a lot of resistance to change on that scale.Warb,
I'm pretty sure that the Sydney-Melbourne rail line doesn't have the capacity to handle the volume of freight this would entail. I do know that the current [Sydney-Melbourne] rail connection struggles with achieving a 20% mode share -- and that mode share was based on pre-2005 freight volumes. Given that, prior to Covid, the volume of interstate freight was growing at about 1.05 x GDP, the daily interstate road volumes are [in 2024] probably sitting at around 150 to 200,000 tonnes per day. Placing all that freight on rail, plus that is already carried by rail, would equate to about 210,000 tonnes per day.

Note that back in about 2005 interstate [SYD-MLB] road volumes were sitting at about 110,000 tonnes per average weekday, with Thursday nights being the largest volume day.

At an average of 25 tonnes per rail waggon -- freight being mostly volume, not mass, limited -- 210,000 tonnes would require around 8,400 rail cars. The rail passing loops between Sydney and Melbourne are designed for 1500 m long trains -- equivalent to about 70 rail waggons. So you would be looking at around 120 trains per day, concentrated into about 12 [night] hours or around one train every 6 minutes or so. A 1500m long train every 6 minutes is approximately 8x the number of trains that CP rail moves on the single track through Canmore each day.

So at a minimum, the rail line between Sydney and Melbourne would need:
probably 4 tracks between the cities, including straightening the curves between Douglas Park and Junee ;
relief tracks on every grade steeper than about 1.8% -- much of the line between Sydney and Junee has a grade steeper than 1.8%;
re-signalling -- to cater for the more frequent trains;
full electrification

All up the Sydney-Melbourne cost would likely be in excess of AUD $100 Billion -- not counting the costs of the rail-road interchange at either end of the route. And you don't really get the outcome you require (almost all freight on rail) till almost all the budget has been spent and the intermodal terminals in both Sydney and Melbourne constructed.

.
.

Sydney - Brisbane, via the coast, would probably cost four times as much -- say AUD $400 billion or more -- because of the massive amount of reconstruction, tunnelling and line straightening required along much of the route.

.
.


To provide you with a sense of the scale of the infrastructure required each end, below is a picture of the Folkestone road-rail terminal which handles about the same amount of freight that travels the Sydney-Melbourne route. Except that the Folkestone platforms are about half the length of what would be required at the Sydney end of a Syd-Mlb rail link

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AG6Y7N/aerial-view-looking-south-of-the-eurotunnel-terminal-at-folkestone-AG6Y7N.jpg

[Warb]

I'm pretty sure that the Sydney-Melbourne rail line doesn't have the capacity to handle the volume of freight this would entail.

Whilst I have no doubt that everything you have said is correct, have you calculated how much it would cost to replace all the trucks that currently carry that freight with (for example) Tesla semis? The US price is suggested to be US$180,000 each, which if it follows the usual pattern will be doubled by the time it gets to Australia, and I seem to recall they have less load capacity than a standard semi (but I could be wrong) meaning you'd need more than a 1:1 replacement ratio. Then we have to have charging stations, plus the required infrastructure to actually power those charging stations, road maintenance/improvements etc..

The problem is that the more money we plough in to one solution, in this case electric trucks, the harder it is to justify a change to another system further down the line (no pun intended!). I've commented previously on the lack of overall planning of the conversion away from fossil fuels, and this seems to be a case in point.

[ian]

Whilst I have no doubt that everything you have said is correct, have you calculated how much it would cost to replace all the trucks that currently carry that freight with (for example) Tesla semis? The US price is suggested to be US$180,000 each, which if it follows the usual pattern will be doubled by the time it gets to Australiafirstly, US spec semis are significantly lighter (around 37 tonnes) than those used in Australia (45.5 tonnes for a 6 axle semi operating on an inter-capital route, and 68 tonnes for a 9 axle B-Double operating on the same routes). The much higher mass allowances in Australia will have a very significant impact on the Tesla semi's "quoted" 500 mile range -- probably requiring as many as 3 battery recharge locations between Sydney and Melbourne, and 4 or 5 between Sydney and Brisbane. The two heaviest volume interstate routes.

at USD $180,000 (including the trailer?) the Tesla is "very cheap" compared to the AUD cost ($485,000, plus "Government charges") of this 2nd hand sleeper cab Kenworth prime mover. (ref Prime Mover Trucks over $400,000 for sale in Australia - trucksales.com.au (https://www.trucksales.com.au/items/trucks-category/prime-mover-subcategory/over-400000/) )
https://trucksales.pxcrush.net/cars/dealer/1ukywvsfsgz649j0lscpj8b9d.jpg?pxc_method=limitfill&pxc_bgtype=self&pxc_size=720,480



I seem to recall they have less load capacity than a standard semi (but I could be wrong) meaning you'd need more than a 1:1 replacement ratio.
You are not wrong. The load capacity of a US spec tesla semi is 82,000 lbs, or about 37 tonnes.
The replacement ratio, Tesla semis to B-Doubles, is more like 2:1 -- but to a certain extent who cares?

The core workforce issue is the lack of drivers for the existing ICE truck fleet (which for the eastern inter-capital routes is around 75% B-Doubles). Many of the drivers used to be Vietnam veterans, but with that cohort largely retired replacing them is increasingly difficult.
People generally don't, and really shouldn't be expected to, want to drive overnight between the eastern seaboard capital cities, spending 6 nights per week driving between Sydney and Melbourne or Sydney and Brisbane and trying to sleep in a foreign bed every second day.


