# Energy



## Happy (7 April 2006)

I wanted to write renewable energy, but theoretically speaking all energy is non-renewable.

Eventually our trusted Sun will expand, gobble up the Earth whole solar system, maybe more then it will become Dwarf and I don’t remember what will happen next (I am not much into the subject, just brush stroke info), but our old trusted 'renewable energy' source will be gone.

I heard that there is research on bacteria converting organic matter to oil, but scale is the problem. But this non-renewable energy can be produced as we speak.

So we have bit of a problem, but if we use common interpretation of the matter barriers are clear.

As pointed out we should look at smarter energy usage, rather then blindly follow new solar panel ‘free’ electricity fad.

I wasn’t aware that to produce photovoltaic we use lots of fossil energy, my concern rather was in life expectancy and ‘unexpected’ events like lightning strike, 300k+ wind or cricket-ball-size hail.

I was also impressed with the idea of individual tiles on the roof and bricks in the wall producing electricity. I am not sure how far this fantasy got realised.

But I have to say that campaign to put one more blanket on and jumper in preference to turning up the heater appealed to me too.
Current house designs take into account sun existence and insulation of roof cavity and some wall cavity insulation makes a lot of sense.
We are still to widely adopt double or follow Sweden with triple glazed windows and sliding doors.
As it is now, single glazed windows are the biggest ‘window’ to heat gain-loss.

I love the subject.
And there are many hints to save energy.
Smurf I get the impression that you are the master of this subject.

One hint I liked was to place empty plastic bottle in free space in the fridge. 
And smart part of it is that when you open the door, less cold air falls out of the fridge, and poor fridge doesn’t have to work as hard and it costs us less too.


----------



## Happy (10 April 2006)

Another smart hint is to grow deciduous tree or shrub on northern side of the house. 

This provides shade during summer and some relief from relentless Sun and in winter, when leaves fall, allows Sun to warm up the room.


----------



## Happy (16 April 2006)

We can save energy on the road too.

Keep tyres inflated to maximum recommended pressure or touch above and check tyre pressure at least fortnightly.
Air gradually dissipates through tyre walls. With no other air loss we can estimate 1psi drop per week.
Filling up with nitrogen, $15 per tyre is not that cost efficient, just posh, but some do.

Drive at speeds 80 to 90 km an hour if possible as air resistance increases with speed.

Avoid rapid speed change acceleration or braking. 
In case of braking we can take foot of accelerator in anticipation of required speed reduction so we save on fuel here, plus when we use brakes, brake system parts wear our and tyres wear out more while braking compared to just rolling.

We can alter drag, having windows closed, but at lower speeds it is better to have windows open instead of running with AC on. 

Use of driving lights all the time increases fuel use up to 10% 
It is known that people have lights on during long trips, something to do with battery overcharging, but it is only applicable to vehicles 20 years old or more.

Do not carry around all the camping gear, golf clubs or too many things just in case you might need them one day or they are too heavy to put in and out.
Some go to extreme of filling up just  ¼ of the fuel tank, and we know what can happen if we run out of fuel, but if we keep an eye and remember to fill up in time, might contribute to saving especially if tank can hold 100 litres or more.

Plan trips ahead, hopping in a car to get newspaper and 5 minutes later to get some milk and later to get bread is pure waste of resources and doing this just because we can afford is still waste. 
If you want to get rid of some money give it to charity or buy something energy efficient.

When we buy a car we can choose white colour it doesn’t require as much cooling in summer as any other colour car.


----------



## markrmau (16 April 2006)

Nice tips - also about the white car colour, think of having light coloured upholstry as well as black gets damm hot in the sun. 



			
				Happy said:
			
		

> Filling up with nitrogen, $15 per tyre is not that cost efficient, just posh, but some do.




ROFLMAO. Ummm. Are you kidding? Air is about 70% N2 anyway. What are they trying to achieve?

Also, not driving with lights on will make practically no difference to feul consumption. A small 1.3l engine typically produces 50kW at 5000rpm. Lets say average output of 20kW. Two headlights, your probably looking at 100W (.5%)


----------



## Happy (18 April 2006)

I heard that pure nitrogen doesn’t dissipate through tyre walls at all and you can fill with nitrogen your tyres and forget, compared to constant maintenance of air filled tyres, is reason enough for some to do it.

As to how much energy is wasted running with lights on, I only heard the 10% figure, so probably somebody tried to prove something or I got the numbers wrong.

But even if it is 0.5% loss, when we multiply by 6,000,000 cars in Australia alone makes it noticeable loss.
Don’t get me wrong, I run with lights on during the day occasionally when I think it makes sense, but not always.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 April 2006)

There's a bit over 10 kWh (kilowatt hours, the correct measurement for electricity consumed but can also be applied to any energy source with simple calculations, a kWh is 3.6MJ (megajoules) for those more familiar with gas measurement units) in a litre of petrol. 

The efficiency of a petrol engine is relatively low, in the order of 15 - 20% in practice (though it's a bit higher at steady load for example a petrol engine generator). The alternator isn't totally efficient either, though it's pretty good. So realistically you'll get 1.5 - 2 kWh of electricity from a litre of petrol. 

The alternator DOES add mechanical load to the engine and make it work harder. You may not notice it (though it's noticeable in a small car if you add large electrical loads) but it's there. Much like you might not notice the cost of buying a chocolate bar every day - but it's still a cost and adds up quite a bit over time.

