So what's going to replace coal?

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted 2 years ago

  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Nobody can answer my fundamental question: The people left behind on the grid who can't afford to buy their own mini-power plants are the ones being expected to pay for this. Why? Why are the poorest members of society who can't escape the grid - why are those people expected to suffer with $1,000 winter electricity bills simply because of a rush to a method of generating electricity that doesn't necessarily solve the imaginary problem anyway.

I know that this isn't the sole reason why we have almost the highest electricity rates in the world - but given that the working class are suffering a huge drop in living standards and loss of traditional good jobs to off-shore I think expecting them to foot the bill simply because they're captive to the grid is yet another kick in guts.
don_dunstan
Here's one reason Don   https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/02/lng-imports-wont-fix-jack/

Sponsored advertisement

  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Nobody can answer my fundamental question: The people left behind on the grid who can't afford to buy their own mini-power plants are the ones being expected to pay for this. Why? Why are the poorest members of society who can't escape the grid - why are those people expected to suffer with $1,000 winter electricity bills simply because of a rush to a method of generating electricity that doesn't necessarily solve the imaginary problem anyway.

I know that this isn't the sole reason why we have almost the highest electricity rates in the world - but given that the working class are suffering a huge drop in living standards and loss of traditional good jobs to off-shore I think expecting them to foot the bill simply because they're captive to the grid is yet another kick in guts.
Here's one reason Don   https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/02/lng-imports-wont-fix-jack/
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
I must have a stutter
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Still struggle getting my head around the fact we can export ship loads of the black stuff overseas to be burnt, yet reluctant to burn it here.
However, had Abbott not been elected in 2013 on the platform of axe the tax remember the $550 pa that Aussie housewives had to spend which has surely been absorbed by subsequent price rises. We would have had an ETS years ago, and the market would have determined the course of power generation. Any studies into that scenario?
History will show Australia to be hypocritical to its own economic demise.

We have the bulk of the world's Uranium, we mine it, we sell it, but neither process it, use it or allow its disposal. Thus pi$$ing against the wall a highly technical job wise and profitable industry and NIMBY'ism to its waste.

We have the bulk of the world's cleanest thermal coal, we mine it, we sell it, but are afraid to use it to supply energy intensive industries that are both highly technical job wise and very profitable.

We have a large chunk of the world's cleanest gas, but again sell it off shore to be used by others and deny ourselves energy and industry that would both be technical and profitable.

Meanwhile our unemployed and underemployed cannot afford to turn their lights on because we are forcing RE technology to do what its not good at doing.
RTT_Rules
We also have a large percentage of the worlds stones, but we moved on from the stone age.


Your quite welcome to build a nuclear power station, 8 or 10 Billion dollars and 8 to 10 years to build,all the best. Premier Weatherill in S A is aiming for 75% renewables by 2025, the're consistently at 30 odd %, and on a couple of occasions managed to hit 50%. Due to all things lining up.So if SA gets near that 75% target in seven years, and your nuclear power station is still several years away, wweelll like coal nobody is prepared to invest in either.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Plus Michaelgm, it's a thirty to forty year transition to renewables,not over night like a number of people seem to think.
Which is what many of us are trying to say and not actually against RE, just blind stupidity on what a solar panel and wind turbine can actually achieve..
RTT_Rules
There's a contradiction in there somewhere.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
You can sorta go by the amount of investment in renewables annually.  The graph in this gives a bit of an idea what's going on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/renewable-energy-investment-hits-new-high/9339482


You can see where Abbott started to get the ascendancy as Labor imploded,then fell off a cliff when the LNP won the election.But with the stupidity of the Coalition, the gas gouge has wiped out by 10 fold or more the actual rather small impost of the carbon price. So now the gas gouge and price gouging  is actually doing what the carbon price was meant to achieve. The problem is, instead of the government raking in money from the carbon price,and distributing it in compensation and research /development, the present mob are spending a few billion annually to pay polluters to stop.Something like that anyway.

