So what's going to replace coal?

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted 2 years ago

  allan Chief Commissioner

EDIT: 10-12 years is a really long time for solar panels in industrial use, from what I've read that's an average age. If you can cite otherwise I'd to see it.
It doesn't matter if they are fitted on a house or a warehouse or a school or a hospital or a factory, they are the same panels. For your sake, please do not expose your ignorance further.
DirtyBallast
No. Solar panels vary in cost and longevity: the best of them are up to 40 years, while the worst are under 10 years.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/how-long-will-your-solar-panels-last-and-how-well-will-they-perform-37163/

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Codswallop.

Conservatives hang their hat on the fact that partial subsidies to renewables exist, but never mention that the base load coal generators constructed years ago and in existence today were 100% subsidised at the time....

Hazelwood was knackered and ready to blow up, wit nameplate capacity impossible to reach. Just like Liddell now....

Moran does not mention the construction cost of a new coal generator, merely the running cost of it.... I have already posted a link that suggests that utility companies overseas are installing renewables + storage because it is cheaper than the running costs of existing coal generators....go figure.

Further, although renewables without storage may be regarded as intermittent, at least the electricity that they produce is largely predictable. Mapped against the fact that this summer, coal fired generators have tripped a total of 41 times (check for yourself on AREMI) and each and every occasion was totally unpredictable, it is totally ridiculous to bury one's head in the sand any longer.
DirtyBallast
This is Codswallop

The existing aging coal power stations were hardly built on 100% subsidy. Considering most of the former state owned electricity departments were revenue stream for the various govts they were hardly subsidised. Additionally most of the countries large scale industry was established during the 50's to 80's on the back bone of cheap available and reliable power. Those industries and their employee's paid many more x what those power stations cost to build in levy's, taxes and employee wages.

The problem with Hazelwood and Liddel is that they are over 50 years old and should have been replaced 10-15 years ago. 40 years is usually considered time's up for most industry of simply technology.

The loss of Hazelwood has had limited impact on supply and reliability but not on price. Its former capacity has been taken by by a number of sources.
- idle capacity in other coal power stations
- wind/peaking gas
- peaking gas previously with very low capacity factors of 10%
The greater use of the last two points has increased the wholesale price.

The full life cycle cost of a coal fired power station is well know and you just need to look at current overseas projects to work out construction and operating costs. US$40-80/MWh would be considered the normal range to cover construction and operating costs.

The increase in supply costs due to large scale roll out is limited to Australia. Scotland, Germany, Denmark, Spain and others where RE has been rolled out in higher % is well documented.

The so called mass roll out of renewables is not as big as often published. Yes there is a strong push and this push depends on a number of factors the biggest being practicality. Typically places with large scale hydro find it easier and cheaper than those without. Hence Scotland and parts of EU. Meanwhile in the SE corner, further hydro expansion is very limited, so the alt is WIND + additional short term high cost power generation such as Gas Turbine. Geographic distribution only gets you so far as the current wind production numbers demonstrate and PV is of limited capacity and higher cost away from roof top.

Predictable energy is of limited value, you still need to cover those period of low or limited use, again in Australia the bulk of this is now coming from high cost Gas Turbine.

This website clearly demonstrates the highs and lows of all sources in Australia http://reneweconomy.com.au/opennem-widget/

41 trips over the number of turbines and hardly unreliable as the power sector historically long before wind and solar operated with mitigations for such unplanned events. You also be a fool to think the RE energy sector operates faultlessly.