Headlights on low beam plus parking lights, rear lights, rego plate light and dashboard lights comes to about 155 watts for a typical 4 cyl car. The headlights (55 watts each) might be a bit higher powered in some cars but this is a reasonable "typical" figure. The other 45 watts is for all the other lights.

Realistically this is going to add about 0.1 litres per hour to petrol consumption. This figure would be lower for a diesel engine vehicle due to the considerably higher efficiency of the engine (the actual energy content of a litre of diesel is about the same as petrol).

What do I do? It depends on the situation. There's a safety argument in favour of having the headlights on even during bright sunshine on winding country roads since it makes the car a lot more visible to oncoming traffic. On undivided highways it draws attention - remember that you may be wide awake but other drivers may not or may have been drinking etc. In the rain, trucks etc rely absolutely on mirrors for rear vision. A wet mirror doesn't show a lot but they're far more likely to see your headlights than the car itself. And of course it's a must to have the lights on when driving in heavy fog. But it seems an unnecessary waste to have them on driving around town during daylight.

One tip when running the lights during the day is to turn the brightness on the dashboard lights to minimum. It will save hardly any energy but will reduce the wearing out of the bulbs. If you can't do it yourself then it costs a fortune to replace these due to the labour required.

On the subject of car batteries, be aware that UNDER charging is the most common cause of failure (though over charging will certainly destroy the battery, but it's less common in practice). Also check the acid levels if it's not a maintenance free type. Be careful though - sulphuric acid isn't good for the skin and it's a genuine emergency if it gets in your eyes. Also NO smoking, flames or other sources of ignition around the battery - they produce explosive hydrogen gas which if ignited will blow up the battery and shower you with acid. Perfectly safe to touch it with common sense though. Top up the battery with good quality water. Tap water is OK if it's good quality (let it stand a day so the chlorine evaporates) but if the tap water isn't great then buy a bottle of distilled water. For the technically minded with access to a meter, the battery should be 12.7 volts at no load when fully charged. Anything less than 12.4 and the battery will start sulphating - the usual cause of failure. Anything under 12.2 and you may find yourself with a car that doesn't start. Correct charging voltage with the engine running is 13.8 to 14.2 volts. For most motorists the upper end of that range, 14.2, will make the battery last longer but 13.8 is better for persistent long running eg taxis. The battery will last longer if you avoid unnecessary discharge - turn the headlights off BEFORE the engine, don't leave accessories on all the time when the car isn't running and so on.


----------



## Happy (26 April 2006)

In the not so distant future, when hybrid fuel-electric cars will be common, consider one that charges battery while braking, this saves energy.

Instead of wearing out brake pads converting kinetic energy to heat, we take energy back and convert to electricity, which later can be used to accelerate car.

Some busses use the system already to assist starts from the bus stop, with less pollution and noise which happens to be pollution too


----------



## hypnotic (26 April 2006)

What does everyone think about Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars? 

I think they are really the ones that will replace most cars in the future because, Hybrid cars still need to use petrol and when you look at the fuel consumption it's still substantial i think it was 4.7 Litres per 100Km which is roughly the same as an manual Echo. And the price difference between the two cars is enormous. 

I think that's why a lot of companies haven't really invested into Hybrid cars, instead they are spending more R&D on Hydrogen Fuel Cell (Mercs are researching on them i think, i read that they created one using an Merc's A class body and tested it down in Melbourne). I think they are still trying to improve the Kilometres per Tank of Hydrogen Fuel. Also the next challenge is the infrastructure to fuel them them and farming large amount hydrogen. 

From what i read i think they are growing some type of algae and harvest the hygrogen they produce.. Correct me if i am wrong. it'll be great too if anyone can post something about hydrogen fuel cells that know more than i do about it.

Just some food for thought

Hypnotic


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2006)

The problem with hydrogen is one of efficiency. 

Present commercial hydrogen production is from natural gas. However, significant energy losses occur in the process such that it would be more efficient (in energy terms) and cheaper to simply run the vehicle on natural gas.

The alternative is to produce hydrogen from electricity. Again, efficiency is the problem. About 65% of world electrcity production (and about 90% of Australia's electricity) is derived from fossil fuels - coal, gas and oil in that order of importance. The remainder is mostly from hydro and nuclear in that order. Virtually all of the non-fossil fuel electricity in Australia is from hydro, and 60% of that is in Tasmania (30% from the Snowy, rest mostly in Vic, NSW and Qld with a bit in WA).

From an efficiency perspective, there is already nearly a 70% loss of energy in fuel by the time it reaches your home as electricity. Most of that loss occurs at the power station (contrary to popular belief, transmission losses aren't really that high although they are significant). So, you only have 30% of the energy left and then you lose about 30% of the remainder (leaving 21%) converting that to hydrogen. Then you lose a bit of the hydrogen itself to leaks and other losses (leaving 20%). Then you lose at least another 40% of what remains, leaving 12%, with a fuel cell. Then you lose another 10% or so converting that electricity into mechanical power. So an overall efficiency of about 11% from fuel in the ground to power at the wheels.

This is about half the efficiency of a petrol engine so switching to hydrogen from fossil fuel electricity would simply double the quantity of fossil fuels burned. Not a worthwhile objective. Even getting hydrogen from natural gas still isn't efficient. And the efficiency of a fuel cell is even worse when compared to a hybrid petrol (or better still diesel) engine.