Then we have to have ... the required infrastructure to actually power those charging stations, road maintenance/improvements etc.any upgrades on the highways -- Hume and Pacific -- between the eastern capitals (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane) would only be to cater for light vehicle volumes -- future HV road maintenance needs for those highways was factored into the initial cost of construction.


The problem is that the more money we plough into one solution, in this case electric trucks, the harder it is to justify a change to another system further down the line (no pun intended!). I've commented previously on the lack of overall planning of the conversion away from fossil fuels, and this seems to be a case in point.Hey, I don't disagree with you.

I'm merely pointing out the likely cost involved of the required freight rail upgrades, to which should be added the cost of connecting Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne-Adelaide with very high speed rail (~ 450km/h) so as to avoid the need for most interstate air travel. From memory the very high speed rail cost is in the order of AUD $500 million per km.

.
.

as a nation we need to decide if we are prepared to spend around 1/10 of our annual GDP every year for the next ten years to upgrade just three of the interstate rail routes. When considering that, be aware that the current tax to GDP ratio is around 25%, and also be aware of the inflationary impact of so much government spending.


Having worked inside government, I remain sceptical. I suspect that the Australian tax paying population is still around 10 years away from being prepared to make that level of commitment to address climate change.

[Warb]

as a nation we need to decide if we are prepared to spend around 1/10 of our annual GDP every year for the next ten years to upgrade just three of the interstate rail routes. When considering that, be aware that the current tax to GDP ratio is around 25%, and also be aware of the inflationary impact of so much government spending.


Having worked inside government, I remain sceptical. I suspect that the Australian tax paying population is still around 10 years away from being prepared to make that level of commitment to address climate change.

I don't know what the Tesla semi will cost in Australia, but normally we can more or less double the US price for most things (at least that is my experience). On that basis, the Tesla might cost around AU$500,000 which is roughly in line with many prime movers over here (according to my friend who has just bought another one).

It seems to me that for long distances, bulk movement of goods or people is always going to be a far more efficient mechanism than a scatter-gun approach of thousands of small carriers. Unfortunately the problem with such a system is that it needs to be created, at great expense, with an overall plan that not only includes the long-distance portion but also the "local" distribution or collection at each end. We have never managed to achieve this - even now we create systems of public transport that can shunt large volumes of people to and from a city centre, but then simply dump them a station with no way to get from the station to their homes, hence stations with huge car-parks!

We are now faced with the need to move away from fossil fuel, which gives us the opportunity to "start again" (especially for long haul transport). Sadly I have no doubt that you are correct, and that we will get it wrong once again. Moving to an age of AI and automation, with the chance to create a system where shipping containers (or equivalent) of various sizes can be loaded at source and then automatically placed on a train to arrive hundreds or thousands of kilometres across the country in minimal time and with minimal human "work", we will choose to continue using trucks because that's what we've always done.

The reality is that the government (civil service) is totally incapable of carrying out such a process and would likely spend decades and billions just trying to figure out what colour the trains should be.....

[Mr Brush]

As soon as I saw the word "plan" in your post......my heart sank :(

[BobL]

On a related note, I was talking to a mechanic the other day (a "factory" trained and employed guy). We were discussing the touchscreen controls in modern vehicles. Apparently they have/had an issue where the control systems would shut down when they got too hot, much like an iPhone that has been left in the sun. This caused dramas in QLD because people had their sunroof open, overheated the controls, and were then faced with a sudden rainstorm - with the control system locked due to being overly hot, and therefore unable to close the sunroof.......

Whenever I park my EV in the sun I usually use a windscreen shade and always leave "Cabin Overheat Protection" (COP) mode on. This runs the ventilation fan (no AC) which equilibrates the Cabin temp with whatever the outside air temp is. COP works extremely well and even yesterday when I had to park the cark outside for a couple of hours where it was 43º, the cabin T did not go above 44º. If I were not to use COP, under those conditions the cabin Temp would get up to >65º+. The COP fan consumes less than 100W so it uses very little of the total battery capacity
COP also means that 5 minutes before I need to get back into the car and I remotely turn on the AC, it just takes a few minute to get the cabin T down to 20º so I get into a nice precooked vehicle. Getting the cabin T from 44 down to 20º using the AC does use more battery energy but it and it would be a lot more if COP was not used.

If I do this at home while the vehicle is plugged in the power for COP or any cabin pre-cooling effectively comes from the mains/solar.

[ian]

It seems to me that for long distances, bulk movement of goods or people is always going to be a far more efficient mechanism than a scatter-gun approach of thousands of small carriers. Unfortunately the problem with such a system is that it needs to be created, at great expense, with an overall plan that not only includes the long-distance portion but also the "local" distribution or collection at each end. We have never managed to achieve this - even now we create systems of public transport that can shunt large volumes of people to and from a city centre, but then simply dump them a station with no way to get from the station to their homes, hence stations with huge car-parks!
as a public servant who used to do that sort of big picture strategic planning such a system already exists with the Channel Tunnel.

The Folkestone truck-onto-train terminal was my model. (Info on the corresponding site in Calais was mostly in French so largely inaccessible to yours truly.)
The operation would be:
1. pick up a load from a Sydney / Central Coast / Newcastle / Wollongong manufacturer;
2. drive the BEV semi to a "Folkstone-style" terminal located in the vicinity of Douglas Park / Campbelltown area;
3. load the whole BEV semi onto an inter-capital shuttle train -- the semi driver stays and sleeps in Sydney;
4. the 1500m long shuttle train departs the terminal bound for Melbourne;
5. shuttle train arrives at a similar "Folkestone-style" terminal, in Melbourne's outer northern suburbs where a Melbourne based driver hops into the vehicle and drives the BEV semi to the final destination in the Melbourne / Geelong region.

