Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Yes, interesting WP. When methanol burns it produces CO2 and H2O, (press the green button) so presumably the CO2 can be treated again (although I suppose it doesn't matter which CO2 gets put through the membrane...). A similar sort of cyclic principle to burning hydrogen.

Something to remember is that much of the new technologies we are discussing would come about in the course of time anyway. The current crisis, if for a moment we can refer to a crisis, even it is only a perceived crisis such as the Y2K scenario, hastens technology along at an accelerated rate. In fact the other commonplace crisis of wars does the same thing.

Not all the technologies are going to work: Arguably most of them will fall by the wayside for economic reasons or practicality, but out of those many new ideas some will be adopted and one or two may even be game changers. Crisis accelerates accelerates invention and change. We just have to be wary of stating that every new invention is a saviour.

Perhaps it would be useful to define some of the timelines for change. To my mind immediate is this year, 2020. The near future is up to 2030 and the future perhaps to 2050. Long term would be 2100. Of course these are purely my timelines. I think we are being a little pedantic when making reference to times and getting worked up when we are talking about quite similar things.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Not all the technologies are going to work: Arguably most of them will fall by the wayside for economic reasons or practicality, but out of those many new ideas some will be adopted and one or two may even be game changers. Crisis accelerates accelerates invention and change. We just have to be wary of stating that every new invention is a saviour.

And no doubt that there are parts of one invention that is not taken up that can be used in another, or one technology influences another.

Even if we haven't reached crisis point, one reason why I believe we need to go much faster with the development is that it would be much safer to have some settled technologies in place before we reach the crisis point - in other words "ASAHP". In that scenario we wouldn't necessarily know when the crisis was going to arrive. If we have reached the crisis point then self-evidently we need to go even faster still.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I think we are being a little pedantic when making reference to times and getting worked up when we are talking about quite similar things.

I think that is all more to do with a couple of people wanting to argue with anything they can about my posts. Speculated timelines are a pretty soft target for that, but if it wasn't timelines it would be something - anything - else, just to be argumentative.

[QUOTE=woodPixel;2172794]Doesnt biochar (or simply burning) produce CO2? (Biochar - Wikipedia)

No biochar made by pyrolisis doesn't produce carbon dioxide, it is made by heating carbon rich material WITHOUT OXYGEN. The complex carbohydrates that make up lignin and cellulose in wood break up under the influence of heat and you can draw off a huge range of products ranging from pure hydrogen, then methane, propane etc right down to creosote and bitumen with petrol and diesel in the middle. Not having oxygen means there can be no combustion so no carbon dioxide. I should have been a bit more clear that I was talking about modern pyrolisis and not the old dirty charcoal making. Mind you, even charcoal made by the old partial combustion method is better than nothing -The co2 being released into the atmosphere has come out of the atmosphere via plants rather than from fossil sources so it is a net zero carbon/carbon neutral while the charcoal itself, if buried in soil is carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere/carbon negative.

In a previous post I mentioned an upcoming proposal to be placed before Government re the use of household waste to produce electricity. The lads behind this idea have decided to launch in the USA instead. Why? Apathy. Not on their part, but the Governments wishy-washy attitude towards Renewables and the indecisive, short term thinking that has become a trademark in Australian politics. I wonder how many other good ideas are going to go off shore for similar reasons? Oh well, back to the coal face.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I am not sure which private station went bust after commissioning or that it was the only one ever. I work at a privately owned and built station, Millmerran, QLD, as opposed to a government station that was sold off to private enterprise and Millmerran is going strong having been first commissioned in 2002. It is true that we did not make any significant money until about 2009 when another station that ran out of cooling water caused a greater market demand. That was our first year of profit and demonstrates just how fickle the market is (not overly encouraging for potential investors). The station was conceived in the late 90s and it was deemed the economic entry point (price wise) was $35/MWhr. The station came on line and price promptly fell to $25/MWhr. Since that time we have been much more successful and are the second most energy efficient station in the country and will arguably be one of the last if not the last to be closed down: Not that I will be there.

Paul

I stand corrected, I missed Millmerran.

I was referring to Bluewater in WA, the last coal fired power station to be commissioned here in Australia (2009).

I was interested to read your insights into large battery storage.

Originally Posted by rustynail

In a previous post I mentioned an upcoming proposal to be placed before Government re the use of household waste to produce electricity. The lads behind this idea have decided to launch in the USA instead. Why? Apathy. Not on their part, but the Governments wishy-washy attitude towards Renewables and the indecisive, short term thinking that has become a trademark in Australian politics. I wonder how many other good ideas are going to go off shore for similar reasons? Oh well, back to the coal face.

Is that the one that has an experimental small super-furnace somewhere in the eastern inner city of Sydney or thereabouts?

It's persisting it down - has been since lunchtime Satdy.

256km radar just now
Capture.JPG


Excellent news - the Currowan fire in the Shoalhaven is now extinguished. Funny thing is that on "Fires near me" there are still heaps of incidents - trees down! (and listed as Out Of Control )

Originally Posted by NeilS

Paul

I stand corrected, I missed Millmerran.

I was referring to Bluewater in WA, the last coal fired power station to be commissioned here in Australia (2009).

I was interested to read your insights into large battery storage.