So it only makes sense to switch to hydrogen if we have first replaced fossil fuel electricity with something else (renewable, nuclear). It wouldn't make sense to build renewable power generation just to make hydrogen whilst still using fossil fuels for other electricity. It would make more sense to simply use the renewable electricity to reduce the use of fossil fuels for electricity rather than producing hydrogen. Hydrogen is thus a technology for _after_ we already have a predominantly non-fossil fuel power supply from which to produce it.

Whilst there's an absolutely critical need to move away from oil, efficiency wise it is better to make liquid fuels from gas or coal than to generate electricity with them and then use that power to produce hydrogen. That doesn't mean hydrogen won't happen commercially, but it's nowhere near the most efficiency use of resources. A petrol powered fuel cell would make more sense if the ultimate source of energy is going to be coal, oil or gas (which it will be for quite some time yet). There is some research in this area.

That doesn't mean that hydrogen is a dud though. If you already have a renewable source for electricity then it makes a lot of sense. And of course now is the time for research even if commercial use is still some time off. 

To this end Hydro Tasmania / UTAS (University of Tas) have a hydrogen powered Toyota Corolla up and running. It's in this year's Targa Tasmania (a 2000km road rally in Tas) which is on now. The car is entered in the touring section (not the racing section) however. Targa Tasmania ends this Sunday in Hobart. This isn't Hydro's first venture into non-oil powered transport, but it's certainly a big step up from their previous battery powered cars, hydrogen scooters and postie bikes. 

Next step is to start a small scale hydrogen vehicle roll-out, set up filling stations etc. The longer term plan is for a massive upscaling of wind power generation to feed a large hydrogen production industry. Present idea is to produce the hydrogen on-site at service stations. On a large scale this would involve a reasonably sophisticated linking of hydrogen production with wind generation output and having adequate on-site storage. The latter shouldn't be too much of a problem - service stations already store petrol rather than making it constantly and this isn't really that different.

The actual conversion of the Toyota Corolla uses the standard petrol engine and is basically a hydrogen conversion "kit" that, with some modification, could be fitted to any car just as LPG is done now. And of course the engine can still run on petrol if need be. In fact it can run on hydrogen and petrol at the same time (or can run solely on hydrogen or solely on petrol). Whilst the car also has various other non-standard systems (notably the unique traction control system) they aren't directly related to the hydrogen fuel system and aren't necessary for its operation.

From a cost and efficiency perspective, at present the advantage lies with hydrogen-powered hybrid internal combustion engines rather than fuel cells. The latter are still too expensive, too unreliable and aren't in practice more efficient than the hybrid. 

So why the conversion of a simple petrol engine rather than a hybrid? Well, the batteries in the hybrid would cause a bit of suspicion as to whether the hydrogen really works... Hydro / UTAS don't want to be accused of building fake "perpetual motion machies" etc. And of course most of the cars that would be converted in any large scale roll-out will be conventional petrol powered engines.

More info on the Hydro Tasmania / UTAS hydrogen car in Targa is here. http://www.utas.edu.au/prue/Media Releases/2006/0407hydrogen_targa_car.pdf


----------



## Happy (27 April 2006)

Coincidentally, next week ‘Beyond Tomorrow’ will have segment on hydrogen run car.


----------



## 56gsa (29 April 2006)

Has anyone looked at the Eden Energy float - to be spun out of Tasman Resources (www.tasmanresources.com.au)?
Projects include hydrogen technology incl Hythane - a mixture of hydrogen and methane - geothermal licence applications and other technologies.  Don't have technical know-how to comment on these but wondering if this will be of interest to 'green' fund managers and therefore would list above issue price (20 cents).
I think there was a float of geothermal projects earlier this year from HAV? - any idea how this went?
Cheers


----------



## 56gsa (29 April 2006)

sorry to answer my own question - but found the geothermal company - geothermal resources (GHT) listed 23 mar @ .345-.415 on first day, now .30 - issue price .25


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 April 2006)

As of today, Australia's National Electricity Market has reached its' full geographic coverage with the commissioning of the Basslink interconnector (Tasmania - Victoria power cable).

So now Qld, NSW/ACT, Vic, Tas and SA have effectively the one system for electricity generation (though there are technical limits on interstate power flows).

Under typical conditions:

Qld - Exports electricity to the other states. More at off-peak times but usually exports some during the day too. Modest imports occur from time to time.

NSW./ACT - Almost always an importer. 

Snowy Hydro - (classed separately to NSW due to it's location on the transmission system) - imports a bit at night for pumping but, since it's basically a power generation system, exports large amounts at peak demand times.

Vic - Generally exports at off-peak times, imports at peak times.

Tas - Will depend on water inflows and wind but in general imports at off-peak times and exports at peak demand times.

SA - Almost always an importer.

On a net basis over a year, based on current power stations and demand and assuming average weather:

Qld - net export
NSW - net import 
Snowy - net export
Vic - net export
Tas - net import
SA - net import

For the non-technically inclined, by definition for one state to be importing another state must be exporting. Including transmission losses, total generation and consumption across the combined states must be matched at all times since electricity is not stored. "Export" or "Import" thus means the state is producing more or less than it is consuming at a particular point in time with the balance flowing to / from the other states.

