Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

In the pictures it actually looks like a low sheen black rather than a matt black. Not quite accurate reporting by their propaganda department.

But where does one get black stainless steel, irrespective of gloss level? Alternatively, how well does their paint stick to stainless steel?

Attachment 533093 Source: Mr Brush Reference

They're not painted but wrapped in some sort of plastic coating.
This is also done on conventional Steel and Al panelled vehicles.
Here's a M3 Tesla with a gold wrap.
Screenshot 2023-12-04 at 2.01.33 pm.jpg

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well I'd say that would be the one that Musk would have challenged – it wouldn't be like him to gild the lily or anything.

Would it?

Tesla Cybertruck’s Race Against A Porsche 911 Was Apparently An 1/8-Mile Run (msn.com)

To be fair (in an unfair world) we don't know the full detail for certain and to my mind it would be incredibly stupid for Musk to make such a deception that can be quite easily discredited. Having said that, it would appear in America that rich gentlemen,and I use the term extremely loosely, can say or do whatever they wish without accountability. Maybe they even believe their own untruths.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

to my mind it would be incredibly stupid for Musk to make such a deception

Yairs, unlike telling his major advertisers to "go f$&% yourself. I hope that's clear" which is definitely one of the smartest moves I've seen.

Moderators: If this is in the wrong thread, please move it. Members: I was unsure whether to post here, in the dust extraction sub-forum or to start a new thread - any views?

BobL has highlighted the dangers in the workshop from fine dust over many years.

Thirty years ago there was a landmark paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine called the Harvard Six Cities Study that linked excess deaths in six US cities to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. t prompted new regulations on industrial smokestack emissions.

That study has just been replicated and extended, and published in the journal Science. The new study found that the effect of PM2.5 pollution was even higher than the previous study found and also that PM2.5 pollution from coal fired plants was 2.11 times deadlier than from other sources.

Here is a summary, the full report is in the current issue of Science.
Harvard’s legacy of heading off deaths from industrial air pollution— Harvard Gazette

I think that it is fair to say that PM2.5 pollution is even deadlier than Bob has been saying, and that it is not a good idea to live downwind from a coal fired plant.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Moderators: If this is in the wrong thread, please move it. Members: I was unsure whether to post here, in the dust extraction sub-forum or to start a new thread - any views?

BobL has highlighted the dangers in the workshop from fine dust over many years.

Thirty years ago there was a landmark paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine called the Harvard Six Cities Study that linked excess deaths in six US cities to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. t prompted new regulations on industrial smokestack emissions.

That study has just been replicated and extended, and published in the journal Science. The new study found that the effect of PM2.5 pollution was even higher than the previous study found and also that PM2.5 pollution from coal fired plants was 2.11 times deadlier than from other sources.

Here is a summary, the full report is in the current issue of Science.
Harvard’s legacy of heading off deaths from industrial air pollution— Harvard Gazette

I think that it is fair to say that PM2.5 pollution is even deadlier than Bob has been saying, and that it is not a good idea to live downwind from a coal fired plant.

Yeah I often feel like I've been peeing into the wind. I often think that as well as or even instead of a fuel or economy gauge ICE cars should perhaps be fitted over with a PM2.5 meter so's drivers can ee how much gunk their vehicles spew out. The first time I tested my hone first made dust detector I almost killed it by placing it near SWMBO's idling 4WD diesel exhaust.

Whether it's particles rising from combustion or mechanical processes like wood dust, most people are still prepared to gamble on not being affected by dust. Back in 2017 a panel of over 30 international experts accurately determined that world wide at least 5 million people a year die prematurely from dust but that's only part of the problem. Hundreds of millions suffer worse health outcomes than otherwise, leading to much worse quality of life, varying forms of invalidity, and medical conditions than people expect. The number of productive years lost is massive and is a major contributor to the ridiculous cost of medical care. If these effects were really factored in we'd be banning all sorts of stuff. I am constantly amazed by rabid beancounters that are very selective about what beans are allowed to be counted. As long as they're not paying everyone else can go f@#&% themselves.

