Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10658
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 10 2017 10:04pm

hard to believe, but the latest firm plan for SA power generation is actually to install 210 MW of good old fashioned piston powered generation,..fueled by Natural Gas. !
Logic being that its the quickest and cheapest source of generated power...
Au$295 m for 210MW output.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-07/a ... on/8596016
There was also proposals for a 330MW Solar PV farm for Au$700 m , ..but that is not certain.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-30/n ... nd/8400952
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 10 2017 11:08pm

They are trying to encourage more gas exploration too...

Ohbse   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 876
Joined: Dec 26 2013 5:15pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ohbse » Jul 11 2017 12:09am

Sounds like a reasonable course of action - they're effectively just replacing the existing capacity with some responsive peaker that consumes and emits less. Absolutely essential given that Aus seems to be turning everything else off! They've got the site, permits, infrastructure and employees - that makes it substantially cheaper than building out additional capacity elsewhere.

Does seem like odd that it's reciprocating at that scale, I was under the impression they were generally turbine based beyond a handful of MW.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10658
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 11 2017 12:27am

well , the big 2 strokes can generate big power ( 100,000 + shp) at high efficiency, with quick start up/shut down.
..This site outlines it well..
https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learnin ... modularity
..and..
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print ... gines.html
...Gas engines show advantages in their single cycle efficiency value (figure 2) and a very fast startup performance. Multiple equipment starts per day are possible and reduced load operation at 25 percent or even lower are common features of modern engines. One hundred percent of output can be achieved under five minutes, starting from warm standby condition, compared to 30 minutes for a turbine under the same conditions. Such technological features are tentatively better suited to match the modern industry and energy market demands .......
... in some situations CHP installations can give amazing results..
For example, in August 2012, GE and Houweling’s Tomatoes, a leading California-based greenhouse, completed work on a CHP project that also captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from the engine exhaust for plant fertilization. Using two GE 4.36-MW Jenbacher J624 two-staged turbocharged natural gas engines and a GE-designed CO2 fertilization system, the plant provides heat, power, and CO2 to Houweling’s 125-acre tomato greenhouse in Camarillo, Calif. The system provides 8.7 MW of electrical power and 10.6 MW of thermal energy (hot water) for heating the greenhouses. The system offers a total thermal efficiency of nearly 90%. When considering the avoided energy that would be required to externally source the CO2 and the recovery of water from the exhaust, GE said the overall system efficiency (effectiveness) exceeds 100%.
http://www.powermag.com/reciprocating-e ... orkhorses/
..Ironic isn't it, to use the fossil fuel emissions to increase the food production !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jul 11 2017 4:29am

Hillhater wrote:
For example, in August 2012, GE and Houweling’s Tomatoes, a leading California-based greenhouse, completed work on a CHP project that also captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from the engine exhaust for plant fertilization. Using two GE 4.36-MW Jenbacher J624 two-staged turbocharged natural gas engines and a GE-designed CO2 fertilization system, the plant provides heat, power, and CO2 to Houweling’s 125-acre tomato greenhouse in Camarillo, Calif. The system provides 8.7 MW of electrical power and 10.6 MW of thermal energy (hot water) for heating the greenhouses. The system offers a total thermal efficiency of nearly 90%. When considering the avoided energy that would be required to externally source the CO2 and the recovery of water from the exhaust, GE said the overall system efficiency (effectiveness) exceeds 100%.
http://www.powermag.com/reciprocating-e ... orkhorses/
..Ironic isn't it, to use the fossil fuel emissions to increase the food production !
Yeah I just did a google on it, looks like they setup their gas powerstation into co2 fertilization in around 2012.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... bined-Heat
This seems to be pretty common now for all industrial green-houses I saw an article about 3 months ago there is a similar setup in a Tomato mega greenhouse in Australia with a heating + mega co2 fertilization setup.
Maybe it was this one or another one can't remember now. http://www.goodfruitandvegetables.com.a ... lasshouse/
Quote "the climate in the glasshouse was required to remain within a temperature range of 16 to 28°C all year round and be kept rich in Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
After extensive research and planning, the company settled on LNG as the best fuel for the situation.
"
It seems like a common setup now, as in if your not deliberately creating co2 and pumping it into your greenhouse then you have an unprofessional setup, and I don't argue with that as its easier to come by co2 then it is water as increase co2 levels require less plant watering for growth.

The crazy thing is that we are turning away from coal just to deliberately create co2 elsewhere and this is now the new cool green and clean thing to do for food production.