As at the time of posting:
Qld - exporting 732 MW (12% of Qld generation is being exported)
NSW - importing 597 MW ((7% of NSW demand)
Snowy - exporting 34 MW (The snowy can generate over 3700 MW at peak)
Vic - exporting 379 MW (6% of Vic generation)
Tas - importing 84 MW (7% of Tas demand)
SA - importing 404 MW (30% of SA demand)

Above figures are for illustration only and will constantly change. Figures do not add due to transmission losses.


----------



## daaussie (5 June 2006)

yai, Eden lists tomorrow at 10:30am.. lets see how it goess....


----------



## daaussie (8 June 2006)

One of the most senior awards bestowed in the giant US technology market has been won by an
Australian company which only on Tuesday this week listed on the ASX after a successful capital
raising for its hydrogen-based fuel and alternative energy initiatives.
Eden Energy Ltd (ASX code “EDE”) announced today its wholly owned US subsidiary, Hythane
Company llc, had won the 2006 CSIA Apex award for Best Use of Technology for a Global Impact.
The award, now in its sixth year and sponsored by Colorado’s Technology Association, is one of the
largest annual technology award events in the United States.
Denver-based event organisers bestowed the honour on Eden for its efforts to reduce air pollution
through the development of Hythane ®, a patented fuel blend of natural gas and hydrogen which can
reduce vehicle emissions by half over conventional gas.
Eden joined the ASX this week after raising A$8.4 million to further develop its suite of assets
including hydrogen fuel and cryogenic technologies, coal seam methane interests in the UK and
petroleum and geothermal exploration interests in South Australia.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2006)

Nothing to do with investment but a point of engineering significance and hopefully of interest to someone.

In a few days the working museum that is the Lake Margaret power station (Tas) will close. After 92 years the machinery is still in near perfect condition - 6 of the 7 alternators run perfectly whilst the other only needs about $100,000 to replace the turbine buckets. But unfortunatley it's not that simple because the pipeline which supplies the power station has come to the end of its life. Built of king billy pine (ie wood) it's starting to fail - about 10% of the total water now leaks through the pipe and it's reached the point of being dangerous to work on. Over a decade of putting sawdust in the upstream end (to block the small leaks) and driving timber wedges into a pipeline under pressure has gone as far as it can.

For those wondering as to the significance of this small (8.4 MW) power station, suffice to say that its' success ultimately inspired the Tasmanian government to embark on building the state's much larger hydro-electric schemes and in due course the other states followed, most notably with the Snowy scheme. Whilst it was by no means the first hydro-electric power station in Tasmania, it was the first reasonably large scheme and is thought to be the oldest substantial operating power station in the Southern hemisphere. The 100 year old Moorina power station in Tas is 1/14th the size of Lake Margaret but fortunately doesn't suffer from a failing woodstave pipeline.

The good news is that Hydro Tasmania is considering replacing the pipeline. Unfortunately the economics aren't favourable due to the relatively small scale and the need for 24-hour manning of the power station (practically all hydro-electric plants are unmanned apart from maintenance shutdowns). But due to the way energy policy works in this country, building a new power station would double the revenue due to being "new" and thus creating Renewable Energy Certificates (REC's). On that basis, solely due to the creation of REC's, it's viable to replace the pipeline. 

The obvious question is thus whether or not our politicians in Canberra can see some commonsense and accept that rebuilding the pipeline but keeping the existing (heritage listed) machinery running is also effectively a "new" source of renewable energy since it will otherwise sit idle. There wouldn't be much to gain from replacing the machinery apart from complying with a political process. Same water, same power and totally renewable either way. Politics...  

Regarding the photos, one was taken from the steps (more like a ladder) to the control room so only shows 6 (of 7) machines. There's another one behind where I took the photo from. The machines were running (except the covered one with the worn turbine buckets) when the photo was taken. As for scale, note the tourist on the left hand side. Noise inside is pretty loud - a bit like a washing machine on spin cycle (but with no rattles or squeaks) and about 98db (earmuffs required).

The pipeline leaks similarly along it's entire 3.2 kilometre length. You can see where it goes through the bush by the water spraying out (look near the top of the photo).


----------



## Dukey (18 August 2006)

Peoples - whats the feeling on solar, wind and wave technologies??

For my part I cant believe that in Oz - where we have abundant space and sunshine - we don't try to make more use of solar electricity.

Why dont we have huge Solar farms exporting elec. to asia??


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2006)

Dukey said:
			
		

> For my part I cant believe that in Oz - where we have abundant space and sunshine - we don't try to make more use of solar electricity.
> 
> Why dont we have huge Solar farms exporting elec. to asia??



Actually exporting electricity would be a massively difficult task in both a technical and econmic sense. There would need to be truly massive undersea cables built at huge cost and with substantial energy losses.

For example, the Basslink cable between Tasmania and Victoria (world's longest undersea electricity link) cost about $780 million to build with a continuous rating of 480 MW (600 MW peak capacity). Average system load in Tasmania is about 1250 MW  (average 1170 MW from hydro).

In practice, southbound flow on Basslink is typically limited to around 330 MW for system stability reasons (though under certain conditions it can go up to the full 480 MW) despite the Tasmanian system having an unusually large ability to cope with disturbances (a function of being a predominantly hydro-electric system and having the large electrolytic loads of Comalco and Zinifex). Basslink tripped offline twice yesterday (Friday) so stability really is an issue with these links. (The original design studies were based on about 50 sudden, unplanned shutdowns per year.)