 If the carbon price had been allowed to transition to a carbon trading scheme like it was originally intended we' be a lot further down the track. But the free marketers in the LNP decided that wasn't a free market they wanted. Not enough big donors.
The problem with the carbon tax was that it was a social equalisation tax which left little in the right hands for investment and R&D. It rarely taxed polluting industry's or factorys to enable others to thrive, rather most simply left the country if they could or just passed on the extra cost with no reduction in CO2 or expected future reduction in CO2. This is why the Carbon trading scheme in the EU has mostly fallen over.
RTT_Rules
Aaahh,  so a 2 volume 800 page document(previous Labor Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) can be dismissed in a single paragraph. Especially since the legislation was given the boot,total emissions have risen every year since.And to claim it was a "social equalisation tax" is a load of, well your just making things up.


Reminds me, the Finkel review was a 200 page document,meanwhile the latest brainfart from the Turnbull  rabble, ( I refuse to call them a government) the NEG, is a 12 page glossy and a press statement. Not a policy and definitely not a policy wonk amongst the visionless cretins.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
Aaahh,  so a 2 volume 800 page document(previous Labor Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) can be dismissed in a single paragraph. Especially since the legislation was given the boot,total emissions have risen every year since.And to claim it was a "social equalisation tax" is a load of, well your just making things up.

wobert
A 2 volume 800 page document did wonders for reducing carbon... thinking paper mill, etc

For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
  allan Chief Commissioner

For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
Donald
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Nobody can answer my fundamental question: The people left behind on the grid who can't afford to buy their own mini-power plants are the ones being expected to pay for this. Why? Why are the poorest members of society who can't escape the grid - why are those people expected to suffer with $1,000 winter electricity bills simply because of a rush to a method of generating electricity that doesn't necessarily solve the imaginary problem anyway.

I know that this isn't the sole reason why we have almost the highest electricity rates in the world - but given that the working class are suffering a huge drop in living standards and loss of traditional good jobs to off-shore I think expecting them to foot the bill simply because they're captive to the grid is yet another kick in guts.
Here's one reason Don   https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/02/lng-imports-wont-fix-jack/
wobert
Re-importing the LNG we sold to the Japanese for next to nothing? This entire situation is absurd. Can you imagine someone like Menzies allowing the gas cartel to run rings around Australians as our own government is doing now? Menzies would have bombed the terminals rather than allow this situation to develop.

Not our politicians, they're telling us that it's too bad we're paying over-odds for our own resources while North Asia gets it for nothing.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
allan
It's been much higher in the history of the planet - 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, some 17 times higher than present levels. Someone should go back in time and put a carbon tax on those polluting trilobites.
  allan Chief Commissioner

For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
It's been much higher in the history of the planet - 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, some 17 times higher than present levels. Someone should go back in time and put a carbon tax on those polluting trilobites.
don_dunstan
Evidence?
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
It's been much higher in the history of the planet - 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, some 17 times higher than present levels. Someone should go back in time and put a carbon tax on those polluting trilobites.
Evidence?
allan
Just something that I already knew but if you Google it you'll find I'm right.

Planetary carbon dioxide has varied according to what's going on. We're possibly responsible for it going from 280 ppm (in the 17th century) to 407 ppm (in 2017) but in the historical context of our planet this is bugger all.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Aaahh,  so a 2 volume 800 page document(previous Labor Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) can be dismissed in a single paragraph. Especially since the legislation was given the boot,total emissions have risen every year since.And to claim it was a "social equalisation tax" is a load of, well your just making things up.
A 2 volume 800 page document did wonders for reducing carbon... thinking paper mill, etc

For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
Donald
So is beer, but apparently to much beer is bad for ones health. I've never had to much beer, been close on a number of occasions.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
It's been much higher in the history of the planet - 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, some 17 times higher than present levels. Someone should go back in time and put a carbon tax on those polluting trilobites.
Evidence?
Just something that I already knew but if you Google it you'll find I'm right.