Graeme

I would suggest this information is quite pertinent in this thread as it potentially could be yet another nail in the coffin for coal fired power generation. Equally, it could have gone into a dust thread, but one of the thrusts of the article was that not all PM 2.5 has the same danger level. The coal fired power station emissions at this level were significantly more of a health hazard.

On an optomistic note, the situation in the US may be more serious than in Australia. Much of their coal has a high sulphur content compared to Australia and it is the reason they have "scrubbers" installed on the back end of their exhaust gases to capture these nasty elements. I pulled this excerpt:

"And third, this scrubber technology is very effective. We tracked mortality over time and were able to see the impact on mortality before and after scrubbers were installed. You really see the number of deaths go down................If you have to rely on them, then we shouldn’t allow any coal-fired plants without scrubber technology"

We don't have this feature on our coal fired power plants as the coal is not high in sulphur. I think it is the sulphur that is the problem.

Regards
Paul

Without sounding too far fetched it's not just burning coal that makes particles as the world is still plagued with the prehistoric energy sources of burning biomass. Sure it can be carbon neutral if the biomass is 100% replaced but unfortunately it's not. Burning biomass may only be a fraction of the total energy generation but there's loads of burning involved in land clearing and bushfires, plus burning biomass is typically incredibly inefficient so generates loads of particles. Unfortunately some people have no choice but to burn stuff like camel dung to cook their food.

Screenshot 2023-12-05 at 9.23.13 am.png

Originally Posted by BobL

Yeah I often feel like I've been peeing into the wind.

Yachties quickly learn to pee from the leuward rail.

Hundreds of millions suffer worse health outcomes than otherwise, leading to much worse quality of life,

Anyone who has ever seen someone suffering from emphysema will know how incredibly moderate your language is.

Oftentimes I have read responses to your posts and thought - Richard Cranium's namesake.

I am constantly amazed by rabid beancounters that are very selective about what beans are allowed to be counted.

Economists refer to this as the free loader principle.

Way back in the middle ages in England people prided themselves on their cleanliness because they threw their excreta out the window (Quite literally). Far cleaner than keeping it in the house!

Not so long ago industrialists believed that rivers were helpfully provided for them to dump their rubbish into. Some still do believe that. But progress is being made.

When I was a kid in we lived close to the Hobart Rivulet roughly midway between Cuthbertson's Tannery and Cascade Brewery - both piped their industrial effluent into the rivulet. Down stream from the tannery the creek was totally dead - no fish, no insects, no tadpoles, etc, and it was smelly. Above the tannery there was life in the creek; we regularly caught trout but not yabbies. Above the brewery the creek was even more alive including yabbies. Please note I am talking about Tasmanian yabbies (Astacopsis franklinii) which require very clean running water and not mainland yabbies (Cherax destructa) which thrive in muddy water. Fast forward fifty years and that creek has been cleaned up - the tannery is defunct and the brewery long stopped dumping crud - and it has even been recolonised by platypusses. Lovely.

I found this article interesting as it reported on a number of party political positions on Australia's likely move towards zero emissions. I do wonder whether it is ethical for an opposition party to undermine the government on an international stage, but maybe that is a discussion for another arena.

Coalition tells Cop28 it will back tripling of nuclear energy if Peter Dutton becomes prime minister (msn.com)

A few excerpts:

"While only 11% of countries at the talks – mostly nations that already have a domestic nuclear energy industry – backed the nuclear pledge, O’Brien declared “Cop28 will be known as the nuclear Cop”."

"Experts say the country would not have a nuclear industry before 2040 even if the national ban on the technology was lifted now, and nuclear energy is more expensive than alternatives."

"New South Wales Coalition MP Matt Kean, a former state treasurer, acknowledged O’Brien’s commitment to reaching net zero emissions but said “obviously nuclear is a long way away” and the country should back renewable energy now."