One thing I have noticed over the years watching the windfarms in Victoria is they all seem to be funded by the Victorian government and then just handed over for free to a private electricity utility to run and send out bills to everyone for using their electricity, and Daniel Andrews hasn't gotten a clue about SA's issues as he continues to announce new windfarms to be built with a big goofy smile on his face lately.
So its no surprise SA premier is doing the same thing announcing and funding the big Tesla big battery and just handing it over to a private energy company to send everyone electricity bills with and the icing on the cake is SA government has officially refused to say how much money they are paying for this particular "green" asset before just giving it to a private energy company to run and send out bills.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 105b249286
South Australian Government refuses to say how much world’s biggest lithium ion battery will cost
THE world’s biggest battery will cost the South Australian taxpayer much less than a $150 million fund set aside for renewable energy, but the state government isn’t saying how much.

I understand why its done this way because no private company wants to take the risk because they know coal could crush their investment if voters changed their mind on how they direct government in energy policy.

Some of the wierd things you might wonder about when it comes to gas and South Australia can probably be answered by the fact that South Australia gets its gas from Victoria. There is at least 1 gas piplines that go 687km roughly to reach the gas fired powerstations in South Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAGas_pipeline
https://www.seagas.com.au/regional-development/
Image
I think one of the reasons why Dan Andrews has banned any new gas development is because other states keep pinching it and its all too hard for him to handle properly himself so even new conventional gas well developments are banned.

One of the other things to note is that at least some of Japans gas power stations using boiler/steam pressure turbine systems just like a coal power-station but instead just burning the gas instead of coal. Maybe Daniel Andrews secretly hopes to build one of these one day for Victoria instead of gas turbine/combustion turbine peaker setups.
I don't know whats more efficient? Are gas combustion generators more efficient if you want 24/7 style power or is steam turbine used for coal/nuclear more efficient?
Last edited by TheBeastie on Jul 12 2017 4:59am, edited 9 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10658
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 11 2017 5:35am

The SA government may not want to say how much the Tesla battery farm is going to cost, but it isnt hard to figure out..
The most recent costs on Teslas site was us$145,000 for a 420kW dual powerpack installation,
..implying about us$350k for a 1MW set up..
...or us$44 million for a 129MW installation...before any volume discounts or negotiations.
However, musk has already said he is goung to offer the instalation at HALF PRICE as its a big learning exercise for all.
......So something less than us$22 million seems to be the order of magnitude (Au$29 m ?)
...Not really a big deal considering the money the govmt has wasted on other things !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 20 2017 12:44am

I was reading in the lefty-greenie-commie-pinko press, ReNewEconomy, that Liddell power station (a 2000 MW nameplate generator) is slated for decommissioning in just 5 short years. It's a big chunk of generating potential to lose, but how much power has it been generating lately?

https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we ... -macquarie
According to this, it's averaged 8000 GWh a year. Suggesting it's been running at less than 50% of it's rated potential.
It does get wound up to 1800 MW on occasion, but it certainly seems like it's not that efficient.

Bayswater on the other hand has been putting out 15,000 GWh a year, which is 66% capacity factor. It was built in the mid-1980s and is probably a bit more efficient.

Still, pretty close to the 60% figure I keep mentioning... ;)

In any case, I think they should get shovelling on the Snowy 2.0 project, and start ramping up some more transmission lines linked to wind and PV generation. It's a big job and the sooner we start the better.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10658
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 20 2017 2:01am

Remember ..Snowy 2.0 wont provide any more GWhs itself into the grid than is currently available....its just a storage facility to smooth out the peaks...and help allow those underused existing generator plants to run more consistently.
Sadly, i suspect it will be many years before we see Snowy2.0 up and running.
I read a report somewhere recently where a study had identified over 1500 locations suitable for viable pumped hydro facilities....just in South Australia alone !
Did you pick up on the "NegaWatt" program that is being developed ?...to access unused domestic solar power etc.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 20 2017 2:09am

Yeah just the transmission lines alone will take several years to be built. I think Snowy 2.0 will go ahead, it's just a matter of timing. Hell we spend $1B a year on locking 900-odd asylum seekers up on pacific islands, I think we can afford the $2B price tag of Snowy 2.0.

