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

Originally Posted by woodPixel

So our glorious $1.2B plant is kept operational by a few Bunnings-bought kango hammers strapped down with Occy's?

And when that didnt work, we hit it with sledge hammers?

Sounds almost Russian

WP

Correct!

However, in Russia they probably take to you with sledge hammers if the unit trips!

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I don't know that solar and wind can produce power on cloudy and and calm days respectively.

Solar can produce on cloudy days, but significantly less of course. If it couldn't it would never be installed in the UK. I may have some vague memory that there is a type of solar panel that is better to use in overcast weather, but not at all sure about that.

Originally Posted by NeilS

I expect we will eventually have elements of all of the options we have raised. The cost-benefits will sort that out, skewed as always with a dose of political and other self interest.

Perhaps I should "volunteer" that I trained as a civil engineer who spent the last 15 years of my "career" playing with economics.

The one takeout I took away from those years -- apart from the honorary degree awarded by my BEc colleague -- was that economics was the art of supplying a "creditable" answer to the question: "what answer do you want?"


Current real interest rates (the RBA official rate minus inflation) are less than -1% (i.e. strongly negative), but businesses still look to an internal rate of return greater than 10% (and preferably better than 25%).

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I would also repeat that the connector was designed to supply security for Tasmania in case they suffered a drought more than to export power to the mainland. The fact that they can, and do, export power back to the mainland is a side benefit, but not it's primary purpose.

whilst exporting power back to the mainland may not be the HV DC line's primary "purpose", it is how the line has been operated for most -- nearly all? -- of it's existence.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I believe it is a mistake to fancifully state we will just put something here or there without examining the practicalities.

I have to respectively disagree.
If we are to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040 -- which is only 20 years away -- as a nation we have some very very difficult choices to make.
Assuming that by 2040 we are still operating fossil fueled transport vehicles -- cars, trucks, trains -- do we say "stuff it", "we all be doomed, Hanrahan" or do we start to act now to change the status quo?
There's only so many trees that can be planted to soak-up CO2 -- it should be done, but it's hardly practical on the scale that would be required.

Which really only leaves "fanciful" schemes that have no "commercial return" because they are only really needed to keep the lights on for two or three days each year.
To date that function [keeping the lights on] has been provided by vast quantities of base load coal fired power -- but in a no coal, no gas future what are the options for those calm nights when there is no solar (because it's night time) and no wind?

Originally Posted by ian

whilst exporting power back to the mainland may not be the HV DC line's primary "purpose", it is how the line has been operated for most -- nearly all? -- of it's existence.


I have to respectively disagree.
If we are to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040 -- which is only 20 years away -- as a nation we have some very very difficult choices to make.
Assuming that by 2040 we are still operating fossil fueled transport vehicles -- cars, trucks, trains -- do we say "stuff it", "we all be doomed, Hanrahan" or do we start to act now to change the status quo?
There's only so many trees that can be planted to soak-up CO2 -- it should be done, but it's hardly practical on the scale that would be required.

Which really only leaves "fanciful" schemes that have no "commercial return" because they are only really needed to keep the lights on for two or three days each year.
To date that function [keeping the lights on] has been provided by vast quantities of base load coal fired power -- but in a no coal, no gas future what are the options for those calm nights when there is no solar (because it's night time) and no wind?

Selling power back to the mainland was why the Tasmanians were caught out. No water left and no DC link and no power for the Hydro companies to sell to their own people. Send in the clowns, ahem! I mean the Diesel generators.

I don't disagree that something has to be done, but the problem around the world is that insufficient people or organisations are putting up their hands for this and in Australia we can't even get the government to agree there is a problem. So really, who is going to do it and make a spanking great loss?

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I don't disagree that something has to be done, but the problem around the world is that insufficient people or organisations are putting up their hands for this and in Australia we can't even get the government to agree there is a problem. So really, who is going to do it and make a spanking great loss?

as you rightly say -- who is going to lead us to a net zero emission future?

Originally Posted by ian

There's only so many trees that can be planted to soak-up CO2 -- it should be done, but it's hardly practical on the scale that would be required.

Yes well we tried that didn't we? As it turns out they burn really REALLY well back into CO2.

Originally Posted by ian

To date that function [keeping the lights on] has been provided by vast quantities of base load coal fired power -- but in a no coal, no gas future what are the options for those calm nights when there is no solar (because it's night time) and no wind?

Don't forget about the many emerging technologies to either provide power or capture CO2. The target date is actually 2050, so 30 years, not 20.

I can see a possible situation where we might be better (at least for a while) at capturing carbon than we are at producing electricity without carbon emissions, so going back to what I have said a number of times before (in this thread) we may still have to be using coal for base load power (or some of it) in a nett zero emissions scenario, whilst we continue to develop and implement the carbonless base load technology.