No one is burying anyones head in the sand, some of us are just suggesting that this blind march into RE world on the misguided belief that the power source that has built this country is now evil, unreliable and costly is prone for failure. RE technology has its place and its % of the market will grow with time, but the growth needs to be realistic, not idealistic.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
EDIT: 10-12 years is a really long time for solar panels in industrial use, from what I've read that's an average age. If you can cite otherwise I'd to see it.
It doesn't matter if they are fitted on a house or a warehouse or a school or a hospital or a factory, they are the same panels. For your sake, please do not expose your ignorance further.
No. Solar panels vary in cost and longevity: the best of them are up to 40 years, while the worst are under 10 years.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/how-long-will-your-solar-panels-last-and-how-well-will-they-perform-37163/
allan
Solar panels typically degrade between 0.3 and 1% per year depending grade of panel and location. Extended hot sunny locations can exceed 1% due to higher temps and extra hours of direct sunlight. Hence most suppliers in Aus offer +80% performance after 20 years.

For 50% loss after 12 years, panels must have been very cheap to start with or she just got walked over during the early stages of the industry.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
G'day all,

We are caravanning at present, and have just visited a good friend in country Victoria. She is a 73 yo widow and had solar panels installed on her home approx. 10-12 years ago. They were down to 35% efficient so she arranged to have them serviced/clean. He got them up to approx 55% efficient and told her she needs to replace them. She complained that no one told her that they have a life of approx 10-12 years. As an age pensioner she cannot afford to replace them as there is no replacement subsidy.

What a con job.

Regards.
Cheaper panels will deteriorate even faster but 10-12 years is an average lifespan for good quality panels; she will continue to get energy out of them but performance will continue to decline. I was reading recently that lithium batteries are impossible to recycle and become quite a toxic waste hazard once they're life expired... another joyful fact Elon Musk doesn't advertise.
don_dunstan
The recycle phase of the Li-ion battery industry would certainly be in its infancy. With the used battery supply stream likely growing at 10-30% per year, there will be development in recycling but will it be cheaper than mining? Issue for mining is the current limited supply base from mostly Sth America (in very questionable Env manner), Telsa will use more Li in 5 years than is used in the world today, so will the cost of Lithium go up or down as alt reserves are mined, likely down I suspect?  

I would the EU and California to jump on this future waste stream risk pretty quick and work towards compulsory recycling at what ever cost to protect their Env justification push for EV.

The mind boggles on the Lithium consumption rates if the likes of SA battery and EV car industry takes off to replace petrol/diesel driven cars and truck and storage for grid power to replace large scale coal generation. However one thing can be guaranteed, Australia will take a back seat to both processing of Li, manufacturing of batteries and reprocessing their waste, as usual.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
The existing aging coal power stations were hardly built on 100% subsidy. Considering most of the former state owned electricity departments were revenue stream for the various govts they were hardly subsidised. Additionally most of the countries large scale industry was established during the 50's to 80's on the back bone of cheap available and reliable power. Those industries and their employee's paid many more x what those power stations cost to build in levy's, taxes and employee wages.
.
.
.
.
No one is burying anyones head in the sand, some of us are just suggesting that this blind march into RE world on the misguided belief that the power source that has built this country is now evil, unreliable and costly is prone for failure. RE technology has its place and its % of the market will grow with time, but the growth needs to be realistic, not idealistic.
RTT_Rules
Your point is well made but there is no denying that the power stations were originally built exclusively from public money. What happens after that is irrelevant; an example could also be made about the flow on effects of a burgeoning renewables sector employing an ever increasing amount of people, whether it be manufacturers or installers.

I don't think it is accurate to suggest that there is a blind march towards renewables. Yes, it is a rapidly expanding phenomenon (in Australia alone, 1.25GW of solar PV was installed last year), but no-one would be rushing out to install it without doing their homework. For large scale projects, the reason that there seems to be a groundswell towards installing it, besides meeting targets, is that there is money to be made. That's why AGL is getting out of coal and heading towards renewables, because the benefits will be greater for their shareholders. It would be remiss of them to not head down that path.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
So I’m still going ahead and listing the trips that have occurred this summer to coal fired generators. The amount of trips may or may not be more or less than in any other year, but it does dispel the myth that this type of generation is ultra-reliable. No trip is predictable! Hopefully this might educate the reader that the hyperbole emanating from certain sections of the government and the media suggesting that coal fired base load is the ONLY answer should be looked upon with derision.