The annual rate of solar installation in Australia is pretty huge - something in the order of 1 GW (nameplate :roll: ) per year. Wind has seen similar numbers. So I don't think there will be any trouble replacing Liddell's power contribution over the next 5 years, but being able to utilise that power with storage will be the key.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jul 20 2017 6:42am

The RET/renewable energy target gets about $3billion in subsidies from tax payers, there is a lot incentive for energy generators to deliberately shut down coal-power stations as they get a lot more money from RE and as revenues from coal generation is forcibly sucked back into propping up renewable energy generation so why bother with coal, would be what they are asking them selves.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 468188edde

Liddell Power Station data https://goo.gl/ypBFBx
Facility name Liddell Power Station
Controlling corporation AGL ENERGY LIMITED
Facility type F
State NSW
Electricity production (GJ) 28,639,532
Electricity production (Mwh) 7,955,426
Total scope 1 emissions (t CO2-e) 7,585,578
Emission intensity (t/Mwh) 0.95

Puts out about 1ton of CO2 per 1MWh which seems about right for NSW non-export thermal coal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fu ... on_dioxide General USA estimate is a bit over 1ton per 1MWh quote "1,029 kg/MWh"
7,955,426MWh / 8760_hours_in_a_year = 908MW average power generation
Average MW annual output of Liddel is a lot lower number compared to Hazelwood's generation stats, the station was commissioned in 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liddell_Power_Station

So according to most anti-coal websites on the net it puts out twice as much CO2 than the official Australian clean energy regulator believes it does of 14.7millon tons a year (this would mean if believed that it really generates about 14.7million MWh a year, thus 14,700,000 / 8760 = 1678MW average power output for a year, maybe it did in its early days?
http://carma.org/plant/detail/25185

To replace about 8GWh of energy generation capacity would take around 100km2-200km2 of solar farm to build if we take the numbers from other real world solar farms, if built at the same rate as other major solar farms in flat empty desert like land would take at least 15-30?years to build, and then you got to build/buy the storage.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 20 2017 9:03am

TheBeastie wrote:
To replace about 8GWh of energy generation capacity would take around 100km2-200km2 of solar farm to build if we take the numbers from other real world solar farms, if built at the same rate as other major solar farms in flat empty desert like land would take at least 15-30?years to build, and then you got to build/buy the storage.
Well about 1 GW of solar gets installed on peoples roofs and in major farms each year. Hardly any ground is taken up when it's going on people's houses and sheds. Assuming 5 h of generation per day on average, that's about 1.8 GWh a year. So the generation side of the matter will solve itself in about 5 years. Storage is another matter, but not insurmountable, especially if batteries pumped hydro is taken seriously.

I suspect we'll see this solve itself despite all the hand-wringing.

User avatar
wineboyrider   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sep 30 2009 9:08am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Jul 20 2017 9:44am

Meanwhile in sunny New Mexico our electric rates are rising by 17% and the causes quoted by PNM for raising rates are: decreased usage of electricity, closing coal plants, switching to Palo Verde nuclear generator (more expensive and in Arizona) and more people installing home solar. But, the one that gets my goat is they wanted to charge people a fee for those that have installed their own solar grid-tied systems! Clearly NM is going in the wrong direction as we are one of the best places in the US for solar efficiency. https://www.abqjournal.com/510281/pnm-a ... rease.html
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 20 2017 9:55am

wineboyrider wrote:Meanwhile in sunny New Mexico our electric rates are rising by 17% and the causes quoted by PNM for raising rates are: decreased usage of electricity, closing coal plants, switching to Palo Verde nuclear generator (more expensive and in Arizona) and more people installing home solar. But, the one that gets my goat is they wanted to charge people a fee for those that have installed their own solar grid-tied systems!
That will just drive people towards self consumption, which will hurt the utilities in the long run.
--bill von

User avatar
wineboyrider   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sep 30 2009 9:08am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Jul 20 2017 10:29am

billvon wrote:
wineboyrider wrote:Meanwhile in sunny New Mexico our electric rates are rising by 17% and the causes quoted by PNM for raising rates are: decreased usage of electricity, closing coal plants, switching to Palo Verde nuclear generator (more expensive and in Arizona) and more people installing home solar. But, the one that gets my goat is they wanted to charge people a fee for those that have installed their own solar grid-tied systems!
That will just drive people towards self consumption, which will hurt the utilities in the long run.
Agreed 100%, but poor people are hurting in the meantime as bills for electric now go into the hundreds of dollars for air conditioning. I still would rather PNM invest in large scale solar for that reason.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 8220
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Jul 20 2017 2:00pm

wineboyrider wrote: But, the one that gets my goat is they wanted to charge people a fee for those that have installed their own solar grid-tied systems!
You're using THEIR Sun. We are here for them to tax us and run spend the money, How dare you think otherwise?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 20 2017 2:34pm

wineboyrider wrote:Agreed 100%, but poor people are hurting in the meantime as bills for electric now go into the hundreds of dollars for air conditioning. I still would rather PNM invest in large scale solar for that reason.
That's what is nice about self-consumption systems. It reduces your bill, but since you are not feeding back to the grid, the utility can't claim additional fees.
--bill von