So to export serious amounts of power to Asia would cost an absolute fortune as well as being technically difficult at higher levels. $1 billion is a rounding error in those sort of projects...

The best option for solar energy use in Australia in the short term is for water heating IMO. It just doesn't make sense to have a hot water cylinder sitting outside in the sun being heated by coal (electricity) or gas. Madness when you think about it. So solar hot water in most parts of Australia would make sense. In Vic and Tas heat pumps perform better so would be more sensible option there.

Solar towers to generate electricity could also be built. This is basically a hydro scheme in reverse (rising air with a storage at the bottom as opposed to falling water with a storage at the top) and generates electricity through turbines rather than photovoltaic panels. A cheaper option in theory at least and it still produces significant power in the middle of the night due to the storage. 

Whilst there is some fluctuation in output, it just so happens that output peaks under the same conditions as electricity consumption so it fits into the grid quite nicely on a modest scale. It could be done on a bigger scale technically but the economics would deteriorate due to the need for duplicate conventional generating plant for operation during Winter peaks when solar output is lower. That is, adding quite a bit of solar would reduce the Summer peak demand on conventional generating plant to below the Winter peak demand at which point further investment in solar adds little benefit in terms of peak generating capacity.

A more practical way to export solar energy would be to use it to produce aluminium etc in much the same way as Tasmania has exported hydro-electricity since 1916 via zinc, paper, chocolate, aluminium, ferro alloys etc. In the same manner mainland Australia could someday become a dominant processor of minerals underpinned by solar or geothermal energy.


----------



## Happy (19 August 2006)

Smurf1976, 
What is your take on solar panels connected to meters at individual households?

From house owner point of view it looks more attractive than independent system with bank of deep cycle batteries which have to be replaced at great cost.

But since you don’t give it good wrap, I sense that this avenue is not worth the effort. Correct?


----------



## kitehigh (19 August 2006)

Dukey said:
			
		

> Peoples - whats the feeling on solar, wind and wave technologies??
> 
> For my part I cant believe that in Oz - where we have abundant space and sunshine - we don't try to make more use of solar electricity.
> 
> Why dont we have huge Solar farms exporting elec. to asia??




From my understanding on what has been written about alternative energy supplies, solar technology hasn't progressed as fast as expected and still lags behind other energy sources such as wind.  If you look at the energy output ratio's for example you will see how poorly solar performs against hydro carbons.  Hydro carbons (eg oil, coal) have a energy ratio of 30:1, Wind power is 5:1, and Solar is 4:1.
Apparently also the production of solar panels creates alot of toxic waste, so another consideration if you look at it from a so called green option.  I got this info from the book "The end of Oil", the last couple of chapters went into a bit of detail on the alternatives and talked about their pros and cons.  The thing that I took away from it was how far behind the alternatives are compared to hydro carbons when it came to trying to keep up in energy output.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Smurf1976,
> What is your take on solar panels connected to meters at individual households?
> 
> From house owner point of view it looks more attractive than independent system with bank of deep cycle batteries which have to be replaced at great cost.
> ...



Warning - technical post to explain the issues surrounding the above. Nothing to do with investment in energy etc.

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, as long as it isn't seen as an _alternative_ to conventional power generation (fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear) but rather the supplement that it is.

In any power system there is what is known as the "maximum demand", also referred to as "peak demand" or in the past "peak load". What this means is the maximum amount of electricity being consumed at any point in time, usually measured on an annual basis. 

Using Tasmania as an example (since I have precise figures) the maximum system demand recorded to date is 1798 MW recorded in August 2005 on the day it snowed in the suburbs of Hobart. On average it is about 1250 MW over the year (assuming average weather since heating is a big use of power in Tas).

But right now at the time of this post it is 1239 MW and it goes as low as 900 MW in the middle of the night around Christmas - New Year. It was 1098 MW at 4am this morning and will likely exceed 1450 MW around 6pm tonight. A few weeks ago it was regularly pushing 1700 MW around 6:15 pm Monday to Friday. 

Tasmania is at one extreme with average load being 70% of maximum load. If you look at the other extreme, South Australia, then you have demand anywhere between 800 MW and over 3000 MW depending on time of the day and weather conditions. In practice Tas and SA sit at the extremes with most aspects of the electricity industry - load profile, production cost, generation technology etc. In absolute terms, NSW has the highest power demand but it is not at the extremes of anything apart from absolute scale.

So the problem with solar feeding the grid is intermittency. It's fine to add some solar when the sun is shining but you still need to have conventional generating plant (fossil fuel, hydro) of sufficient capacity to meet demand when the sun isn't shining. Given that the second highest demand for electricity in most states occurs when it is dark (Winter around 6pm) this is quite an issue.

So in practice there is no problem with installing solar to the extent that it reduces the Summer peak demand on conventional generation down to a level comparable to the Winter peak. But beyond that point the economics seriously fall in a hole due to necessary duplication of generating capacity. 

Also, it would be undesirable to reduce the afternoon load during Winter to below the midnight - 6am off-peak load as doing so would make the operation of conventional generating plant needed to meet the evening peak problematic (amongst other things it would increase fuel use and emissions at such plants).