My claim that there had been 41 trips this summer has proven to be inaccurate, and must have been based on information not exactly up to date. The number is actually 48 up until last night. Please note that I have not included Gladstone because I could not accurately differentiate between apparent trips and deliberate taking off of units due to demand, a not uncommon event at power stations with comparatively small capacity units (Hazelwood was similar).


Data is sourced from AREMI by expanding the trend to 3m for each coal fired unit in Vic, NSW and Qld and counting the excursions to 0MW.

Yallourn 1 – 6th Dec, 11th Jan, 1st Feb.

Yallourn 2 – 2nd Dec, 21st Jan, 30th Jan, 3rd Feb, 15th Feb, 21st Feb.

Yallourn 3 – 15th Jan, twice. Yallourn 4 – 14th Dec.

Loy Yang A1 – 24th Dec, 9th Jan. Loy Yang A2 – 12th Jan, 3rd Feb, 15th Feb.

Loy Yang A3 – 14th Dec. Loy Yang A4 – 26th Dec, 20th Jan.

Loy Yang B1 – 18th Jan. Loy Yang B2 – No trip but a sudden drop to 100MW on 9th Dec.

Mount Piper 1 – No trips. Mount Piper 2 – 13th Dec.

Vales Point B1 – No trips. Vales Point B2 – 3rd Feb.

Eraring 1 – 18th Dec, 31st Dec, 30th Jan.

Eraring 2 – 19th Feb. Eraring 3 – 23rd Feb. Eraring 4 – No trips.

Liddell 1 – 30th Jan. Liddell 2 – 1st Feb, 18th Feb. Liddell 3 – 28th Dec. Liddell 4 – 2nd Feb.

Bayswater 1 – 17th Feb. Bayswater 2 & 3 – No trips. Bayswater 4 – 8th Feb.

Millerman 1 – 3rd Dec. Millerman 2 – 13th Dec, 1st Jan, 9th Jan, 19th Feb.

Kogan Ck – 23rd Dec, 11th Jan.

Tarong 1, 2 & 4 – No trips. Tarong 3 – 28th Dec, 12th Jan.

Tarong Nth – No trips.

Callide B1 – 1st Dec, 23rd Feb. Callide B2 – No trips.

Callide C1 – 16th Jan. Callide C2 – 9th Feb.

Stanwell 1, 2, 3 and 4 – No trips.




Did anyone notice that there were four trips, some overlapping, during the heatwave across the 13th and 14th of December? How does that make coal ‘reliable’?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
So I’m still going ahead and listing the trips that have occurred this summer to coal fired generators. The amount of trips may or may not be more or less than in any other year, but it does dispel the myth that this type of generation is ultra-reliable. No trip is predictable! Hopefully this might educate the reader that the hyperbole emanating from certain sections of the government and the media suggesting that coal fired base load is the ONLY answer should be looked upon with derision.


My claim that there had been 41 trips this summer has proven to be inaccurate, and must have been based on information not exactly up to date. The number is actually 48 up until last night. Please note that I have not included Gladstone because I could not accurately differentiate between apparent trips and deliberate taking off of units due to demand, a not uncommon event at power stations with comparatively small capacity units (Hazelwood was similar).


Data is sourced from AREMI by expanding the trend to 3m for each coal fired unit in Vic, NSW and Qld and counting the excursions to 0MW.

Yallourn 1 – 6th Dec, 11th Jan, 1st Feb.

Yallourn 2 – 2nd Dec, 21st Jan, 30th Jan, 3rd Feb, 15th Feb, 21st Feb.

Yallourn 3 – 15th Jan, twice. Yallourn 4 – 14th Dec.

Loy Yang A1 – 24th Dec, 9th Jan. Loy Yang A2 – 12th Jan, 3rd Feb, 15th Feb.