Neil

You were way ahead of me as I had never heard of Bluewater and had to look it up. It is in WA so well outside my sphere. My take on that one is that the original contractors had financial issues, but it has been bought by a japanese consortium (of two?) and functions well enough now. They talked of building two more units, which if undertaken, would bring the station to roughly the same size as Millmerran: Millmerran is a small station. There was precious little information on the type of installation other than it has IHI boilers, Alstom turbines/generators and fired on sub bituminous coal (all coal fired power stations burn rubbish coal). Tey maintain is is one of the most efficient units of that type in WA. The detail is in the wording "that type" and "WA." Firstly it is sub critical. The other last six units built, which are all in QLD (Tarong North x 1, Callide x 2, Kogan creek x 1 and Millmerran x 2) are super critical units. Without troubling too much on the technical details it basically means they are the most efficient units in Australia of this type.



It seems they are due to re finance so it will be interesting to see how that goes. certainly it will not be easy and difficult to see how they will gain support for another two units. I also picked up on this

"The company is owned by Japanese energy giants Sumitomo and Kansai Electric, who paid about $1.2 billion in 2011. The Japanese investors bought the power stations from KordaMentha, which was selling in its capacity as administrator of Griffin Group.The Bluewaters 1 power station - one of the two company owned generators - recorded $129.2 million revenue and a $2 million loss before tax in the year to March 31, according to accounts filed with the corporate regulator. It had assets worth $430 million and $446 million liabilities."

Presumably Bluewaters was bought in a fire sale at a bargain basement price. Despite that, the cost per MW is still about twice that of Millmerran, admittedly a few years earlier.



I also saw in a WA newspaper report that a $4 million grant has been given for a feasibility study for a coal fired station in North QLD!

Australia one step closer to new coal-fired power station in Queensland’s north with $4 million committed to feasibility study | The West Australian

Are they stupid or what?

The battery issue is a glaring example of how politicians from either side embellish to suit their agenda or otherwise gain credibility. If they had turned around and said the Tesla battery is a gigantic emergency backup supply, albeit quite an expensive backup, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. However the SA government subtly led the populace to believe it would save them against catastrophes of nature. Musk was very happy to promote the wonderful attributes of his grid saving Tesla battery. Both ran a successful PR campaign. Don't get me wrong, it was not in fact a waste of time, but it was never going to be capable of saving the grid from major trauma. It will save marginal and brief under supply and as I mentioned before it has an excellent frequency control capability, primarily because of the exceptionally fast response rate, which is far better than even hydro power (previously the fast rate response provider). My memory is that it cost $500,000. That is expensive for 100MW for one hour.

Something else I feel bound to remind readers of this thread is that the grid is huge. I have not done the sums, but over 4000Kms long I would guess.

Eastern Seaboard electricity grid.png

A facility in Adelaide or Melbourne (or even Sydney) is of no assistance to Brisbane and vice versa.

Regards
Paul

The uses for CO2 are vast. I like the methanol, alcohol and "reverse coal" ideas.

Now, all we need is energy! If only Australia had access to a vast, limitless, abundant source of renewable energy....


Full Page Reload

Carbon XPRIZE

Bushmiller I have enjoyed the insight from your posts on this subject and your practical approach so thankyou for that
Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area compared to the much smaller densely populated European ones that can share/trade supply across the border or easily piggy back new technology onto their system ?

And with that, given we don’t know what form the “new” alternative base supply will come We can’t really set up infrastructure apart from tinkering adhock like we are with our present setup ?

Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Something to remember is that much of the new technologies we are discussing would come about in the course of time anyway. The current crisis, if for a moment we can refer to a crisis, even it is only a perceived crisis such as the Y2K scenario, hastens technology along at an accelerated rate. In fact the other commonplace crisis of wars does the same thing.

Not all the technologies are going to work: Arguably most of them will fall by the wayside for economic reasons or practicality, but out of those many new ideas some will be adopted and one or two may even be game changers. Crisis accelerates accelerates invention and change. We just have to be wary of stating that every new invention is a saviour.

Perhaps it would be useful to define some of the timelines for change. To my mind immediate is this year, 2020. The near future is up to 2030 and the future perhaps to 2050. Long term would be 2100. Of course these are purely my timelines. I think we are being a little pedantic when making reference to times and getting worked up when we are talking about quite similar things.

Regards
Paul

Some weeks prior to FF starting this thread, I called in to say G'day to him and one of our main discussions was climate change and what you have stated as above was basically the gist of my side of our conversation.
As I said in my 2nd last post prior to this, the facts and answers are somewhere in the middle of the two camps and they need to work together without getting hysterical about their respective views.
Progress progresses exponentially.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

The uses for CO2 are vast.

Yep, you can even change a climate with it, provided you are able to produce enough of it!

Originally Posted by Beardy

Would it be fair to say that Australia’s situation is far more complicated than most countries due to our sparse population over a huge area

This is an issue that complicates a great many things for us (not the least of which is transport infrastructure and cost). That is where more localised solutions become more practical like sharing Solar panels (buying elec from your neighbour), neighbourhood battery sharing in a mini-grid. That would also go some way towards getting around the problem of a roof that can't take panels (mine is asbestos we think), or are too shaded to be properly effective, and renters that can't get panels put on.