The advantage of this schema are that:
the semi drivers are based in their respective capital cities and sleep in their own beds each night,
the semi doesn't require a sleeper cab, so a less expensive truck compared to the sleeper cabs fitted to current ICE semis,
a BEV semi should be able to make the local pick-up / deliveries on a single battery charge.


of course, the schema outlines presupposes that the two terminals either end of the route are first constructed and the rail line upgraded to the required quad track(?) standard.

[GraemeCook]

We are now faced with the need to move away from fossil fuel, which gives us the opportunity to "start again" (especially for long haul transport). Sadly I have no doubt that you are correct, and that we will get it wrong once again. Moving to an age of AI and automation, with the chance to create a system where shipping containers (or equivalent) of various sizes can be loaded at source and then automatically placed on a train to arrive hundreds or thousands of kilometres across the country in minimal time and with minimal human "work", we will choose to continue using trucks because that's what we've always done.

The next question is: "why have we always done it that way?"

Economists have a concept called the "free loader principle" and accountants, lawyers, historians and economists have a maxim: "Follow the dollars." So why have we always done it that way? The answer is deceptively simple; because road transport has been massively subsidised. In Australia, it is commonly cheaper to ship stuff by road rather than on a ship or train. Crazy! Coastal shipping has almost disappeared, apart from Bass Strait.

Fact 1: Sea transport has to pay for the costs of creation, maintenance and operation of wharfing and terminal facilities,

Fact 2: Rail transport has to pay the costs of the rails and maintenance:

Fact 3: Road transport does not have to pay for access to the roads, the costs of the wear & tear and damage that they do to the roads. They make a very minor contribution through registration fees and fuel tax. The emphasis is on very nominal.

Engineers have had a detailed understanding of the issue for at least 50 years and economists for about 30 years. But the political ramifications make resolution extremely difficult or impossible. Think of the political connections of the big players in the transport industry, the legion of owner-drivers, the supermarkets and other major transport users. Too hard!

[Warb]

Engineers have had a detailed understanding of the issue for at least 50 years and economists for about 30 years. But the political ramifications make resolution extremely difficult or impossible. Think of the political connections of the big players in the transport industry, the legion of owner-drivers, the supermarkets and other major transport users. Too hard!

Indeed. But they might get photographed planting a tree. That'll help.....

[ian]

Fact 3: Road transport does not have to pay for access to the roads, the costs of the wear & tear and damage that they do to the roads. They make a very minor contribution through registration fees and fuel tax. The emphasis is on very nominal.
Hi Graeme
I will take issue with this statement.
As far as I am aware, road freight operators -- i.e. the trucking industry -- already pay more in fuel excise than is spent on road construction and maintenance.

I no longer have access to the actual data, but from memory, fuel excise raises around 3x what is spent building and maintaining the National Highways and Roads Of National Party Importance -- the actual acronym was Roads Of National Importance, but RONPI was closer to what the acronym really stood for. (MR92 -- the only Main Road in NSW where, in the mid 2000s, the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), east of Nerriga, was less than the road number -- comes to mind as the archetypal RONPI.)


In broad terms, about 10% of the fuel excise raised is rebated to the mining industry because, although the industry pays the fuel excise, most of their vehicles operate off-road on mining sites and, prior to sometime in the 1990s, were exempt from paying the excise.
an amount less than about 1% is rebated to REFER operators to compensate for the diesel used to keep the refrigerated boxes cool.
About 40% is used to build and maintain the road network -- noting that the number of heavy goods vehicles is used to determine how thick a road pavement needs to be, while the number of light (<4.5 tonne) vehicles determines the number of lanes required,
and the balance, about 40%, goes into General Revenue where it mostly offsets the externalities (health impacts) of vehicles using the road network.


If you have a more up to break down of the fuel excise can you please share it.


The slow demise of Fuel excise as a revenue source due to the uptake of BEVs is the primary reason that government is looking to introduce a system of road user charging -- aka a universal toll based on the weight of the vehicle and how far it is driven each year.

[Warb]

This ABS page (https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/survey-motor-vehicle-use-australia/latest-release), in the total fuel used graph, suggests that passenger vehicles use more total fuel than haulage, whilst I have no doubt that trucks do far more damage. The road on which I live has been destroyed in the last year by truck+dog combos shifting material to a site a few kms up the road, and whilst the rains have caused havoc on many roads, this damage clearly started only days after the trucks arrived.

The page reports that diesel trucks used 12479megalitres of fuel. This number seems to be about half the total volume of diesel used (data from other sources), presumably the rest is used in off-road activities such as mining and farming.

The downloadable PDF file from Infrastructure Partnerships Australia here (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLnoTErbiEAxVKzjgGHQwSBK4QFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Finfrastructure.org.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2FRoad-Maintenance-Options-for-Reform.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2cFi2O9jyu0SoGHjhTwUFj&opi=89978449) suggests that the states spend $5.5billion a year, and local governments spend an additional $1.5billion a year on road maintenance.

Fuel excise is, I believe, 49.6c/l. The haulage diesel (12479ml) therefore supplies $6.19billion dollars, against the $7billion estimated to be spent on road maintenance. This does not include any deduction for the fuel tax rebate, which I believe runs at around 17c/l.