“Who knows what might be available in another 20 years – we may have flying cars in 20 years – but that doesn’t mean you base your whole transport around it,” he said. (Matt Kean)


The thrust of the Coalition argument was the place for nuclear powered generation. The protagonists for this in Australia seem to be missing the fundamental reality of whether it is competitive with other forms of power. Apparently, they are now not touting SMRs (I think somebody told them there has been no such installation built and the one that was proposed in the US has been canned), but advocating full scale installations. I don't think anybody has informed them how expensive they are to build and how long it takes. There is another issue in that Australia has too much other viable forms of power for the Nukes to be economic. Who in their right mind is going to build a base load type facility that will have to be either shut down or run at a negative price point throughout the day.

The answer to that is no private company will consider nukes without very significant government subsidies and guarantees. For Nukes to be considered, the government would have to cough up large sums of money and be prepared to run the facilities at a loss. This is quite apart from the other issues that plague nukes such as waste disposal, site location, decommissioning costs (a really big issue that is almost never discussed) and safety.

The article is worth a read, but as usual really raises more questions than answers.

Regards
Paul

PS: As far as tripling nuclear energy in Oz, 3 x zero is still zero.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

PS: As far as tripling nuclear energy in Oz, 3 x zero is still zero.

What else would you expect from an idea-free zone?

Coincidentally, I was looking into Australian elections history last week after reading a piece on Dutton by Michelle Grattan. Among other observations, this is what I found:

The first 15 years of Federal Govts were very turbulent indeed, with 8 changes of Govt and 11 Prime Ministers (but only 7 different men) in the first 14 years 9 months. A number of those changes of Govt were not by election, but by a vote of no confidence. Outside of those turbulent years, there has only ever been a single one-term Govt: that of James Scullin (Labor) who was elected a week before the Wall St crash of 1929, and was unable to survive the effects of the Great Depression. However, he appears to be revered, and his economic policies were apparently a decade ahead of their time, and many of them were adopted by the right wing United Australia by 1940. (they were more right than left, but possibly less right than wrong )

What that leads to is that Lord Voldemort has no historical hope of becoming PM in 2025 (whew). It would mean Albanese's govt is the second one-term Govt, and would also mean that Voldemort would be the only Leader of the Opposition elected to LotO after a change of govt election who then went on to become PM for the first time at the next election. Andrew Fisher had already been PM when he achieved that feat (he was PM for 7 months, then lost a Vote of no confidence).

The moral of the story: becoming the Leader of the Opposition after a change of Govt is historically a poison chalice!

Spreadsheet showing a timeline of our history attached.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

"Experts say the country would not have a nuclear industry before 2040 even if the national ban on the technology was lifted now, and nuclear energy is more expensive than alternatives."

It seems that concept of nett zero is lost on too many people who should know better (in the decision making world). Referring to this part:
"Aemo found the optimal future grid would run nearly entirely on renewable energy, with a range of technologies – including batteries, pumped hydro, demand response and fast-start gas plants – filling gaps around it."

If we can reduce other CO2 emissions (e.g. from transport, other high emission industries) to a level where we can incorporate fast-start gas plants to "fill in the gaps" and still achieve nett zero then we may not need anything else outside of that and renewables. Our current uptake of Solar power is pretty incredible and I expect that it will be the same when we have a decent variety of EV options to choose from, and with plenty recharging stations available. We Aussies are at the forefront of new tech early adoption (e.g. we had the highest adoption rate of fax machines, back in the day).

I should think that if nuclear power is achievable by 2040 then that means starting the process right now (10 years to build, 7 years to argue about how and where, and then start the planning). Whilst the arguing has already started, there'll be no actual planning done by the current government until after 2028 (assuming history is right and they are not a one-term govt). That would put nuclear out until the mid 2040s.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Coalition tells Cop28 it will back tripling of nuclear energy if Peter Dutton becomes prime minister (msn.com)

That is the trouble with Mr Dutton; he just does not think big enough or long term. Tripling output ? He should be thinking of increasing it one hundred fold ... and that is just a start.

As far as tripling nuclear energy in Oz, 3 x zero is still zero.

Now don't you worry about that, Paul. Mr Dutton's supporters will immediately recognise it for what it it ... FAKE NEWS.

Next, you will be asserting that 100 x 0 is still zero!

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

That is the trouble with Mr Dutton; he just does not think big enough or long term.

That sentence is 5 words too long.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

That sentence is 5 words too long.