Planetary carbon dioxide has varied according to what's going on. We're possibly responsible for it going from 280 ppm (in the 17th century) to 407 ppm (in 2017) but in the historical context of our planet this is bugger all.
don_dunstan
Don,
The increase in the concentration of CO2 over this time is not entirely due to man's influence.   There is a large ball of gas about 150 million km away that has more effect on this planet than man will ever have in relation to gas concentrations, sea levels, cyclones or any other weather patterns that the alarmists keep trying to blame me for.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
You can sorta go by the amount of investment in renewables annually.  The graph in this gives a bit of an idea what's going on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/renewable-energy-investment-hits-new-high/9339482


You can see where Abbott started to get the ascendancy as Labor imploded,then fell off a cliff when the LNP won the election.But with the stupidity of the Coalition, the gas gouge has wiped out by 10 fold or more the actual rather small impost of the carbon price. So now the gas gouge and price gouging  is actually doing what the carbon price was meant to achieve. The problem is, instead of the government raking in money from the carbon price,and distributing it in compensation and research /development, the present mob are spending a few billion annually to pay polluters to stop.Something like that anyway.

 If the carbon price had been allowed to transition to a carbon trading scheme like it was originally intended we' be a lot further down the track. But the free marketers in the LNP decided that wasn't a free market they wanted. Not enough big donors.
The problem with the carbon tax was that it was a social equalisation tax which left little in the right hands for investment and R&D. It rarely taxed polluting industry's or factorys to enable others to thrive, rather most simply left the country if they could or just passed on the extra cost with no reduction in CO2 or expected future reduction in CO2. This is why the Carbon trading scheme in the EU has mostly fallen over.
Aaahh,  so a 2 volume 800 page document(previous Labor Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) can be dismissed in a single paragraph. Especially since the legislation was given the boot,total emissions have risen every year since.And to claim it was a "social equalisation tax" is a load of, well your just making things up.


Reminds me, the Finkel review was a 200 page document,meanwhile the latest brainfart from the Turnbull  rabble, ( I refuse to call them a government) the NEG, is a 12 page glossy and a press statement. Not a policy and definitely not a policy wonk amongst the visionless cretins.
wobert
CO2 emission rose in Australia in a consistent trend with only a short dip during the near recession from GFC. We are increasing our population by roughly 2% pa, so we need a 2%pa reduction just to break even with population growth.

It was a failure that achieved zip and targeted the wealthy and compensated the poor. It encouraged movement from rail to truck and PT to car.

But Gillard's biggest reason it was removed was because she told the population No CO2 Tax, then introduced without reasonable debate and let the loonies take over and with it ended her political career.

Helen Clarke applied this to NZ and during her term in govt NZ CO2 emissions continued to rise despite much flatter population growth and closure of industry.

CO2 reduction can be practically managed without targeting  parts of the economy that have no options and is nothing more than a social welfare scheme. For example, throw money at the interstate rail and PT, where a significant portion of a our CO2 emissions comes from.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
It's been much higher in the history of the planet - 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, some 17 times higher than present levels. Someone should go back in time and put a carbon tax on those polluting trilobites.
Evidence?
Just something that I already knew but if you Google it you'll find I'm right.

Planetary carbon dioxide has varied according to what's going on. We're possibly responsible for it going from 280 ppm (in the 17th century) to 407 ppm (in 2017) but in the historical context of our planet this is bugger all.
don_dunstan
I read somewhere there is a good correlation with the total coal, oil and gas ever mined and burnt with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

The issue is that while some claim we are "de-carbonising" our economy, its actually BS. We are exporting Carbon and importing its product or simply buying someone elses burnt carbon converted product.

YEs we can remove some coal burning power stations and push some cars off the road, however I just don't believe 7B people and climbing living in a modern lifestyle can live in a carbon neutral world.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Just something that I already knew but if you Google it you'll find I'm right.

Planetary carbon dioxide has varied according to what's going on. We're possibly responsible for it going from 280 ppm (in the 17th century) to 407 ppm (in 2017) but in the historical context of our planet this is bugger all.
Don,
The increase in the concentration of CO2 over this time is not entirely due to man's influence.   There is a large ball of gas about 150 million km away that has more effect on this planet than man will ever have in relation to gas concentrations, sea levels, cyclones or any other weather patterns that the alarmists keep trying to blame me for.
Donald
Well it is kind of why we are here and why one day we won't be, which by all accounts is in around 5B or so years, so the clock is ticking.