Passenger cars, in total, pay roughly 20% more fuel excise than haulage, but could be said to do significantly less damage to the roads.

The elephant in the room is the fact that only around half the fuel excise raised from road vehicles is actually spent on road maintenance.

[GraemeCook]

Hi Graeme
I will take issue with this statement.
As far as I am aware, road freight operators -- i.e. the trucking industry -- already pay more in fuel excise than is spent on road construction and maintenance. .

You are welcome, Ian.

The basic statistics that you quote are accurate with on exception. Each year the total spend on road building and maintenance is roughly 40% of the collections from fuel excise and registration fees. The other 60% just goes to consolidated revenue. With the move to electric vehicles, the demise in fuel excise will cause a big hole in government revenue which must be plugged.

The exception is that heavy transport causes exponentially more wear on roads than light vehicles - that is simple engineering - and their excise payments do not approach the level of wear that they cause. Economists call this free loading.

I will look us some references and come back with a more detailed response - give me 24 hours.

[GraemeCook]

Hi Ian

I think I am about to catalyse you into doing a bit of research to refute/confirm/extend what I am about to say. Please note, I am dealing with averages and nothing is average. I now drive about 5,000 kms per year, when I was 20 I drove 20,000+ kms, and the Australian average is 11,000.

In this analysis I will compare a nominal private car against a semi-trailer

Excise Payments

The average private passenger vehicle travels 11,100 kilometres and has a fuel consumption of 11.1 litres per 100 kilometres.

The average articulated vehicle travels 78,300 kilometres and has a fuel consumption of 53.1 litres per 100 kilometres.

Source: Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 Months ended 30 June 2020 | Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/survey-motor-vehicle-use-australia/latest-release)

Average fuel use per annum by vehicle type:
* Private car = 11100 / 100 * 11.1 = 1,232 litres
* Articulated vehicle = 78300 / 100 * 53.1 = 41,577 litres
Ratio: = 41577 / 1232 = 33.7

Summary: An average articulated vehicle will use 34 times more fuel than an average passenger car in a year.


Road Wear and Tear

I studied transport economics 50 years ago and I based the first part of my reply on a paper by an (unknown) assistant professor at the University of Tennesse (I think - and not an economic powerhouse). Our professor had noted an egineering concept regarding wear and abrasion rates and asked - "Does that apply to roads?" His engineering colleagues answered "probably yes" and were otherwise disinterested. He then wrote a peer reviewed paper that hypothesised the fourth power rule in relation to road wear and tear.


<tbody>
Measure

Private
Articulated
Units



Car
Vehicle









Gross Vehicle Mass
2
42
tonnes



Number of Axles
2
6
number



Mean Axel Load
1
7
tonnes



Road Wear per Axle
1
2,401
ratio (1)



Road Wear per Kilometre
2
14,406
ratio (2)



Annual Milage
11,100
78,300
kilometres



Annual Road Wear
22,200
1,127,989,800
ratio (3)



Standardised Road Wear
1
50,810
ratio (4)










Ratio (1)
Mean Axle Load Raised to Fourth Power




(2)
Road Wear per Axle Times Number of Axles


(3)
Road Wear per Kilometre Times Annual Milage


(4)
Relative to Private Car Road Wear


</tbody>

Bottom Line: The average semi-trailer causes 50,000 more wear to roads than the average private car. Or 7,000 times more wear per kilometre.


Quantifying the Costs

It is hard to quantify car registraion fees as they vary so much and in some sates include Compulsory Third Party Insurance - a guestimate is $600.
Our average motorist in a year will pay excise of 48.8 cents per litre on 1,232 litres totalling $601, which, when added to Registration fees gives a annual motorists contribution of $1,201.
Forty percent is then spent on road construction and maintenance = $480.
This is effectively a measure of the average road wear caused annually by the average private car.

Our semi-trailer also pays 48.8 cents per litre on diesel, but gets a rebate of 20.8 cents meaning his actual excise charge is 28.0 cents per litre. On his annual usage of 41,577 he pays $11,974.
Thus, the average semi-trailer pays about 20 times more excise than a private motorist in a year.

But the cause 50,000 times more wear to the roads.


Equity Argument

One estimate of the annual costs of the wear on public roads by a private car is $480.

Therefore, the costs of wear by a semi-trailer are about 50,000 x 480 = $24,000,000. Yet they pay less than $12,000 excise.

The poor old taxpayer is effectively subsidising every "average" semi-trailer by about $24 million each and every year.

And that is the reason for the demise of coastal shipping and the decline in railways. It is far easier for politicians to do nothing, rather than mount a complex argument. Vested interests are major advertisers, so guess which argument the media and shock jocks will support.

[Warb]

Summary: An average articulated vehicle will use 34 times more fuel than an average passenger car in a year and will therefore contribute 34 times more in fuel excise payments.

There is a fuel tax rebate (20c/L ish, depending on the situation) for commercial road use of diesel. If we regard that as a rebate against the excise, which is 50c/l odd, surely that knocks nearly 40% off the contribution of trucks?

[AlexS]

Hi Ian

Road Wear and Tear

I studied transport economics 50 years ago and I based the first part of my reply on a paper by an (unknown) assistant professor at the University of Tennesse (I think - and not an economic powerhouse). Our professor had noted an egineering concept regarding wear and abrasion rates and asked - "Does that apply to roads?" His engineering colleagues answered "probably yes" and were otherwise disinterested. He then wrote a peer reviewed paper that hypothesised the fourth power rule in relation to road wear and tear.
I recall, from about the same time, research from a NSW PhD(?) student that found that wear & tear was proportional to about the 5th power of the mass. Considering the assumptions that are probably made in both studies, I'd accept either, or anything in between, as an approximation.