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jul 23 2017 3:29am

jonescg wrote:So Mike, what do you propose South Australia do to resolve their energy issues?
In 25 words or less, explain the solution. This is your safe space - say what you like. Go!
There is no solution in 25 words, well maybe, the short answer is just modern ultra-supercritical coal then gen4 nuclear, but it needs to be rationalized to the general public and be accepted.

The only way to resolve it is to fix the voters and what they know about energy, or else it will all just run around in circles forever, probably powered by the most easily absorbable Facebook memes. At the core of it is bad information via easily absorbable media. It's an "armchair general" situation where the voters are ultimately creating energy policy by the most easily absorbable idea which doesn't mean it's the best idea, and installing leaders who promise to carry out their wishes.
South Australia's actions have proven, that the very last thing in the world they understand, is that their increased living standards/lifestyle has come from the availability of cheap energy. The proof is because they have worked sell hard to remove it while at the same time believing the claim its some how magically going to get cheaper.

A lot of people would argue this basic lack of knowledge means they lack the core understanding of the industrial revolution.

Well, I have thought about why folks in Australia think the way they do and I mostly blame the ABC as its deliberately manipulative as well as lacking any opposing points of view, in fact the more you're willing to preach extreme green leftist ideas the more likely you are to be promoted with a better salary inside the ABC.
Everyone loves the ABC because there is no cheesy as fk advertisements between every little bit of information they give out.
Look at the stuff they pound folks with https://youtu.be/hTkBg7JJBo0 they are just so used to having all this power that they abuse it to the point now where its clearly destructive.
If people want to practise Sharia Law in the privacy of they own homes I don't think I really care or think about it but electricity affects everyone, its not something being "practised in their own homes" even though it could be the case with solar/powerwalls etc, its too expensive to go off grid so people vote governments in like SA's Jay Weatherill to make everyone pay for it, willing or otherwise brute forcing green energy via the grid and cause massive job losses to the ironic point that even green recycling companies that recycle plastics have to shut down because they can't afford the sudden spike of a $1.2million dollar power yearly bill increase ($100k extra per month).
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/ ... 47ab06f4b9

Obviously, facts delivered via Wikipedia / https://www.eia.gov/ official generation stats on renewables etc are not acceptable or looked at by Aussies in general. The reason is that people have grown up on TV or Facebook memes to have all the information presented in their laps in an easily absorbable format, nothing else is acceptable.

When I talk to people and tell them that a 25km2 solar farm generates less than 1 tenth of the average power output of Hazelwood they are completely stunned with how crap that is, it's so far from what they assumed, why is that? Obviously, because people are being stuffed with complete baloney information.

People being stuffed with strictly one-sided baloney information from the ABC is a claim a lot of people in the media industry point out like Mark Latham.
This is why he created his "Outsiders" "tv show" which puts out ideas and thoughts that are pretty much the exact opposite of what the ABC would put out, its strictly on youtube only and probably wouldn't be allowed on FTA. The ABC won't allow a single conservative or some kind of person from a right wing spectrum to have his own show on our billion dollar tax payer funded TV station, its perfect for injection of ultra baloney information.
A true miracle would have to happen to allow such a show on the ABC to go on say after the 7:30 report, and is probably a quasi-remote dream of Mark Latham to have.
That's why his show is called "Outsiders" because it's the opposite of ABC's "Insiders". http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/
I can even be driving down the road and listening to ABC news on the radio and they will say something along the lines of "this just in breaking news, solar is is cheaper than coal" or something of that nature, they just repeat this kind of crap like they are campaigning for the Greens party.