In practice however, there's nothing wrong with putting some solar panels on the roof and connecting them to the grid on the scale that ordinary consumers are likely to do it. If it gets to the point of becoming mainstream and generating significant amounts of power then it will cause problems however. I don't think it's likely to go that far until at least 2030 though so it's not an immediate issue.

As for the cost, it's about the most expensive means of generation that anyone actually uses so it just doesn't stack up financially. If the aim is cheap power (ignoring the environment) then coal is a clear winner (in some cases hydro can also be done pretty cheap). Geothermal could foreseeably compete with coal in economic terms before too long. 

If you want lowest greenhouse gas emissions then hydro followed by wind are the winners with geothermal, wave, tidal etc being also very low impact. Solar is a long way down the list (though still much cleaner than coal) due to the energy required to manufacture the solar panels.

Whilst there is a lack of hard data (due to lack of sufficient worldwide experience with the technology) it does seem likely that large scale solar thermal technology can beat panels on roofs in terms of environmental impact. It can certainly beat it in terms of cost.

If I was thinking about putting solar panels on the roof then I would first be looking to make the house as energy efficient as possible. It's generally a much cheaper way of achieving the same end result of reduced demand for fossil fuels. Depending on location, concentrate on the heating/cooling followed by hot water since they are usually the biggest energy users.


----------



## Happy (20 August 2006)

Smurf1976,
What you say, looks like a nightmare for electricity producers.

Quite funny that electricity made by individuals is almost not welcomed and is capable to mess up the grid.

I don’t have the luxury of seeing it from the inside; my look at it was from my point of view.
If I have solar panels and I can reverse my meter or at least slow it down, I am actually ‘printing money’

I heard that Australia and US develops low cost solar batteries 3 times as efficient as ones available now, so we might be able to produce at least tice as much as we were until now.

Electrical energy efficient storage could be nice to have, but ‘efficient’ is a problem.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 August 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Smurf1976,
> What you say, looks like a nightmare for electricity producers.
> 
> Quite funny that electricity made by individuals is almost not welcomed and is capable to mess up the grid.



It's only a problem if it gets to the point of being a major source of power. On a small scale, it will simply lower demand on conventional generation during the afternoon - no problem especially given that except in Tasmania, demand peaks during Summer afternoons when solar generation will be highest.

Overall, centralised generation of practically any type is cheaper but there's no reason (apart from cost) not to put some panels on the roof if you want to. It will save fuel (and greenhouse emissions) as long as everyone else doesn't do it too. 

Just don't think that because it works for one house that it means we can put panels on every roof and close the conventional power stations - it just doesn't work technically to do that. It would, however, be an alternative to expanding conventional generation up to the point where the Summer peak is flattened to the level of the Winter peak. Beyond that is when the troubles start financially and technically. Expanding conventional generation is cheaper however.

Take a look at the state demand and price graphs if you want to get a better understanding of what large scale solar would do to the grid. If we put 3KW on every house in Victoria, for example, then that would take around 6000 MW off the afternoon demand thus shutting down conventional generation on most days. Since it takes up to 48 hours to get a plant up and running that's a big problem... Depending on the technology used, conventional fossil fuel generation needs to remain 20-65% loaded - operation below this load means basically burning the fuel and dumping the steam (total waste) so that would offset the point of using solar. For most plant actually in the grid the limit is 30-50%.

http://www.nemmco.com.au/ for the graphs. Near the middle of the page at the top under the heading "Market Data". The red line is price (left scale), green line is demand (right scale). The 30 minute graphs will give you a reasonable overall view (this is constantly updated in real time so what you see will depend on when you look). Left of the black vertical bar is actual data, to the right is forecast for the next day (on the 30 minute graphs only).


----------



## Happy (21 August 2006)

So vision of soccer-field size solar battery systems and all footpaths covered with electricity producing summer heat relieving awnings and bricks doubling up as solar panels and all roofs being large solar panels is nothing more than headlines catching vision of a lunatic dreamer.


----------



## NettAssets (21 August 2006)

If the cost of the panels falls 5 fold and a reliable, cheap, convienient & green energy storage and retrieval mechanism is invented or found then it will happen. even now the energy oversupply can be used to pump water back up to high reserviours for night hydro and that seems to be fairly good for keeping base load plants active. There are other ways of using oversupply like metal electrowinning that can be turned on and off without too much drama if designed properly

John


----------



## Happy (30 August 2006)

> From ABC  August 30, 2006
> Howard announces solar energy trial for Adelaide
> 
> Prime Minister John Howard has announced plans for Adelaide to be the first capital city to trial a new program to encourage the use of solar energy and power saving devices.
> ...





If you have to outlay $2000 to $6000 to set up solar system then payback will be 10 to 30 years at current stipulated savings.

Surely should power cost double or triple savings will be higher, but for the time being no big deal, yet lucky Adelaide will have first dip in uncle John’s initiative.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 January 2007)

*Victorian Blackouts*

As many Victorians will be well aware, today was rather eventful for the electricity industry. A simplified explanation of what happened for anyone who is interested.   

1. At 4pm (Vic time) Victorian electricity load was about 9100 MW. That's close to as high as it gets for power use in Victoria. About 6600 MW was being supplied from local generation, 1700 from the Snowy, 500 from Tasmania and 300 from South Australia.