[GraemeCook]

Thanks Alex and Warb

I have added the second half of my above post - just ran out of time yesterday.

Now, stand by for incoming flack.

[GraemeCook]

Article on the ABC that the Snowy 2 tunnelling machine, Florence, is finally on the move after being bogged for over a year. Flo is doing 3-6 metres per day, only 7,500 m to go.
Florence is back to the grind, but Snowy 2.0 has a long way to go - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-23/florence-back-to-the-grind-snowy-a-long-way-to-go/103499560)

Interesting quote from that article:

For Dennis Barnes (CEO of Snowy Hydro), the project is as viable — economically, environmentally and systemically — as ever.


“The project has a 7.4 per cent return and a $3 billion net present value on a $12 billion cost,” he said.


Those numbers really are a worry.

A return of 7.4% on the revised budget means that they anticipate an annual profit of $888 million each year. This requires that they sell an incredible amount of electricity at incredibly high prices.

If they really anticipate a return of 7.4% on the revised $12 billion budget, then it means that on the original $2 billion budget the projected return must have been 44.4%. Unbelievable. Why wasn't there a queue to do the project?

What does a $3 billion net present value on a $12 billion cost actually mean? Does it mean that they have already written off $9 billion of the latest cost projection?

I smell incompetence. I just hope that it is with the reporting journalists and not with the senior management of Snowy Hydro.

[Bushmiller]

You may have heard that there were some significant events in Vic. On the 14th Feb. Apart from a pretty serious fire, a storm hit much of the state. Some of the casualties included 5 or 6 hv transmission towers near Geelong. When they went down, 2 500kv lines to the Latrobe Valley tripped, followed by all 4 units at loy yang A. As a result, power prices peaked at $16k/Mhw. And stayed there for about 4 hours...
My Amber tarrif is attached.. 535518

As I was watching I was able to switch from charging battery to exporting and managed to earn a few dollars as well as supporting the grid.:U


What I don't understand is why only loy yang a tripped. I believe aemo did a fair bit of load shedding. ( as did the storm itself, with up to 500k households off grid, including 20k or so still off.)

Russ

Apologies for not replying sooner. Currently in Norway visiting first grandchild. This is first opportunity to reply. Loy Yang stations may have different outgoing feeders, but I have no information on this.

On EVs, I have mentioned before that Norway is streets ahead of almost any other country you care to mention. No new ICEs after 2025. Incentives galore: An example is that tolls for EVs are half price. They are already everywhere. I think it just shows that with the will, there will be a way.

We visited the most northern distillery (Bivrost) today and parked our rental van in the only available parking spot. When we returned to leave, we realised we had backed up to a double charging station, which was two timber barrels on their side. Oooops! We just are not switched on to such things. Charging points are everywhere.

Regard
Paul

[Warb]

On EVs, I have mentioned before that Norway is streets ahead of almost any other country you care to mention. No new ICEs after 2025. Incentives galore: An example is that tolls for EVs are half price. They are already everywhere. I think it just shows that with the will, there will be a way.

I've never been to Norway, but much of what I've read, and discussed with various people over the years, suggests that they have a very different outlook from much of the world. I have postulated that this is a result of the climate. It seems to me that countries with very cold climates often seem far more "community" oriented than warmer places, and I wonder if this is a direct result of that cold climate. People without shelter and food don't survive the winter, and perhaps (historically?) people who don't help others, are in turn not helped by others. The result is a culture and mindset in which everyone pulls together, and there are perhaps fewer "freeloaders" than in warmer climates. If this is the case, it would explain how schemes like the universal income are easier to implement, as people will tend to do the right thing and try to contribute as well as take. Maybe the same culture or state of mind means that implementing climate friendly solutions and schemes is easier, as outright profit and personal gain are less important than community and survival?

[Bushmiller]

I've never been to Norway, but much of what I've read, and discussed with various people over the years, suggests that they have a very different outlook from much of the world. I have postulated that this is a result of the climate. It seems to me that countries with very cold climates often seem far more "community" oriented than warmer places, and I wonder if this is a direct result of that cold climate. People without shelter and food don't survive the winter, and perhaps (historically?) people who don't help others, are in turn not helped by others. The result is a culture and mindset in which everyone pulls together, and there are perhaps fewer "freeloaders" than in warmer climates. If this is the case, it would explain how schemes like the universal income are easier to implement, as people will tend to do the right thing and try to contribute as well as take. Maybe the same culture or state of mind means that implementing climate friendly solutions and schemes is easier, as outright profit and personal gain are less important than community and survival?

Warb

This is my first time in Norway so there is a huge learning curve for me too. i think you may be being overly generous towards the Norwegians as they are not necessarily more ecologically inclined than average. However, they have some distinct advantages over many other countries. Firstly, they managed their natural resources well and have wealth from those resources of which the main one was oil from the North sea. They did not give the profit away to multinational companies. Secondly, their electricity comes from initially hydro schemes and also wind. So they were not polluting much right from the get go.

My impression is that they have two grids. One in the North and the other in the South. The Southern grid is connected to Europe, supplies into that market and as a consequence is much more expensive than the Northern grid.