I have been forming a dream where all TV in Australia would just be on the internet only so people could easily flick between ABC's 7:30 report and a show like Mark Latham's Outsiders, just like changing traditional TV channels, because the setup we have now is just evil and actually destructive to Australians well being, I used to see it as harmless free campaigning for the left but it's clear with SA like it is, Australia's ABC has moved beyond that.
Dick Smith has some great thoughts on housing and energy in Australia on Mark Latham's show so go check it out
https://youtu.be/paVr09UERRQ?t=17m10s
You don't have to watch the whole show but it wouldn't hurt, there's no reason to actually visually watch it as you can just listen to it while on the train/car etc like so many youtube videos its just people talking. https://www.marklathamsoutsiders.com/markshows

When my cable internet dropped out a few days ago I plugged my Samsung phone into my PC and did a speed test got over 200mbps (30GB plan with unlimted use of Netflix etc) http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6465144604.png
http://www.optus.com.au/shop/entertainm ... -streaming
The thing I think about is that the ABC TV sits on the best spectrum for 4G, I would rather see all TV spectrum go new mobile carriers then be injected with this highly manipulative ABC news garbage they put out. The TV 600MHz spectrum is long range high penetration spectrum if we kicked off these parasite TV stations that practically don't pay anything for it, we could have the equivalent 10 Telstra's wireless providers with little investment. 5G is coming in a few years which uses a completely different spectrum but will require more towers so it will take longer to roll out. But I want to see traditional TV die as its just plan evil, worse than sugar in everyone's diets. You don't have to tell me that I would be viciously hated by most Australians on my kill traditional TV ideas.
I still am supportive of the idea of the government prop up local media creation just not via the traditional broadcast methods used now, all media needs to be equally reachable as Wikipedia etc is.
This is one of the reasons why the local news papers are dying, while tax payers prop up all TV media by the billions and give them the spectrum for free there is fewer people reading news papers or visiting the papers' websites which increasingly have more video media for easy absorption anyway, these are becoming more informative internet TV stations, essentially.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/f ... ut/8419584

I am only supportive of nuclear just to put the whole co2 argument to bed and move on, I am equally happy with ultra-supercritical coal generation (clean coal) if people are OK with co2 emissions from gas then there is no reason why they should be anti co2 from ultra-supercritical coal generation.
https://theconversation.com/is-clean-co ... gets-71785
With the money saved from not using wind and solar we could start a government fund to eventually move to a gen 4 nuclear power stations like the Bill Gate's Terrapower reactor to keep those who hate co2 emissions happy.
Really so much of Australia's economy comes from coal exports that the true madness of South Australia's ambitions hasn't even begun to be realized, only an electricity bill 10 times more expensive than now could probably help inject that reality.
We have one coal power station that was designed to be more efficient built in 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogan_Creek_Power_Station
Kogan Creek power-station has only one turbine unit but a big one capable of up to 750MW.
While Hazelwood had 8 individual 200MW units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station

Everyone I have spoken to about Hazelwood's shut down spits out the same baloney story ABC news put out that the reason why it was shut down was that the plant was getting too old to run or crap reasons of that nature.
It's no coincidence that Hazelwood shut down almost exactly 1 year after the state government tripled the cost of royalties to mine coal to power the station. The state government was at the time so disconnected from reality and cheeky enough give a rant about how the power-station better think twice about passing on the increased cost to retail buyers.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victo ... ocymk.html
But I hate being the only person to know points of view other than ABCs.

Australia reducing its emissions is really just symbolic, at least at the moment, everyone breathing in the world puts out 18 times the amount of co2 each year than all of Australia's coal electricity power-stations each year as I have explained in details factual data breakdowns in posts of the past.
If it's going to make people happy that we reduce co2, then I am for it but I think via renewables like wind and solar are the dumbest ways possible. The numbers seem clear to me, people taking facts from the ABC and Getups Facebook meme videos has brought South Australia to where they are.
South Australia is even pushing up my power bills because they are sucking the hell out of the remaining two coal electricity generators left in Victoria via the interstate grid connector, just to pretend they're all clean and green.

No one has died from Fukushima radiation, as stated by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation,
everyone should know that or God help us all (or fix the media)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... a_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... _Radiation

But how do you over come the media with bad information about nuclear? You can't keep them on traditional TV broadcast media where they sit like kings injecting garbage for more money and power.
This is my favorite video for forcibly injecting the realities of nuclear radiation into peoples minds, ironically its just that, literal injection of radioactive material into the bloodstream.
When people see videos like this they start asking questions and they start learning for them selves via the internet, something you just can't do on traditional tv media and something traditional tv media just don't want you to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ItOIz5gJiQ


Ideally, folks in the future could watch ABC 7:30 report and be told about a currently 8year old boy on the border of Poland suffers heart and kidney problems and indirectly and unfairly link it to the Chernobyl disaster of 31 years ago, a disaster that is located on the other side of Ukraine. Then easily chose to next watch the Mark Latham Outsiders show and watch something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0
Last edited by TheBeastie on Jul 23 2017 9:55am, edited 25 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 23 2017 3:44am

I'll let you wrap quotes around your preferred collection of 25 words... when you're ready.