Loy Yang A3 – 14th Dec. Loy Yang A4 – 26th Dec, 20th Jan.

Loy Yang B1 – 18th Jan. Loy Yang B2 – No trip but a sudden drop to 100MW on 9th Dec.

Mount Piper 1 – No trips. Mount Piper 2 – 13th Dec.

Vales Point B1 – No trips. Vales Point B2 – 3rd Feb.

Eraring 1 – 18th Dec, 31st Dec, 30th Jan.

Eraring 2 – 19th Feb. Eraring 3 – 23rd Feb. Eraring 4 – No trips.

Liddell 1 – 30th Jan. Liddell 2 – 1st Feb, 18th Feb. Liddell 3 – 28th Dec. Liddell 4 – 2nd Feb.

Bayswater 1 – 17th Feb. Bayswater 2 & 3 – No trips. Bayswater 4 – 8th Feb.

Millerman 1 – 3rd Dec. Millerman 2 – 13th Dec, 1st Jan, 9th Jan, 19th Feb.

Kogan Ck – 23rd Dec, 11th Jan.

Tarong 1, 2 & 4 – No trips. Tarong 3 – 28th Dec, 12th Jan.

Tarong Nth – No trips.

Callide B1 – 1st Dec, 23rd Feb. Callide B2 – No trips.

Callide C1 – 16th Jan. Callide C2 – 9th Feb.

Stanwell 1, 2, 3 and 4 – No trips.




Did anyone notice that there were four trips, some overlapping, during the heatwave across the 13th and 14th of December? How does that make coal ‘reliable’?
DirtyBallast
This is nothing more than a limited researched smear campaign focusing on irrelevant data.

My understanding from a Maintenance Manager who worked at Gladstone a number of years ago was that Gladstone was designed and used as a throttle for the grid.

What was the cause for the trips in hot weather, overload due to lack of supply from others?

Coal is deemed reliable not because one or two units trips here and there, but because as a collective of supply the power is there 24/7/365, hot, cold, windy or not! The "GRID" and I use that word intentionally is just that, a pool of generation capacity supplying power to the collective users with built in redundancy to overcome grid faults, generation faults and varying demand etc. Trips are known to happen and hence they have contingency. One of the contingencies if the hydro systems which can ramp up quickly as well as not operating every plant at 100%.

A Coal fired power station is hardly a simple piece of kit, you have very large high speed rotating equipment using coal as a fuel source that must be pulversised and blown into a boiler. The newer plants barely even have the traditional "drums" in the boiler and very sensitive to sudden grid variation. The compensation is that they are much more efficient. The modern plants such as Stanwell are almost completely automated such that on back shifts they operate with only two operations personal on site, another being security, total of 3 people for 1500MW.  

Now, how about being fair and show us how many faults occurred in the RE side?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The existing aging coal power stations were hardly built on 100% subsidy. Considering most of the former state owned electricity departments were revenue stream for the various govts they were hardly subsidised. Additionally most of the countries large scale industry was established during the 50's to 80's on the back bone of cheap available and reliable power. Those industries and their employee's paid many more x what those power stations cost to build in levy's, taxes and employee wages.
.
.
.
.
No one is burying anyones head in the sand, some of us are just suggesting that this blind march into RE world on the misguided belief that the power source that has built this country is now evil, unreliable and costly is prone for failure. RE technology has its place and its % of the market will grow with time, but the growth needs to be realistic, not idealistic.
Your point is well made but there is no denying that the power stations were originally built exclusively from public money. What happens after that is irrelevant; an example could also be made about the flow on effects of a burgeoning renewables sector employing an ever increasing amount of people, whether it be manufacturers or installers.