Where we are, in Tromsø (pronounced "Tromser," because of the "ø") we are about 350Km above the Arctic Circle. However, the climate is showing signs of warming here too. For example, the tree line is gradually going higher and this has an adverse effect, ironically to my mind, on the creatures that live there. Secondly, it rains more often instead of snowing. Nothing and nowhere is immune it would seem.

A small digression, so back to electricity in Oz.



Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

A small digression, so back to electricity in Oz....or not. Keen to hear more about the situation in Norway, actually. :2tsup:


... the tree line is gradually going higherYairs....so is my hairline...is climate change responsible for that too? It never used to be this high.

[GraemeCook]

Must have been a great experience, Paul, holding that brand new grandchild for the first time. Enjoy family ... and Norway.


the climate is showing signs of warming here too. For example, the tree line is gradually going higher


...:2tsup: ... Yairs....so is my hairline...is climate change responsible for that too? It never used to be this high.

Definite correlation. Climate change is ubiquitous.

[Bushmiller]

[QUOTE=FenceFurniture;2329467]...or not. Keen to hear more about the situation in Norway, actually. :2tsup:


FF

Maybe not in this thread: Don't want to offend the OP!

Perhaps when I return to Oz I will start a new thread. We'll see: No promises.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Must have been a great experience, Paul, holding that brand new grandchild for the first time. Enjoy family ... and Norway.





Definite correlation. Climate change is ubiquitous.

Graeme

Yes to all statements.

:)

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Maybe not in this thread: Don't want to offend the OP! In my experience the OP is pretty hard to offend, but I meant more about the sparks & cars situation in Norway. (happy to read a thread on your tour though)

[Bushmiller]

In my experience the OP is pretty hard to offend, but I meant more about the sparks & cars situation in Norway. (happy to read a thread on your tour though)

OK. This link may be of interest as to why Norway is so far ahead with EVs.

Norway – the EV capital of the world (https://www.visitnorway.com/plan-your-trip/getting-around/by-car/electric-cars/)

and in particular:

"we have more than 3000 public charging stations, and 7753 fast chargers, all over the country. Say goodbye to range anxiety!"

All that is in quite a small country in terms of physical size, although long and slim, and a population of 5.4million.

Regards
Paul

[GraemeCook]

All that is in quite a small country in terms of physical size, although long and slim, and a population of 5.4million.

Like many/most economists I have long admired the economic management of Norway. For a long time they have successfully placed long term national interests of the population ahead of vested interests and party bickering. And it has largely worked. The only other country on that list is Switzerland; Japan fell off 30+ years ago and has not yet refocused.

But I actually know virtually nothing about Norway; Paul's comments catalysed me to look up some data and try and put it in perspective:

Size: 385,000 km2 - just under half the size of NSW - 801,000 km2

Length: 1,750 kms - about the same as the distance from Melbourne to Brisbane

Population: 5.4 million - about the same as Queensland

Sovereign Wealth Funds: US$1,555 billion - slightly larger than the Saudi SWF and about five times larger than the Australian and USA equivalents.

[BobL]

Length: 1,750 kms - about the same as the distance from Melbourne to Brisbane.
Interestingly they supposedly have the longest coastline in the world>

[Bushmiller]

Interestingly they supposedly have the longest coastline in the world>

Yes, because of the severe indentations of the fjords.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Here is a rational take on nuclear energy:

Attention Required! | Cloudflare (https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2024/02/29/alan-kohler-nuclear-power?ahe=df367c01cfb5ffd84b418a037b7b8a99122b184b2f77914ecd0b3985af301fd5&acid=4161031&utm_campaign=Sunday%20Best%20-%2020240303&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=)

This is the thrust of the article:

There’s no danger of a nuclear power plant being built in Australia, but it’s banned anyway."

and

"But apart from the fact that it makes no sense, the main reason for Labor to remove the ban, you would think, is that advocating nuclear generation is the Coalition’s only energy policy; without being against the ban, which the Coalition itself imposed, it would have no policy at all and would have to think of something sensible."

In addition, it leaves open the nuclear path should the multitude of issues ever be resolved.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

I just finished watching Insiders where Dan Tehan was talking up the Coalition's loss in the Dunkley by-election yesterday as "a fabulous result" for the Coalition (there was an absolutely stock standard swing against the sitting Govt of ~3.5% (expected, as usual, as is the way in by-elections) so...
"... the Coalition itself imposed, [and] it would have no policy at all and would have to think of something sensible."...this might be a little way off yet.

We need strong Oppositions to hold whatever flavour Govt of the day to account, but what we have now appears to be a version of AI (Artificial Idiots).

[FenceFurniture]

Size: 385,000 km2 - just under half the size of NSW - 801,000 km2They have 3463 public charging stations, so ignoring places where you can't drive (for ease of calculation) that's one station per 111 km². Call it 100 km², and it's a 10x10km square...the longest you have to drive in this perfect grid is 28km, assuming you have to drive across 2 diagonals of 14km each.

Australia has a way to go yet...

[Bushmiller]

There is a company in Norway that specialises in building small power plants in conjunction with the landholders. There is one these behind where our son lives. I will have a little more on this once I get back to Oz, but in the meantime here is a link.