Obviously it would be better to reduce the CO2 levels to 0.03% (1950 levels), but nett zero would be a very good interim achievement. It doesn't really matter how the "zero" is attained, and by that I mean if we are still putting out "X" tonnes of CO2 and capturing "X" tonnes, or putting out "Y" tonnes and capturing "Y" tonnes....as long as it's zero while we continue to develop carbonless energy. Then we start on reducing the CO2 component.

Originally Posted by ian

as you rightly say -- who is going to lead us to a net zero emission future?

Sanders from next year? Albanese from the year after?

We'll see.

I may have some vague memory that there is a type of solar panel that is better to use in overcast weather, but not at all sure about that.

I don't know if it's the case with current solar panels, but the earlier ones lost efficiency as they heated up. Hence, they were most efficient on cool sunny days, and days of light cloud.

Ian, re your comment "What answer would you like?", if you trained at UNSW you probably remember Prof. Pilgrim. he gave us an assignment which he said he wanted us to answer in the form of a consultant's report. I asked him what answer he wanted.

Originally Posted by AlexS

I don't know if it's the case with current solar panels, but the earlier ones lost efficiency as they heated up. Hence, they were most efficient on cool sunny days, and days of light cloud.

Still the case Alex - panels are better suited to a cool climate than a warmer one. I just forget why that is the case, but summink to do with the voltages.

How Does Heat Affect Solar Panel Efficiencies? | CED Greentech

So we only broke two February weather records in Katoomba this month: hottest day on the 2nd at 38.8° and the wettest day on the 10th at 226mm. That's in line with breaking two records in January: hottest day at 39.8° and hottest average for January (SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!) at 27.0°.

December, however, was a much better month for record breaking, with no less than 6 record breaking days: 4 hottest days (i.e. 4 days >=35.0° which was the previous record for Dec, hottest overnight temp, and the driest December at 1.4mm. I'd be pretty sure that another record would have been broken, had the records been kept: the smokiest month.

November was lousy for record breaking with just one miserable record falling for the hottest average November.

So with only 11 weather records broken in the last 4 months (and none at all for Aug-Oct!!!) I'm starting swing back to denial. I'll see how we go in March before I make a final decision. If we can break at least 2 records in March then I'll stay on as CC believer.

They exist. 50 watts per square metre, so it's not a lot, but it would suit us nicely.

New Research Explains How Solar Panels Could Soon Be Generating Power at Night

The ‘anti-solar cell’ that works at night developed

Originally Posted by woodPixel

They exist. 50 watts per square metre, so it's not a lot, but it would suit us nicely.

New Research Explains How Solar Panels Could Soon Be Generating Power at Night

so on a very rough estimate, Australia would need about 100,000 ha of 50W panels -- say around 20% of the 500,000 ha burnt by the Gospers Mountain fire.

Originally Posted by AlexS

Ian, re your comment "What answer would you like?", if you trained at UNSW you probably remember Prof. Pilgrim. he gave us an assignment which he said he wanted us to answer in the form of a consultant's report. I asked him what answer he wanted.

I did my degree at USyd. I don't recall writing any "consultant" type reports -- what we did write was much more factual.


It's economics that involves "adjusting with the numbers" to meet the politically desired outcome.
I no longer maintain the data table, but by about 2006, the real -- inflation adjusted -- long term cost of money was around 2%, not the 7% typically required by Government. Since then the real cost of money has fallen to about -1%.
So if you want a project to die, discount it at 7%. Which just happens to be the rate required by the NSW State Government.
If you want a project to "get-up" try using the real discount rate -- currently around -1%. i.e. the benefits will grow with time.


There's a longish monograph from the Bureau of Transport Economics that concludes that "the widespread practice of adding a risk premium to the Commonwealth bond rate is hard to defend" -- in other words, while the practice makes life easy for the thumb-in-bum, mind-in-neutral brigade other much more difficult approaches to pricing risk are preferred.
link https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ysis_Transport

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Don't forget about the many emerging technologies to either provide power or capture CO2. The target date is actually 2050, so 30 years, not 20.

The actual crunch date is around 2022, when Liddell is scheduled to close taking 2000 MW of coal fired power out of the system. 2022 is less than THREE years away.
To replace that amount of generation will require something like 3,000 wind turbines (at 2 MW each), each turbine running for around 8 hours per day and spread over most of NSW. (BTW, 8 hours is to allow for the intermittent nature of the wind resource.)
That's an $9 Billion investment over just two years. 3,000 wind turbines over 3 years equates to installing 20 wind turbines per week.

And then Vales Point is scheduled to close in 2028 taking a further 1300 MW out of the system -- that's another 2000 wind turbines requiring an investment of $6 Billion.



Those numbers are not insignificant -- and are one of the reasons the Federal Government is talking about using tax payer's $$ to keep Liddell running after it's scheduled closure. AGL doesn't care if the lights go out when they shut Liddell -- they still will be paid.