However a few meteorite strikes also had a very decisive outcome of the global biomass and one very large one called Theia has a particular large influence on why we are here.
  allan Chief Commissioner

For the last time - carbon dioxide (to give its proper name) is NOT pollution.   It is an essential ingredient for life on this planet.
I'm pleased its the last time... because an unnatural hyperabundance is clearly pollution.
It's been much higher in the history of the planet - 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, some 17 times higher than present levels. Someone should go back in time and put a carbon tax on those polluting trilobites.
Evidence?
Just something that I already knew but if you Google it you'll find I'm right.

Planetary carbon dioxide has varied according to what's going on. We're possibly responsible for it going from 280 ppm (in the 17th century) to 407 ppm (in 2017) but in the historical context of our planet this is bugger all.
don_dunstan
Yes, 16x or thereabouts, but in a world somewhat different from ours - there was precious little life on dry land, and the land was dry. There was no surplus of oxygen, either. Not a world that I'd choose to live in.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Now now RTT use the whole Gillard quote  something along the lines of  there will be no carbon tax but i am determined to put  a price on carbon. Bolt, Abbott and the Murdock crew went to town on this and got away with it. Credlin even admitted later that the Carbon Reduction Scheme wasn't a tax, but that's how they portrayed it for political reasons. Absolutely disgraceful.

Have a gander at this:https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140717-ztuf6.html


And this :https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/australias-transport-emissions-in-past-year-the-highest-on-record
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Well I think I'll go down and test that beer theory, the SSR blokes are here loading today and they tend to be a bit partial.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Still struggle getting my head around the fact we can export ship loads of the black stuff overseas to be burnt, yet reluctant to burn it here.
However, had Abbott not been elected in 2013 on the platform of axe the tax remember the $550 pa that Aussie housewives had to spend which has surely been absorbed by subsequent price rises. We would have had an ETS years ago, and the market would have determined the course of power generation. Any studies into that scenario?
History will show Australia to be hypocritical to its own economic demise.

We have the bulk of the world's Uranium, we mine it, we sell it, but neither process it, use it or allow its disposal. Thus pi$$ing against the wall a highly technical job wise and profitable industry and NIMBY'ism to its waste.

We have the bulk of the world's cleanest thermal coal, we mine it, we sell it, but are afraid to use it to supply energy intensive industries that are both highly technical job wise and very profitable.

We have a large chunk of the world's cleanest gas, but again sell it off shore to be used by others and deny ourselves energy and industry that would both be technical and profitable.

Meanwhile our unemployed and underemployed cannot afford to turn their lights on because we are forcing RE technology to do what its not good at doing.
I'm sure that it will come as no surprise that I am somewhat more optimistic than you! Despite the best efforts of our Federal "Government" to sink the country it remains a pretty good place to be.

I understand the sentiment that stops us from using uranium. While I disagree with that sentiment, I still think that the biggest impediment to its use is economic. As for processing, and permanent disposal of the waste, I do not understand why not.

The ownership of Australia's natural gas is philosophical: as it stands, he who finds the gas (or other natural resources) effectively owns it, and has the sole right to dispose of it. My philosophy says that's wrong. Though if Uranium can be an exception...

The third world has effectively been given dispensation to burn coal so that their economies can get a start. In years to come the third world will realise that that is a mistake, as it is the third world that will bear the worst effects of an already overheated planet.

(There has to be a better term than "third world" - perhaps "developing world" might be better. I'm just showing my age.)

As for RE, the electricity suppliers are clearly confident that with research into RE still in its early days, yet still able to replace more conventional generation, they have no need to build new powerhouses, because by the time the ones that they own are worn out (in some cases 20-30 years) RE will have grown up.
allan
"Developing Economies" is the more modern political correct term for "3rd world"
"Emerging Economies" is the correct term for countries like the UAE which are almost there.