2. Due to fires in the area, several lines from the Snowy tripped offline. 

3. Load immediately fell to about 6600 MW as the system disconnected loads to protect itself (if this didn't happen then the whole grid would go down). 

4. Within a few minutes:

Supply from the Snowy had stabilised at 400 MW.

South Australia's link to Victoria had tripped offline but the SA system ran OK within SA.

Victorian generation had fallen to 5900 MW (due to a bit more load tripping than was absolutely necessary - better safe than sorry).

Tasmanian supply to Victoria was all over the place to keep Victorian supply and connected load balanced.

5. SA was reconnected.

6. Load restoration commenced with ramping up of Vic, SA and Tasmanian generation. But there was insufficient supply to restore all loads until the normal fall in demand after 5pm.

7. At the present time, the system is operating "normally" with reduced ability to transfer power between Victoria and the Snowy. 

All loads are back on. Total about 8000 MW now that offices etc are closed for the day.

Victorian generation about 7100 MW.
Snowy 590 MW.
Tasmania supplying 590 MW to Victoria.
SA is now taking a small amount from Victoria (normal operations).

8. In theory at least, all should be OK tomorrow as long as it isn't as hot as it was today (that is, as long as power demand doesn't hit 9000MW+ again tomorrow with more lines or generation going down).  

Just for the info of those stuck in lifts, traffic chaos etc.


----------



## Happy (17 January 2007)

Massive electrical energy storage system capacitor like in underground near absolute zero temperature, would be good idea, but expensive and immediately uneconomical.

Yesterday’s drama clearly shows what happens when there is not much spare capacity.

Since Air Conditioner units are sold for as low as $300 plus installation, we can expect more households hooked up and problems can only be worse.
Cheap AC is not economical to run too and probably best if outlawed, but who is going to make that decision?

Bigger problem would be if power trips in winter and people do not have alternative heating arrangements.
Probably good idea to look at it and have some gas heaters, even old kerosene heater probably better than nothing.

As wood burning stoves are massive polluters.
Nobody maintains chimneys and impossible to know how many households burn pieces of timber that are unfit for burning.

Maybe improved insulation would the way to go, instead of heating the universe with heat escaping porous dwellings.


----------



## anon (17 January 2007)

Smurf,
thanks for the excellent run-down on the progress in development of the renewable energy. There's an interesting article on the subject in The Age today which shows that it is a great way to go when applied to homes, but is far too expensive as yet.

As you have mentioned, the big problem with renewable energy is that the wind and the sun needed to produce the  power cannot be controlled to occur at the time when it is needed. The answer lies in storing this energy when it is produced for use when it is needed. There is probably a host of different storage systems already developed, but the one I am interested in is the vanadium redox battery which was developed by a team of  Uni of NSW scientists a few years back. 

Pinnacle VRB (PCE) is the company driving the development of this battery (up to 10MWh), and also its marketing. There was a report about a year back that a system was installed on Kangaroo Island, the event being attended by the Minister for Environment. Recently there was the following report -

13th November 2006.

Delivery of First VRB ESS Confirmed

The Directors of Pinnacle VRB Ltd are delighted to report that the company's first 10kWh VRB ESS system has been received into Australia. The unit will now be installed onto the clients premises and commissioned as soon as possible.

Director of Pinnacle Colin Andrews said "The first VRB ESS being received onto our shores marks the most significant stage yet in the commercialisation of the VRB ESS energy storage systems in Australia."


Smurf, is this thing for real?  Do you have any knowledge of it?

Many thanks.

anon


----------



## Happy (25 January 2007)

> From ABC, January 25, 2007
> 
> ENERGY COUNCIL ISSUES BLACKOUT WARNING
> 
> ...




Since some air conditioners are as cheap as $300 plus installation, we will see power guzzlers everywhere.
Next step will be power generator in every household as a backup, from little 300W to few kW and noise will come with it.

Before we go green, we will go stupid.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2007)

anon said:
			
		

> Smurf,
> As you have mentioned, the big problem with renewable energy is that the wind and the sun needed to produce the  power cannot be controlled to occur at the time when it is needed. The answer lies in storing this energy when it is produced for use when it is needed. There is probably a host of different storage systems already developed, but the one I am interested in is the vanadium redox battery which was developed by a team of  Uni of NSW scientists a few years back.
> 
> Pinnacle VRB (PCE) is the company driving the development of this battery (up to 10MWh), and also its marketing. There was a report about a year back that a system was installed on Kangaroo Island, the event being attended by the Minister for Environment. Recently there was the following report -
> ...



They may have just delivered the first 10kW system, but a much larger system with peak output of 400kW and able to sustain 200kW for 4 hours has been operating on King Island (Bass Strait) since 2003. 

This was the first use of a vanadium redox battery to smooth out fluctuations in wind energy in the world. I don't have any current data on the operation of the battery but I know that there were problems at first and it took quite some time to fix.

King Island doesn't use that much power (though demand will go up several fold if/when the mine re-opens) and historically it has been supplied totally from diesel generation, it being technically viable but prohibitively expensive to connect to either the Tasmanian or Victorian grid.

King Island wind farm was the 2nd wind farm to commence operations in Australia. It's small, only 5 turbines, but it generates about half the island's power now that the battery is up and running. This is a far higher % of power from wind than any grid anywhere in the world (though it would be misleading to say that King Island has a "grid", but it's still a very high use of wind energy).