I don't think it is accurate to suggest that there is a blind march towards renewables. Yes, it is a rapidly expanding phenomenon (in Australia alone, 1.25GW of solar PV was installed last year), but no-one would be rushing out to install it without doing their homework. For large scale projects, the reason that there seems to be a groundswell towards installing it, besides meeting targets, is that there is money to be made. That's why AGL is getting out of coal and heading towards renewables, because the benefits will be greater for their shareholders. It would be remiss of them to not head down that path.
DirtyBallast
A govt investment in a power station does NOT equal a subsidy. In many cases I strongly suspect the authority responsible at the time for its construction actually borrowed money for the project using the power station as collateral and repaid from revenues.

What happens after that is irrelevant? Are you deadly serious. You build an asset with an intended lifespan of 35+ years of revenue collection from the industrial and urban growth that it supports and you call that irrelevant???

Blind March is fairly accurate when you place your your countries economic welfare at risk and go from one of the cheapest and more reliable energy markets in the industrialised world to one of the more expensive and at times unreliable.

Most domestic solar is installed on emotional, not economic grounds.

The money being made for commercial scale wind and solar is on the back of rising power prices and often hand outs from the govt. AGL is getting out of coal because they are being paid too. Doesn't mean it is in the best interest of their consumers or industry.

Remember while domestically power prices have resin only about $500 or so dollars a year in last 10 years on the back of say previous average annual power bill of $1500, $1800 in SA, domestic consumers bill is only partially affected by whole sale prices as grid costs make up the bulk of their bills. However industry is far more sensitive to changes in wholesale prices as they often buy in HV bulk, so grid costs are far smaller component % wise.

It costs about $1.10 per Watt for PV solar panels. Need about 5kW to go off the grid so $5500 plus installation which is nearly double with cabling and invertors etc.

Battery costs for a Tesla 13.5kW is about $9000 plus installation costs push it to around $25-30k total. And you still need a back up generator. (there is a solar powered website that has a calculator for every part of the country I used this to calculate, I'll look up the website again later but I calculated for Gladstone Qld, further south you need more PV and potentially larger battery)

At $2000pa power bill, it will clearly take well over 12 years to recover your money, longer with interest. By which time the battery needs replacing and you need to add another few panels to make up for degradation of the panels.

Hence people going down this path (I want to), is based on emotion, not economic. On a large scale, the economics don't improve a great deal to make it more viable than traditional.

Regards
Shane
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Evaluating electrical energy production reliability by looking just at the ‘trips’... Rolling Eyes
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
My understanding from a Maintenance Manager who worked at Gladstone a number of years ago was that Gladstone was designed and used as a throttle for the grid.

What was the cause for the trips in hot weather, overload due to lack of supply from others?
RTT_Rules
Well, I already explained why I didn't include Gladstone. What I do know about that facility however, is that it was also supposed to be the quick acting saviour when excrement hits the oscillating cooler on the grid and frequency falls to a crisis creating situation, due to coal fired trips. It failed; the Tesla battery came to the rescue in milliseconds, Hz recovered and it shut itself off before Gladstone could even respond, during this event:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumbering-coal-units-after-loy-yang-trips-70003/

Answer to the second point, yes, probably overload due to lack of supply from the others....because they are unreliable.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Evaluating electrical energy production reliability by looking just at the ‘trips’... Rolling Eyes
Aaron
Laughing

You go into the supermarket looking at 90% fat free products; I look at them as 10% fat.

I expect 100% energy production reliability. If a coal fired generating unit is up and running I expect it to stay that way until a planned outage. That is not too much to ask. It's what I pay for. Why should you or I accept mediocrity?
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Listen guys, how about we break down the entire debate down to its basics. Forget about whether climate change is real or not, and if it is, forget about whether carbon emissions are a factor or not.

Can those defending coal please tell me why unnecessary pollution is both good and preferable?
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
"Renewables" aren't something that you just set up and they continue to deliver free power forever - as was pointed out to you by Allan the life-span of solar panels varies enormously (and yet you've got the temerity to call me ignorant). From what I've heard (and as per Aaron's post on the last page) you are very likely to suffer an inverter failure after 5 years anyway and that's big $$$ to fix.