The Australian Economy is doing ok to good, you won't get an argument from me on that and MT either deliberately or inadvertently seems to be doing an ok in the economy side of things. I bailed out from another thread on this because I see Don's view of the world from his desk in suburban Adelaide somewhat morbid. However Don is correct in somethings and that is we are being de-industrialised and with it economic diversity and job diversity. We have a growing workforce that are struggling to find alt work because their skills are completely useless in the more modern digital world. I'm not just talking guys who work mining machines or work on furnaces, I'm talking engineering, science and Management roles as well.

Australia has every major ingredient to be a major player in the aluminium sector from mine to final alloy, but will be lucky to be even exporting the mineral in the next 30 years because of a twisted ideology. This to me is economic stupidity!   Canada makes much more Aluminium than Australia and yet they don't even refine alumina. We should be pumping out at least 5mt a year of the metal. We are even cheaper than China!

Nuclear, 8-10 years development time is only that long if you want it to be, I've heard Dr Karl quote 15 years. Construction time for a 4 turbine plant in a hot climate in middle of no where is 6 years for turbine 1, then 18mths for each after. For coal is 3-4 years for the first turbine. Only politics slows it down. The engineering is well known.

On price of nuclear power, it used to be consider more expensive as base load than coal, but with operating costs around US$60-80/MW in most countries, this aligns with Australia's whole prices of 2017 and cheaper than 2018. Currently nuclear is the only non-CO2 emitting energy source that can replace coal in baseload and potentially 10GW of generation capacity should have started 10 years ago, coming on line recently and continued to do so over the next 10 years if we were serious about phasing out coal. A full lifecycle industry could have been built around it and also sold and exported fuel and waste processing.

In Australia, the mineral is owned by the state which issues a license to extract and sell it paying a royalty fee to the state in return. This enables the state to avoid getting into state owned mining/mineral extraction business which reknown for being a fat/inefficient Pubic Service monopoly often operating mines and other processes well beyond their economic life for political reasons. In general I don't have an issue with this, however royalty issue has a few flaws that need changing.
1) The Royalty should be set at the nominal market price, not the in-house sale price to avoid off-shoring profits.    
2) Royalties should discounted if further processing is undertaken in Australia. The discount would be based on the degree of processing
3) Royalities should be prevented being used as consulted revenue, rather channeled into a Sovereign wealth funds, 50:50 with state of source and rest with Fed. Only 50% of the profits are then allowed to be used for consulted revenue expect in time of war or "state of emergency".

RE is still in very early days as for example the industry, hence why subsidies are so high has yet to effectively manage 24/7 supply without relying on fossil/nuclear or hydro. While pumped Hydro maybe seen to solve the 24/7 issue of RE, its also traditionally one of the most environmentally controversial and the likely hood a huge collection of pumped storage dams appearing across the country side is remote. The technology still needs access to some water, usually significant rainfall catchment to off-set evaporation and seepage.

I have numerous magazines of RE technology on my desk at home as I have a long interest in its success so I'm not blind to whats going on. I'm also heavily involved on the large scale consumption/generation side and hence understand many of the true costs of power generation and not whats thrown about in the media, often wrong or overstated. We can tax the emissions from a coal power station all you want, but it just comes out of our pocket and will not resolve the limitations of the industry still in its infancy.

RE is more successful in some locations than others because of numerous reasons. Tas with its large scale hydro network could easily take on more wind, however each wind farm constructed and proposed was protested against by environmental groups and if the dams were to be built today, the same would happen again and most would not be built. The only reason they are burning natural gas to make power is because of blocking the Franklin Dam by Environmental groups in the early 80's.

Re is fine, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
The issue is that while some claim we are "de-carbonising" our economy, its actually BS. We are exporting Carbon and importing its product or simply buying someone elses burnt carbon converted product.
RTT_Rules
I don't understand why total de-industrialisation had to go hand-in-hand with it either, probably because once you have no industry you emit less carbon baddies... but then we're pushing coal off-shore at record levels to be burnt ON THE SAME PLANET so none of it makes a lick of sense; all we're doing is off-shoring jobs and cheap electricity while punishing ourselves with unreliable, expensive renewables.