Our partner: Smakraft AS - Climate Futures (https://www.climatefutures.no/en/our-partner-smakraft-as/)

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

Further to our discussion about a reactor at Jervis Bay in the late 60s:
Like Peter Dutton, John Gorton once had a nuclear plan. It didn'&#39;'t end well - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-15/peter-dutton-opposition-nuclear-energy/103590358)

[Mr Brush]

Luckily Dutton's pro-nookular arguments are likely to blow up in his face long before we ever build anything than can blow up more seriously. He clearly subscribes to the Trump model of ignoring any inconvenient facts that get in the way of his agenda. I'm glad to see that the CSIRO guys scampered into the net and volleyed his idiotic comments straight back at him.

Before seeing Dutton spouting his crap on TV, I used to think that builders were the only people who would tell a lie to your face even in the sure and certain knowledge that they'd be called out on it inside 10 minutes... "Yeah, mate, it's supposed to be like that. Nothing we can do about it now." :rolleyes:

[Mr Brush]

I was reading an update on the cost blowouts, delays, etc. with Snowy 2.0 a couple of days ago - and that's mainly just digging holes !! I don't rate our chances of being able to build a nuclear reactor without having "a few bits left over" and generally stuffing it up. Given our history with large civil projects, I'd say you could take any cost or lead time quoted and at least double it.

[NeilS]

Where we are, in Tromsø (pronounced "Tromser," because of the "ø") we are about 350Km above the Arctic Circle.

Paul

I was also fortunate enough to visit Tromsø a few years ago... it is one of my favourite places. I was there in their summer so had endless hours of sunlight, as you do that far above the artic circle. It's on my bucket list to return to in winter when they won' get to see the sun above the horizon for six weeks.

Sunrise and sunset times in Tromso (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/tromso)

I look forward to reading the thread on your Norway experience should you do that.

[AlexS]

To those participating in this thread, may I once again thank you all for setting an example for how discussions with sometimes opposing points of view should be conducted. Although I rarely contribute (mainly because I usually can't do so meaningfully) I follow this thread closely. I may be none the wiser, but at least I'm better informed.

[Bushmiller]

Paul

I was also fortunate enough to visit Tromsø a few years ago... it is one of my favourite places. I was there in their summer so had endless hours of sunlight, as you do that far above the artic circle. It's on my bucket list to return to in winter when they won' get to see the sun above the horizon for six weeks.

Sunrise and sunset times in Tromso (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/tromso)

I look forward to reading the thread on your Norway experience should you do that.

Neil

I am planning a little information on Norway in a separate thread. Won't be back as soon as planned as the aircraft was diverted from Oslo to Trondheim because bad weather had closed the airport. Currently marking time at Trondheim waiting for Oslo to open!

ETA Brisbane some time this year.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

To those participating in this thread, may I once again thank you all for setting an example for how discussions with sometimes opposing points of view should be conducted. Although I rarely contribute (mainly because I usually can't do so meaningfully) I follow this thread closely. I may be none the wiser, but at least I'm better informed.

Thanks Alex

I think it is down to the considerate and respectful cooperation of everybody.

I hope there are many like you, who, while not contributing frequently (your posts anywhere are always considered), enjoy and derive information from the many contributors.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

Some time ago I posted on the small Hydro Station behind where my son is living in Norway. Well during our visit I saw the station in the flesh, although only from the outside.

It turned out that the station is owned by Simon's landlord, who lives next door, in partnership with a company that specialises in these "micro" units. Bjorn, the landlord, said that he had keys to the station and he could get us in. This was not surprising as he runs the station, from his phone. However, it does not operate during the winter as the dam, which is situated 140m above in the mountain behind freezes over and any precipitation becomes snow. There is not enough water during that time.

This is the lead up towards the turbine building:

536446


I had made the short trek and had a look around. The snow was over one meter deep around the building.

536447 536448 536449536450

Initially I had walked up there but when Bjorn went up, he travelled on this:

536451

Just a quad bike and for summer the standard wheels will go back on.

And this is the data. Commissioned in 2016, a 140m head, 1.6MW maximum capacity (For comparison, our electric feedwater pumps at Millmerran are about 4MW and at Bayswater the electric feedwater pumps are over 9MW) and a potential of 1400l/sec. The suction pipes from the dam are underground.


536452

When we went back, we still couldn't get access easily to the turbine house because what looks like snow, and is, becomes ice further down and not so easy to clear away. The door at the side was blocked. However, the second time I did manage to gain access to the front window to take a few pix of the Hydro Generator:


536453 536454 536455 536456536457

The arrangement with Smalkraft (https://www.climatefutures.no/en/our-partner-smakraft-as/) is that they build the station (and the concrete walled dam) and Bjorn runs it. The monetary split is that for thirty years (this period may vary) the land owner gets 10% and the company receives 90%. After that ownership reverts 100% to the landowner. Of course, the question there revolves around what state the unit is in after this period of time.

These are the power lines (two different voltages) running nearby:

536442

This is the connection to the grid on the lower voltage. I did not get to find out what that was:

536443

One thing that confused me was this building coupled to a weir just downstream from the turbine house:

536444536445

It turned out to be nothing to do with the Hydro plant and was a fish spawning facility. It had fallen into disuse and not operated for twenty years.

Regards
Paul

[BobL]

Paul,
Very Interesting - keep posting.

BTW most of the attachments are not showing up. I think you may have linked them to your PC or phone and not actually uploaded them OR they are the wrong format ie not JPGs etc.

[Bushmiller]

Paul,
Very Interesting - keep posting.

BTW most of the attachments are not showing up. I think you may have linked them to your PC or phone and not actually uploaded them OR they are the wrong format ie not JPGs etc.

Thanks Bob.