More info here including a picture of the battery.
http://www.hydro.com.au/Documents/Renewables Development/5882Roaring40s.pdf

The option of going 100% wind was examined and would have involved use of pumped storage hydro as well as the battery. Bottom line is that with the small scale of operations and present price of diesel it just wasn't viable financially. Running a salt water pumped storage scheme was always going to be high maintenance and it's just too expensive on such a small scale. 

There is also a plan for a carbon block thermal energy storage system on King Island which could lift the contribution of wind energy to around 75% (25% diesel).

They are still looking at the idea of 100% wind using hydrogen storage for Cape Barren Island however, but that is only a 100kW system versus the 3000kW peak demand on King Island. The actual hydrogen technology is internal combustion so nothing too radical there (though a 100% wind energy system is certainly a radical step).

Also you might be interested in the dual fuel hydrogen diesel engine which has potential application for remote power supplies as well as transport. http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s1499183.htm


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2007)

Happy said:
			
		

> Since some air conditioners are as cheap as $300 plus installation, we will see power guzzlers everywhere.
> Next step will be power generator in every household as a backup, from little 300W to few kW and noise will come with it.
> 
> Before we go green, we will go stupid.



I can see it now...

House for sale. 3 bed, built-ins, single garage, ensuite, north facing lounge, 500kV switchyard, double circuit transmission line, 1 x 500MW generating unit, 260 metre stack...

Actually for those living at Newport (Melbourne) you've pretty much got that anyway plus an oil refinery too. : Or stand on any roof in Osborne (Adelaide) and you'll see a full 2000 MW within walking / swimming distance.

Joe average will buy the 1kW 2-stroke petrol generator from Bunnings whilst muttering something about the need to cut greenhouse emissions and saying that the local hoons / nightclub / shop / railway are too noisy.

Happy will look for a North facing roof and install some solar panels to generate 2kW and run the whole house with that and some storage batteries.

Smurf will buy the steepest block possible as long as there's a creek flowing through it, build a hydro scheme and generate 100kW - most of it to run the Christmas lights.  : 

And John Howard will get the big block in order to fit 4 x 800,000kW units complete with nuclear reactor, cooling towers and reprocessing facility right there in his own backyard.

Anyone know what happened to the dominatrix who was running Tarraleah (the town, not the power station) a few years ago? I think she was into a different kind of power though...

Seriously, I think we've passed the point now where there is any doubt that A/C will be as common as phones and washing machines in houses before too long. We're going to end up with more gas turbines built to generate the power. Just wait until peak gas delivery constraints become a problem and we end up running them on kerosene...


----------



## bravo (30 August 2007)

Here is another article from Dr Boreham about the nuclear power plants and the energy.



.
homeNuclear power safe, says expertArticle from: Font size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print Submit comment: Submit comment CARA JENKIN
August 30, 2007 02:15am
SOUTH Australians need to accept nuclear power as a safe alternative to producing electricity because any radiation would be at safe levels, an international expert says.

Dr Doug Boreham, an associate professor and radiation biologist at Canada's McMaster University, says the radiation at nuclear power stations and uranium mine sites is low level and does not harm the biology of humans. 

Dr Boreham, who is in Adelaide to give information to workers in the radiation and uranium industry, said the level of radiation was comparative to the natural background radiation on Earth. 

He said the levels of radiation did not damage cells or DNA but instead stimulated cells to adapt and defend the body from pre-cancer cells. 

Dr Boreham said modern nuclear power plants were much safer and did not emit greenhouse gases, unlike coal or gas-fired electricity plants. 

"If you do the economics of it, we can't make enough electricity from solar or wind to provide the city's electricity needs," he said. "The amount of radiation from working in a nuclear power plant for a year is equal to having one chest X-ray in a year."


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Nothing to do with investment but a point of engineering significance and hopefully of interest to someone.
> 
> In a few days the working museum that is the Lake Margaret power station (Tas) will close. After 92 years...



Back to its' former glory for the main station, with a brand new small one downstream as well. 

Nice new wood pipe for both stations (steel just wouldn't have looked right...). The old machinery back up and running nicely in the main station, new machine in the smaller station. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/23/2962363.htm


----------



## Julia (24 July 2010)

Smurf (or anyone else):  I read in the weekend papers that the electricity generators are saying that unless we have a price on carbon, electricity charges will rise.   

Before the dumping of the ETS we were told that the pricing of carbon and the institution of the ETS would push up power prices.

Why should retaining the status quo, i.e. no carbon price, of itself push up prices?  Is this just a bit of mumbo jumbo to cover up simple price gouging?


----------



## disarray (25 July 2010)

we should build lots of nuclear power plants, and feed the waste rods into more advanced nuclear power plants. then take all the waste into the desert and bury it in a big hole (well away from the artesian basin). use the electricity to process our resources here instead of shipping dirt to china for pennies and importing steel for dollars. charge europe sh1ttons of cash to store their waste as well.

then sit on the waste for a few hundred years till we develop the space elevator / anti-gravity (we aren't leaving earth till we have it) then cheaply lift it into space and push it into the sun. sweet.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 July 2010)

Record haulage of central zone coal from the mines two weeks ago. Demand projected to be on continuous rise with major markets Japan, China, India and Korea.


----------