Bluescope recently decided to continue moving manufacturing to the United States because gas is 3 X more expensive here - again, poor planning/government policy. When do the high tech STEM jobs cut in saving the economy because 2017 saw aggregate Australian wages fall behind inflation... if the rush to carbon-neutral is creating jobs then I'm stuffed if I know where they are.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
it is apparent now why we find each other to be not on the same page.

I keep banging on about the proven unreliability of generation hardware which is prone to frequent breakages, and you keep banging on about blackouts which are caused by downstream issues that have nothing to do with the source of supply.

No hard feelings.
Well I've been trying for sometime now to explain the error in your thinking but you won't pay attention. Smile

Who said I was pointing to down stream issues? (again your error)
RTT_Rules
Well, you did, when you said "Large scale blackouts typically linked to political, industrial (union) and weather based events."

The thrust of my many posts recently revolves around the fact that base load coal fired generation is nowhere near as reliable as what some people, obviously stooged by the rhetoric spewed out by conservatives, believe. Obviously, one or two or three of these generating units tripping out on the same day will not result in widespread blackouts, but it destabilises the grid no end. issues in the distribution network including localised overloads are a different kettle of fish.

Thus, widespread blackouts are a downstream event. Speaking of rhetoric, please provide a link to confirm that industrial action has resulted in widespread blackouts recently.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
DirtyBallast, your solar inverter might be ‘six years old and never missed a beat’ (news flash, it likely has missed a beat and you’ve just not noticed it) but ‘missing a beat’ isn’t the general failure mode of your inverter.

The failure mode will look like this: likely a hot day, a bit of demand from your house, a bit of supply from your PV array, a slight waft of cloud, a drop in voltage, a necessary increase in current demand. The output FETs of your inverter will call ‘last drinks’ and that will be the last she’ll chooch.

Your inverter won’t fail gracefully, giving you some subtle warning sign (that you wouldn’t even notice even if it gave you one).
Aaron
I went for quality, not quantity, with my puny 2.5kW system costing as much as what the sheeple buying a 3 - 4kw system typically paid at the time. Anecdotally, those with the same setup have also not suffered failures.

I'm full bottle on ínverters mate. At work, they are in the form of VSD's and it is not uncommon for them to fail randomly. In fact we changed out an old Danfoss 3008 the other night. Circa early 90's.

I am more than capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
it is apparent now why we find each other to be not on the same page.

I keep banging on about the proven unreliability of generation hardware which is prone to frequent breakages, and you keep banging on about blackouts which are caused by downstream issues that have nothing to do with the source of supply.

No hard feelings.
Well I've been trying for sometime now to explain the error in your thinking but you won't pay attention. Smile

Who said I was pointing to down stream issues? (again your error)
Well, you did, when you said "Large scale blackouts typically linked to political, industrial (union) and weather based events."

The thrust of my many posts recently revolves around the fact that base load coal fired generation is nowhere near as reliable as what some people, obviously stooged by the rhetoric spewed out by conservatives, believe. Obviously, one or two or three of these generating units tripping out on the same day will not result in widespread blackouts, but it destabilises the grid no end. issues in the distribution network including localised overloads are a different kettle of fish.

Thus, widespread blackouts are a downstream event. Speaking of rhetoric, please provide a link to confirm that industrial action has resulted in widespread blackouts recently.
DirtyBallast
You have taken the first paragraph out of  context. Political, Industrial and weather based events impacting on generation supply causing grid wide load reductions I'm looking back 30 years.

2nd paragraph, your attack on coal fired reliability by looking at individual turbine outages (for which you don't know the cause or reason) and then linking this with overall network reliability is way off the mark.

Coal fired generators have an inherent failure rate, everyone who knows even something about them knows this and hence why the smaller grids with coal fired power have smaller generators and more units, unlike the big ones in NSW and Qld. So back to the argument. Ignoring political, industrial (union) and weather based events, how often did we have power rationing across the  SE grid due to generation issues? Extremely rarely, why because it operates as a grid, not an individual unit and they have spare capacity. Now in the last few years, how often has the grid or parts of the grid  needed to be deloaded due to generation limitations and this includes customers powering down?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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