People who have drunk the greenwash Kool-Aid always think that that we can have an entirely closed loop that doesn't create an ounce of carbon and needs no maintenance or money to keep it going. Its completely false, it just won't work. We'll have to rely on others (ie keep purchasing overseas) to supply us with the materials to keep our 'green' systems going forever, almost none of this stuff is even produced here.

And as I've pointed out time and time again - it's the poor who have been forced to pay for this folly so that the wealthy can enjoy the benefits of feeding unreliable electricity into the grid at times when its not needed. And then they have the front to tell the people stuck on the grid paying the odd-$5 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to feed this green fantasy that they're building some kind of wonderful carbon-free future for all of us. Rubbish - they're de-industrialising our nation so there'll be no jobs, no energy, no electricity. Falling wages, falling living standards. It's all necessary so that you can save the planet.

It's a lie, it's a con.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud


Where is the benefit to the average Aussie apart from some nebulous unbelievable clap-trap about anthropomorphic climate change?
That's your credibibility down the sewer.
allan
Where are the empty dams? Shouldn't we have already had 1m+ of sea rises by now?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
My understanding from a Maintenance Manager who worked at Gladstone a number of years ago was that Gladstone was designed and used as a throttle for the grid.

What was the cause for the trips in hot weather, overload due to lack of supply from others?
Well, I already explained why I didn't include Gladstone. What I do know about that facility however, is that it was also supposed to be the quick acting saviour when excrement hits the oscillating cooler on the grid and frequency falls to a crisis creating situation, due to coal fired trips. It failed; the Tesla battery came to the rescue in milliseconds, Hz recovered and it shut itself off before Gladstone could even respond, during this event:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumbering-coal-units-after-loy-yang-trips-70003/

Answer to the second point, yes, probably overload due to lack of supply from the others....because they are unreliable.
DirtyBallast
No argument from me that an electric circuit such as a battery can respond infinitely faster than anything mechanical. However we have survived without a battery for 50+ years, so I don't see it as super critical reason to have one.

Answer to your 2nd question, yes unreliable supply from RE was likely a major factor to grid overloading as the aging coal generated sources are required to work harder making up for short falls in their output. In the past when approaching hot weather extra turbine capacity was brought on line to deal with peaks and breakdowns.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Evaluating electrical energy production reliability by looking just at the ‘trips’... Rolling Eyes
Laughing

You go into the supermarket looking at 90% fat free products; I look at them as 10% fat.

I expect 100% energy production reliability. If a coal fired generating unit is up and running I expect it to stay that way until a planned outage. That is not too much to ask. It's what I pay for. Why should you or I accept mediocrity?
DirtyBallast
What a BS argument. No single generator source is 100% reliable and if you use that mentality towards your argument you would shut down all wind and solar tomorrow because when you want to buy, they have a 1/3 chance of supply, solar even less so. ie hopefully it windy when the footy GF is on so we can watch on TV!

If I was to analyze your data you posted previously I'm pretty sure it would likely show that every individual coal fired turbine has a reliability of +99%.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Listen guys, how about we break down the entire debate down to its basics. Forget about whether climate change is real or not, and if it is, forget about whether carbon emissions are a factor or not.

Can those defending coal please tell me why unnecessary pollution is both good and preferable?
DirtyBallast
I work for one of the most carbon intensive industries in the world and one for which is this currently no alternative, do I like that we emit so much CO2e, no, but if we don't the Chinese will! But I know we emit some of lowest in the industry so I see no need in turning a blind eye to off-shoring this industry to India or China where they will only make the same material with less care for the Env or their people.

Back to Australia's power generation.

Do I wish we could move to zero CO2e emissions? yes!
Do I wish we could do it at any cost? No!
Do I think if we did it at any cost it would save the planet?, No. 7B people living in the 21st century cannot survive with medieval era CO2e emissions. Power is only part of the problem, material manufacture and food production is far worse.

