Thread: The great energy debate

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

Gas guns...but then you have noise pollution.

I think you will find the birds get used to them after a while.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I think you will find the birds get used to them after a while.

Regards
Paul

The more they get used to them the more they will use them as a roost, they love to roost on anything that floats on water DAMHIKT.

If you have ever seen roosting spots where water birds nest and roost you will know what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

With all the talk of SA and its move away from coal we have this http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/busines...23-gj5ktn.html

Imagine a farm dam covered in one of these, the evaporation would be cut down and you get solar power as well.

I like it

Dave TTC
Turning Wood Into Art

Interesting article on going 100% renewable

https://theconversation.com/renewabl...ctricity-29200

Originally Posted by DonIncognito

Interesting article on going 100% renewable

https://theconversation.com/renewabl...ctricity-29200

DonIncognito

I become a little exasperated when the title of the article refers to 100%, but as you read further down they are really only talking two thirds.

Then there is this statement:

"For instance, South Australia nominally has two coal-fired power stations, several gas-fired ones, and at least 15 operating wind farms. Wind now supplies an annual average of 27% of South Australia’s electricity generation. As a result, one of the coal stations is now shut down for half the year and the other for the whole year. And the state’s electricity supply system is operating reliably without the need for any additional non-renewable energy supply."

Clearly the author is unaware that a significant amount of power is supplied from Victoria on a very regular basis. It is true to say that the bulk of SA's own power generation is wind or other renewable (I don't consider gas renewable, although bio gas may be) and this is for two reasons.

Firstly, SA's thermal stations are old and ready to be pensioned off. One has shut down already and the other is about to be shut down. They are uneconomic.

Secondly, they have climatic conditions suited to wind farms: Arguably more so than any other state.

Thirdly, they have Victoria ready and waiting to supply power to top up their shortfall. You can see in the snapshot in pic 3 (post #61) that during the evening peak Victoria was supplying almost a quarter of SA's demand and on top of that the price was almost 50% more than Victoria.

The same article makes reference to 100% sustainability in some European counties, but they too are able to buy power from neighbouring countries. Also it is forecast for quite a way into the future: Not right now.

I am very open to renewables, but such statements are misleading and do the protagonists no favours as they are easily shot down.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

DonIncognito

I become a little exasperated when the title of the article refers to 100%, but as you read further down they are really only talking two thirds.

Bushmiller

the quote you are talking about is as follows :

So two-thirds of annual energy can be supplied by wind and solar photovoltaic

That is not including the contribution made by CST. I had to reread it a couple of times for it to sink in. They are talking about 100%.

• Wind 46%;
• Concentrated solar thermal (electricity generated by the heat of the sun) with thermal storage 22%;
• Photovoltaic solar 20% (electricity generated directly from sunlight);
• Biofuelled gas turbines 6%; and
• Existing hydro 6%.

Then there is this statement:

"For instance, South Australia nominally has two coal-fired power stations, several gas-fired ones, and at least 15 operating wind farms. Wind now supplies an annual average of 27% of South Australia’s electricity generation. As a result, one of the coal stations is now shut down for half the year and the other for the whole year. And the state’s electricity supply system is operating reliably without the need for any additional non-renewable energy supply."

Clearly the author is unaware that a significant amount of power is supplied from Victoria on a very regular basis. It is true to say that the bulk of SA's own power generation is wind or other renewable (I don't consider gas renewable, although bio gas may be) and this is for two reasons.

Firstly, SA's thermal stations are old and ready to be pensioned off. One has shut down already and the other is about to be shut down. They are uneconomic.

Secondly, they have climatic conditions suited to wind farms: Arguably more so than any other state.

Thirdly, they have Victoria ready and waiting to supply power to top up their shortfall. You can see in the snapshot in pic 3 (post #61) that during the evening peak Victoria was supplying almost a quarter of SA's demand and on top of that the price was almost 50% more than Victoria.

The same article makes reference to 100% sustainability in some European counties, but they too are able to buy power from neighbouring countries. Also it is forecast for quite a way into the future: Not right now.

I am very open to renewables, but such statements are misleading and do the protagonists no favours as they are easily shot down.

Regards
Paul

The article was not about the current supply situation. It was about what is the optimal mix of renewables that could supply the eastern markets power requirements. It is not just about SA. Its about the entirety of the eastern seaboard.

Of course its about the future. It would be a massive infrastructure project taking years apon years to build. Worth the cost in my opinion.

Originally Posted by DonIncognito

The article was not about the current supply situation. It was about what is the optimal mix of renewables that could supply the eastern markets power requirements. It is not just about SA. Its about the entirety of the eastern seaboard.

Of course its about the future. It would be a massive infrastructure project taking years apon years to build. Worth the cost in my opinion.

When I said (back on page 2) I had seen some papers which _plausibly_ showed we could do without fossil fuel, they were indeed the papers written by Mark Diesendorf, the guy who wrote the conversation article. Also spoke to him last year. I say plausible, because I still believe there is a way to go on solar thermal before it becomes commercial. However, I think it will become so long before other technologies such as integral fast reactors which a lot of people are pushing too.

