Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by BobL

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

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

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

Originally Posted by BobL

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Warb

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

I never suspected that you were a prepper!

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I never suspected that you were a prepper!

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

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

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

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

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

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

Graeme

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

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

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Warb

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

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

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

But upstream from the next town.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Warb

It is also undeniable that all the fossil fuel CO2 was, at some point, in the atmosphere and yet the planet didn't explode.

I doubt that is strictly correct, and even if it was, it wouldn't have all been at the same time – it would have been spread over eons. In other words there is no chance that all the fossil fuel was formed at the same time.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by BobL

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

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

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

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by BobL

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

Originally Posted by Warb

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

Yep.

This is not to apply to sharpening threads

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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

[snip]

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



Regards
Paul

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

Lights to stay on if biggest 'coal clunker' powers down (msn.com)

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

However, it is a start.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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

A bit more info here Waratah Super Battery | EnergyCo