Practicality is the issue for Australia.

Pretty much the bulk of the base load is managed by coal in Qld, NSW and Vic, around 17,000MW for which the number of generating units is around 15-20. Today, right now there is no alternative. Forget all the BS you read, there is nothing unless you want to pay $500 or more a month in power.

Now for the daily cycle from 17,000 MW to 23,000MW we currently use/need literally thousands of wind turbines, 100,000's of homes, dozens of Gas Turbines, pumped hydro, and thousands of km of HV power lines etc etc and for this whole sale power prices have gone up 2-3 times compared to 10-15 years ago (I'm ignoring around 2010 when prices were unsustainably low) and we are still dealing with the practicality to simply keep the lights on without asking people to shutdown on hot days.

Can we improve the emissions on that 17,000MW of coal fired energy and still have reliable coal fired energy, yes very much so. But no one wants to try. However other countries seem to get on with it building modern coal fired power stations, China, Japan, Indo, Turkey, UAE, Vietnam, India.......(not all are clean, especially India).

When Liddel closes in 2022, the power station is rated at 2000MW, but likely only 1000MW will be lost, I think the grid will manage without it fine as by then there will be more wind and PV and currently there is still a nightly turn down of coal output of 1000-2000MW, but beyond that, I'm loosing confidence life will continue as normal. The growth of EV's adds another spanner in the works. A typical commuter EV uses 2x the daily electricity than the average home, most of which will be recharged at night and is expected to add 20-35% to the current nightly off peak load. With declining base load from coal fired closures where will it come from?

Something else to consider, a CCGT power station runs at around 52-55% efficiency (more modern pushing 60%). Closed Circuit Gas Turbine (CCGT) reuses the waste heat from the Gas Turbine which is nominally around 30-35% efficient. However the use of wind energy requires normally requires Open Cycle GT as back up, or diesel etc as CCGT is too complex to couple with wind generally. So do we actually release less CO2?

At the end of the day until the storage of generation of 23000MW for night time baseload can be dealt with both practicaly and economically, coal isn't going anywhere. Japan went Nuclear to limit its coal. Its now going back to coal to limit its nuclear. Australia will likely follow. Hence anyone who thinks coal is truely dead needs to look further afield that some of the BS spun through Australian media.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE


Where is the benefit to the average Aussie apart from some nebulous unbelievable clap-trap about anthropomorphic climate change?
That's your credibibility down the sewer.Where are the empty dams? Shouldn't we have already had 1m+ of sea rises by now?
don_dunstan
They lost me when a boat full of Aussie Journo's was taken over some water at Kiribati and they pointed to their old church 6m under the water. My parents live on the water in NSW. Less than 0.5m above the king tides as per the design standards of 1979 required to raise their land too before building. Still no flooding. Kiribati has done nothing to protect itself from rising sea levels and they unlikely ever will. Surely for such a small country they could ask for assistance from the likes of Australia to dredge up silt from the various lagoons to raise land. Nope, like much of the developed world they use climate change global conventions to ask for money and citizenship. Any solution that actually resolves their problems is counter productive to their end goals.

DO I think see levels will rise, yes. But the amount is disputable and often emotional and I believe grossly over stated but have also gone up and down in modern history as well due to events outside human influence. Many of the Pacific islands are playing on rising sea levels as their argument to be given citizenship in Australia and New Zealand.