I did see that, pulled out some more hair, which I can't afford to lose, and loaded pix again. hopefully all good now.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

I had made the short trek and had a look around. The snow was over one meter deep around the building.


That building is fabulous. Most countries would have built the cheapest, ugliest building possible. Not Norway!

And even though we never get snow, I want a set of those tracks for my quad bike!!

[Bushmiller]

I have mentioned so many times that every electricity source has at least one fatal flaw readers of this thread are probably rolling their eyes even as I type. So it is in Norway with their hydro. In winter water freezes and inflows to dams are restricted as the precipitation falls as snow. Consequently, there is still a balancing act to be performed.

The grid in Scandinavia is linked and also to Europe. When prices are low in Europe (Lower than in Norway) they buy in power so they can conserve their own resources. The adoption of electric power replacing traditional oil means their demand is also increasing far more than before. I saw a statistic that gave the per capita electricity consumption at twice that of the USA for example.

This link gives some insight to the way they manage the resources:

The power market - Norwegian Energy (energifaktanorge.no) (https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftmarkedet/)

In particular there was this:

536458

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

That building is fabulous. Most countries would have built the cheapest, ugliest building possible. Not Norway!

And even though we never get snow, I want a set of those tracks for my quad bike!!

Warb

I thought the tracked quad was pretty cool too. Although I didn't see it, Simon said the youngsters take those up the side of mountains. Pretty hairy stuff and not a little dangerous.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

In particular there was this:

536458Very sensible, and exactly the approach what I'm expecting from Voldemort.

[Bushmiller]

Very sensible, and exactly the approach what I'm expecting from Voldemort.

FF

Yes, it does slightly remove the gloss from the Norwegian electricity market and makes a small nonsense of their EV proliferation. Having said that, they are streets ahead of most other countries. As for Lord Voldemort, I think he would do well to swot up on some unfortunate truths before he spouts further nuclear philosophies. I note he has backed away from the SMRs so somebody must have mentioned, in passing, they are pie in the sky. He may be relying heavily on the great unwashed's lack of understanding of such matters. If he continues down the nuclear path, he will look foolish. An alternative policy is good policy, providing it is relatively sound.

Perhaps he does know the flaws of nuclear, but is trying gain an extended lease of life for fossil fuels by touting a, for the moment, non viable alternative.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

11% of Norway's power comes from wind.

On a couple of ocassions we saw the wind turbines on the top of mountains. This group were at the Western end of Kvaløya at Sommarøy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sommar%C3%B8y).

536495

They are a little difficult to see in a small pic and even more difficult to imagine how they get them up on the mountain and dig significant footings down into the rock. I can only guess they lift drilling machines and turbine components into place using helicopters. A little more research gave up this:

Kvitfjell Raudfjell - Zephyr (https://zephyr.no/en/portfolio/kvitfjell-raudfjell/)

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

As for Lord Voldemort, if he continues down the nuclear path, he will look foolish.:no:
"...he will continue look foolish" :;

[BobL]

11% of Norway's power comes from wind.

On a couple of ocassions we saw the wind turbines on the top of mountains. This group were at the Western end of Kvaløya at Sommarøy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sommar%C3%B8y).

They are a little difficult to see in a small pic and even more difficult to imagine how they get them up on the mountain and dig significant footings down into the rock. I can only guess they lift drilling machines and turbine components into place using helicopters. A little more research gave up this:

Kvitfjell Raudfjell - Zephyr (https://zephyr.no/en/portfolio/kvitfjell-raudfjell/)
l

I was mildly amused by this sentence of advice in the link for people who want to go and look at the wind power generators.


Pay special attention during the winter as there may be a risk of snow or ice being thrown from the turbine blades or falling from other parts of the turbine. K

[NeilS]

Neil

Won't be back as soon as planned as the aircraft was diverted from Oslo to Trondheim because bad weather had closed the airport. Currently marking time at Trondheim waiting for Oslo to open!

ETA Brisbane some time this year.



I can think of much worse places to be diverted to than Trondheim.

Just two of the fun things that we came across in Trondheim are its Trampe bicycle lift - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampe_bicycle_lift) and its heated seating in public places. Dare to sit down on a stone or metal tubing bench in a public place in winter and you are pleasantly surprised to find your rear end warmed...:B



11% of Norway's power comes from wind.

On a couple of ocassions we saw the wind turbines on the top of mountains. This group were at the Western end of Kvaløya at Sommarøy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sommar%C3%B8y).



Yes, a smart move as those wind turbines keep turning long after the hydro turbines are frozen solid! Only under exceptional circumstances do the wind turbines get turned off when the internal blade heating fails to prevent the build up of ice layers that cause them to become unbalanced.

We also saw them on top of remote mountain ridges in various places in northern Norway. The following were somewhere between Tromsø and Honningsvåg. Not that easy to see in the photos, but for scale keep in mind that the impeller diameter is almost the size of a cricket or football oval...


536539

536540

[Bushmiller]

I was mildly amused by this sentence of advice in the link for people who want to go and look at the wind power generators.

Pay special attention during the winter as there may be a risk of snow or ice being thrown from the turbine blades or falling from other parts of the turbine. K



Bob

As Neil mentioned in the post above, ice can form on the blades under certain conditions and there is a possibility you can be unlucky. As you can imagine, snow forms on house roof tops, and eventually it turns to ice. Then, at some point when thawing occurs it falls off the roof in chunks. Think 20kgs of rock at a time and contemplate the injury likely to occur if the fragile human head is immediately below.

Regards
Paul