Of course things have changed since he wrote that article, the coal stations in SA are now gone (or good as). And no, this wont happen immediately, it may not happen in my lifetime, but to say it wont happen at all (or even that things wont transition in that direction in the near future) is completely wrong.

Regards
SWK

Solar thermal power stations are up and running. Have a look at the fifty or so listed by wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

DonIncognito

Firstly, SA's thermal stations are old and ready to be pensioned off. One has shut down already and the other is about to be shut down. They are uneconomic.

Secondly, they have climatic conditions suited to wind farms: Arguably more so than any other state.

Paul,
two comments.
While one of the coal stations was old and done its fair share (Playford B, being about the same age as eg Callide A). The other one (Northern Power Station) is far from old, at least in power station terms. It was commissioned in the mid 80s, which means that it is only just 30 years old. Somewhere in age between Tarong and Callide B and a good few years newer than Gladstone.

I am not sure that only SA has a climate suited for wind farms. While SA has good wind resources, so does all of Tas, the western half of Vic and the bottom half of WA. While not as good as the other states there are still some good pockets in NSW and Qld.

Regards
SWK

And just to leave with a few interesting tidbits.

From the International Energy Agency, "five countries" reached "socket parity" for residential PV in 2013. That is, the cost to the consumer of power from residential solar cells is less than the cost supplied by their utility.

As of now onshore wind power looks to be cheaper that coal power stations in the US. (US Energy Information Admin).
(Similar numbers by the Fraunhofer institute in Germany, See table 1, but you may say they are biased due to being a solar energy mob
and the financial group Lazards)



Regards
SWK

Good article and a good series of points have arisen from it.

One thing that bothers me is the term "renewable".

To me renewable means you can replce it once it is used as in bio-gas.

Wind and solar - just to be pedantic - are continuously harvestable sources of intermittent energy.

Originally Posted by Toymaker Len

Solar thermal power stations are up and running. Have a look at the fifty or so listed by wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

Well, I stand corrected on that. I wasn't aware there was so much activity. Even though some of it certainly small and is still in the development phase (like the Australian power station boosters) there appear to be a lot coming on line now, so mass produced standardised (cheaper) plant wont be far away at all.
And it confirms what I said about that technology being _commercially_ available long before some other projected types.

Regards
SWK

I have just re-read the majority of this thread. Hell, it was one of the best discussions I have participated in and so much information was produced both by people active within the industry and those purely intrigued by the issue.

Thank you to artme for raising the subject.

In recent times the SA debacle raised it's head and became a political hot potato. As usual there were polies ducking for cover and casting aspersions well before their mouth was in gear.

Of course they wanted to attribute blame to suit their particular agenda. The chorus of " See, I told you." The disgraceful aspect of that was it was while the consumers were still severely inconvenienced because they were without power.

The first thing to note was that the event was a freak event. Things go pear shaped during freak events.

Secondly the system performed according to and within the limitations of it's design.

Thirdly the design was indeed flawed.

The interconnector between Victoria and SA shut down when it threatened to exceed it's safety margins. That left the remaining generators unable to maintain constant power as the wind turbines (and solar too I believe) have no frequency control.

The electrical power supply in Australia generates at 50Hz, which is the method by which we end up with 240V in our homes. The alternative energy suppliers could not regulate the feed at 50Hz and so the power crisis escalated.

One thing to not is that the freak weather conditions would have challenged almost any power supply and it certainly did that in SA.

I have not really heard at this stage whether steps have been taken to remedy the frequency control situation down there. It would be interesting to hear if anybody has up to date information.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.....................

Of course they wanted to attribute blame to suit their particular agenda. The chorus of " See, I told you." The disgraceful aspect of that was it was while the consumers were still severely inconvenienced because they were without power.

The first thing to note was that the event was a freak event. Things go pear shaped during freak events.

Secondly the system performed according to and within the limitations of it's design.

Thirdly the design was indeed flawed.

The interconnector between Victoria and SA shut down when it threatened to exceed it's safety margins. That left the remaining generators unable to maintain constant power as the wind turbines (and solar too I believe) have no frequency control.

The electrical power supply in Australia generates at 50Hz, which is the method by which we end up with 240V in our homes. The alternative energy suppliers could not regulate the feed at 50Hz and so the power crisis escalated.

...............

Regards
Paul

Paul, what I find amusing is your statement "

Secondly the system performed according to and within the limitations of it's design.

Followed by an equally amusing

Thirdly the design was indeed flawed.

It would be interesting to observe the desgners of the system giving evidence before a Royal Commission in effect saying "The system worked within its' design parameters - it's just that we got the parameters wrong.

From my recollection the "chorus" of politicians (and I may add) other real experts all stated that SA had gone too far too early with relying too much on renewables.

Even before this "freak" event happened there were plenty of people saying that, and they were the ones saying "I told you so".

SA is now deficient in baseload power generation as it has chosen to rely on baseload power generators in other states.

With the upcoming shutdown of Hazelwood in Vic, and probably other power generators, they may not be able to get enough power out of Vic.

It is interesting to note that SA over the last few days is going through yet another substantial power outage.

It is also interesting to note that Bob Hawke again renewed his call (at the Woodford Folk Festival) for nuclear power generation in Australia.