Anyone who bothers to read the history of settlement in Greenland will find the dramatic changes in Greenland's climate over the last 1000 years. I believe in the 15th century or there abouts, the climate cooled so much over 100 years that many of the Viking settlers died out or left, most of the skeleton's from that era have been found to suffer from malnutrition. I think they called it the mini ice age. In the 1930's there were predictions of an approaching ice age due to the cooling in the northern hemisphere and loss of crops from marginal far northern latitudes. My dad says black and white that in the 50's at school, his teachers taught the world was likely headed for an ice age.
  allan Chief Commissioner



Where is the benefit to the average Aussie apart from some nebulous unbelievable clap-trap about anthropomorphic climate change?
That's your credibibility down the sewer.Where are the empty dams? Shouldn't we have already had 1m+ of sea rises by now?
don_dunstan
The empty dams are on California, Spain, Cyprus (where drinking water has come by ship in the recent past...), South Africa, The Sahel (Where there are not a lot of dams, nor water to put in them), and, a little closer to home, South-West Australia. You can look up the current rate of sea-level rise, and the predictions.

I didn't call you ignorant - lacking credibility is quite different, and implies that you choose to ignore the obvious.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
I didn't call you ignorant - lacking credibility is quite different, and implies that you choose to ignore the obvious.
allan
Yeah okay sorry - so I'm not credible - then neither are the 'rock solid' theories of anthropomorphic climate change.

As Shane (above) says global weather patterns change all the time - it's constant. Ice ages, mini-ice ages. The Thames and the Seine used to freeze over almost every winter in the "mini ice age" between the 17th and 19th centuries - they don't do that any longer. Volcanic activity has a much larger impact on longer term climate conditions than previously suspected - Krakatoa in 1883 created very cold conditions in much of the globe for 18 months afterwards and there's evidence of other large eruptions causing 'climate change'.

Cape Town running out of water probably has more to do with the incompetence of the South African government than the drought; the southern part of Africa has very variable and unpredictable wet weather patterns like we do. They just need to building the world's biggest desal plant like Melbourne did... problem solved.

Anyway, too many variables, lack of long term data. Also I suspect that green-wash proponents research and include data that supports their case and purposely ignore the (probably) 90% of data that says the earth is not really doing anything out of norm.
  allan Chief Commissioner

As an example of the work done by a crowd that are neither radical greenies nor lacking in credibility - and written in remarkably plain (American) English.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
As an example of the work done by a crowd that are neither radical greenies nor lacking in credibility - and written in remarkably plain (American) English.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
allan
'Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century'.

Do I read this correctly?:

Last 100 years + 8 inches
Last 20 years + 16 inches

= last 100 + years + 24 inches = 2 feet = 610 mm

If so. Where?
  allan Chief Commissioner

As an example of the work done by a crowd that are neither radical greenies nor lacking in credibility - and written in remarkably plain (American) English.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
'Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century'.

Do I read this correctly?:

Last 100 years + 8 inches
Last 20 years + 16 inches

= last 100 + years + 24 inches = 2 feet = 610 mm

If so. Where?
YM-Mundrabilla
No, you didn't read it correctly.

Rise over the last century = 8" (200mm), so a rate of 2mm/year.

Rate of rise over the last twenty years is nearly double 2mm/year, so less than 4mm/year, so less than 80mm (3" approx) over twenty years.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
As an example of the work done by a crowd that are neither radical greenies nor lacking in credibility - and written in remarkably plain (American) English.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
'Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century'.

Do I read this correctly?:

Last 100 years + 8 inches
Last 20 years + 16 inches

= last 100 + years + 24 inches = 2 feet = 610 mm

If so. Where?
No, you didn't read it correctly.

Rise over the last century = 8" (200mm), so a rate of 2mm/year.

Rate of rise over the last twenty years is nearly double 2mm/year, so less than 4mm/year, so less than 80mm (3" approx) over twenty years.
allan
Thanks Allan.
At an altitude of around 60 metres I didn't need to worry after all. Smile
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
"Renewables" aren't something that you just set up and they continue to deliver free power forever - as was pointed out to you by Allan the life-span of solar panels varies enormously (and yet you've got the temerity to call me ignorant). From what I've heard (and as per Aaron's post on the last page) you are very likely to suffer an inverter failure after 5 years anyway and that's big $$$ to fix.
don_dunstan
Mine is 6yo and hasn't missed a beat.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.