User avatar
kiwiev   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 999
Joined: Mar 22 2015 4:19am
Location: Jindabyne NSW Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by kiwiev » Jul 25 2017 12:32am

jonescg wrote:Yeah just the transmission lines alone will take several years to be built. I think Snowy 2.0 will go ahead, it's just a matter of timing. Hell we spend $1B a year on locking 900-odd asylum seekers up on pacific islands, I think we can afford the $2B price tag of Snowy 2.0.

The annual rate of solar installation in Australia is pretty huge - something in the order of 1 GW (nameplate :roll: ) per year. Wind has seen similar numbers. So I don't think there will be any trouble replacing Liddell's power contribution over the next 5 years, but being able to utilise that power with storage will be the key.
I live in the Snowys and snowy 2.0 will be 2.0-2022 or longer there is a lot engineering to get it to work and oh yeah it still rely on rain and snow, with the start to this season not even at 1 metre of the normal 2.3 metres.

I think a wind farm running pumps to send water to the top and back thru would be a better start IMO.

Cheers Kiwi

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 25 2017 2:03am

It will rely on rain and snow to replace what is lost to evaporation, yes. Technically the same water will be used for going down and up, but additional rainfall is a bonus.

I think the first stage was an 18 km tunnel linking Tantangarra to Talbingo with a bi-directional turbine. Talbingo can then supply Tumut 3 with additional flow if needed. I can't see why they should take so long to build it - there's more tunnels under Sydney and Brisbane than the Snowy!

User avatar
kiwiev   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 999
Joined: Mar 22 2015 4:19am
Location: Jindabyne NSW Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by kiwiev » Jul 25 2017 2:34am

jonescg wrote:It will rely on rain and snow to replace what is lost to evaporation, yes. Technically the same water will be used for going down and up, but additional rainfall is a bonus.

I think the first stage was an 18 km tunnel linking Tantangarra to Talbingo with a bi-directional turbine. Talbingo can then supply Tumut 3 with additional flow if needed. I can't see why they should take so long to build it - there's more tunnels under Sydney and Brisbane than the Snowy!
That 18km is thru 2 big valleys btw and its pure granite bencetop stuff not like Sydney at all. I dont mind as my job is doing NDT on drilling rigs and equipment :D

Cheers Kiwi

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3745
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jul 25 2017 3:34am

Pure granite eh? At least they won't need to line the tunnels!

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10658
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 25 2017 11:24pm

kiwiev wrote: I think a wind farm running pumps to send water to the top and back thru would be a better start IMO.
Cheers Kiwi
:?: Isnt that exactly what Snowy 2.0 is intended for..Hydro storage using the surplus Solar and wind power during daytime, then using it for buffering the peak loads...?
Snowy ( and other sites) already has some capacity for this,..but not enough.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
kiwiev   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 999
Joined: Mar 22 2015 4:19am
Location: Jindabyne NSW Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by kiwiev » Jul 26 2017 12:04am

Hillhater wrote:
kiwiev wrote: I think a wind farm running pumps to send water to the top and back thru would be a better start IMO.
Cheers Kiwi
:?: Isnt that exactly what Snowy 2.0 is intended for..Hydro storage using the surplus Solar and wind power during daytime, then using it for buffering the peak loads...?
Snowy ( and other sites) already has some capacity for this,..but not enough.
They are not recycling the Murray and that is where most of the water is going they could even recycle lake Jindabyne for more efficient use of water.

Cheers Kiwi

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10658
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 26 2017 1:56am

Sure, as i said before, over 1500 sites have been identified. In SA alone as being suitable for hydro storage facilities ...many usung the Murry as a water source ( recycling) .... But politics, finance, and various othrt interests ( green ?) come into play and slow everthing down.
You note that it took a private individual, with a high media profile, to kick start the Tesla battery project....which itself had been previously stuck in a thinktank for a year or more .!.... And that subsequently jump started Snowy 2.
..All these just highlight the lack of leadership and forethought from the relavent authorities in Oz currently.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply