Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sptrawler]

I won't enter any personal debates, but here's how power generation is shifted from one source to another without actually building any new power stations.

This is for a hypothetical grid, but it's broadly similar to the situation in Victoria. Suppose that you have (for simplicity I'm ignoring maintenance outages etc here and keeping it in layman's terms).

Peak demand of 10,000 MW
Maximum load on a mild day of 6,000 MW
Average demand of 5,500 MW
Normal minimum (excluding blackouts due to storms etc) demand of 4,000 MW

Coal-fired generation of 6,000 MW
Hydro generation of 2,000 MW
Gas-fired generation 2,500 MW

On a hot day with peak demand, you have to run basically everything flat out or very close to it. You therefore have no choice as to where the power comes from - all available generation needs to be running and there's nothing to spare.

But at other times you have a lot of choice. Technical factors limit the ability to switch coal plants on and off, but they can certainly be ramped up and down from full load down to (depending on the plant design) 30 - 60% of capacity.

So on a mild day with 4,000 MW overnight and 6,000 MW during the day there are a lot of options:

You could meet the entire load from coal, apart from some hydro or gas online as spinning reserve (in case a unit breaks down suddenly).

Or at the other extreme you could have 2,500 MW of coal-fired plant online, only running at 2,000 MW, and fully use the available gas and hydro.

For hydro it is usually a case of having a limited water supply and choosing the best time to use it which is itself influenced by recent inflows. If it's dry then run it only to meet the peaks (saving water). If there's a flood then run it flat out 24/7. If it's moderately wet then just run it during business hours. Etc. This is how hydro is normally used in a predominantly thermal (fossil fuel or nuclear) system.

But for coal versus gas it is simply a question of economics. If coal is cheaper then you prioritise the use of coal and minimise the use of gas. Reverse that if gas is cheaper.

A complicating factor is that costs are not fixed per unit of output. Eg it costs money to have a coal plant online in the first place, but getting extra output from it is cheap once it's online (you already have staff there, everything is already running etc). So depending on the economics this will change the desirability of using gas versus coal and create a "lumpy" effect. Eg with a carbon tax at a high enough rate it makes sense to keep coal units offline where possible, but once it's running it may still be cheaper to run it flat out and use less gas.

But the overall principle is straightforward. Make coal cost more than gas, and some production will tend to shift from coal to gas, thus cutting the use of coal and increasing the use of gas. That said, it hasn't happened to any major extent with the actual carbon tax we have. There has been a bit of an increase in gas-fired baseload and shoulder period (ie business hours) running, but if you look at it right now then the brown coal plants in Victoria are, with one exception, running at or close to maximum capacity whilst the gas-fired plants are offline doing nothing. So you'd need a considerably higher rate of tax in order to bring about a large scale shift from coal to gas based on the existing power stations.

What about new power station construction? A carbon tax will certainly favour gas over coal. But once built, it still comes down to the day to day running costs. Eg Mortlake power station (Vic) is a brand new gas-fired plant of medium efficiency. It is sitting idle right now whilst the coal-fired plants are running. Meanwhile there are gas-fired units online in SA operating well below capacity with about 22% of the SA load being supplied from Victoria. Enough said.

For a hydro generator it is basically about having a limited supply of fuel (water) and trying to get the best price for it, subject to system constraints.

It's public knowledge that Hydro Tas is pushing the system as hard as possible whilst the carbon tax is in place in order to maximise revenue. That is certainly not something that has ever been denied, indeed it was publicly announced in July 2012 when the tax commenced that this was the strategy being pursued. Needless to say, production will be throttled back as the carbon tax ends.

You didn't mention renewables, for basillio.

 

[Logique]

What goes around comes around for the CSIRO.

http://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/csiro-support-staff-face-huge-job-cuts-20140314-34so6.html
CSIRO support staff face huge job cuts

..widespread expectation that much of the agency will be privatised with the loss of up to 3000 public service jobs..

..Heads are also expected to roll among the CSIRO's executive ranks with the 22 bosses of divisions and flagships, who all have support staff, vying for just nine jobs heading up the restructured research flagships.

 

[Smurf1976]

You didn't mention renewables

In the context of electricity generation into the main grid in Australia, renewables are basically:

1. Large scale hydro. Primarily in Tas and NSW, with some also in Vic and Qld. Hydro is extremely flexible in operation, very predictable and controllable in terms of output, and historically has been the only real source of renewable energy into the grid. As it's directly controllable in the same manner as gas, coal etc and is a major source of generation (particularly NSW, Vic, Tas) I've included it.

2. Large scale wind farms. SA has a lot of them, with significant operations elsewhere too (notably Vic and Tas). But there are some elsewhere too. The trouble is that output is completely uncontrollable. You can have peak demand and wind farms sitting idle or vice versa. Since production is outside the control of any human, and will not in any way respond to short term price changes or to politics, I've excluded it. Existing wind farms will operate the same way regardless of whether coal costs nothing or if it costs $1 million per tonne. The only linkage between coal etc costs and wind is the decision to build wind farms in the first place.

3. Solar PV. This is primarily located on rooftops, households mainly and a few business and government sites. Other forms of solar electricity are limited to trivial quantities or things like boosting the water temperature at coal-fired plants (ie the solar doesn't add to capacity as such, just displaces a bit of coal). As with wind, production from existing facilities doesn't respond to external price, political or other influences with solar output being a direct function of the weather. It thus does not respond, in the short term, to anything other than the sun.

4. Minor amounts are produced from bagasse (sugar cane waste), landfill gas, sewage gas etc. This is done in a relatively large number of individually very small facilities. These are not a constant power supply, and are not centrally dispatched. Much the same as solar and wind.

I am not in any way opposed to renewable energy, but my post is about the short term (2 years) response of the industry to the carbon tax. Apart from hydro schemes with larger storages, renewable generation from existing facilities is a direct function of short term weather and doesn't respond to the carbon tax (other than by means of a decision to build more renewable generation, but existing facilities carry on regardless).

If you look at any 12 month period, the only real variable in resource use is the total generation from coal, gas and large scale hydro. Everything else simply does whatever it does in accordance with the weather.

Looking ahead, what's likely is a drop in large scale hydro generation after Winter 2014, and a drop in gas-fired generation through to 2017 as the gas price goes up. In the absence of either a substantial fall in consumption and/or the construction of new renewable generation that means we'll see an increase in generation from coal.

To that effect it is already announced that the Northern power station (coal, SA) will return to full production in August 2014. Likewise it is announced that Swanbank E (gas, Qld) is being mothballed whilst some coal-fired capacity is being returned to service in Qld. Also it's no secret that water release from major storage in Tas will be largely priced out of the market for 2 - 3 years thus cutting hydro generation.

The industry knows exactly where things are going even if politicians haven't figured it out yet. Existing coal-fired plants are set to become increasingly profitable first due to the end of the carbon tax, then as gas prices go through the roof.

 

[basilio]

Thanks for the analysis and summary Smurf. Really clear.

So it seems that for the short term the direct effect of the carbon tax has been to switch power generators. from coal fired power stations to hydro as far as possible. Current wind and Solar generators just keep on going regardless of the carbon price. (I wonder however if the power companies can refuse to take supply if they can get it more cheaply from coal? I think however that the current legislation that demands a certain percentage of renewable energy takes care of that issue )

So when the carbon tax is taken off coal fired stations come back into full production including those that have been mothballed because of the tax. Up goes our CO2 emissions

And then the government attempts to use direct action to reduce CO2 emissions......

Is that an accurate interpretation ?

Cheers

 

[Smurf1976]

Pretty close....

Generating companies have simply responded in a normal commercial manner to changed costs. Those with a cost increase (ie paying carbon tax) have upped their price for supply and, in some cases, concluded that they are uncompetitive at this higher price and have thus mothballed their plant. So this has tended to shift production from one plant to another to some extent.

Those not paying the carbon tax (eg hydro) are simply running a "sprint race" whilst the tax is in. If you look at what's being done, it really is akin to a sprint. Run hard for 2 years, then collapse at the end of it and let the coal-fired generators have their market back at least for a while.

It's no secret that, for example, there's about 270,000 litres of water going through Gordon power station (Tas, hydro) at the moment. That's 270,000 litres per second, and it's been that way since the beginning of last year. No prizes for guessing that the lake is shrinking - measured as a straight vertical drop it is currently about 27 metres from full supply level down to the water and falling at about 10cm per day. It's not about to run dry, there's still about 25 metres of water above the intake, but obviously this represents a "bringing forward" of future production. This is just one example, it's certainly not the only one.

 

[basilio]

Who says we have a climate change problem and what is their evidence for saying it ?

The UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences are the peak scientific bodies in both countries. They represent the best scientific minds in the system.

Together they have produced an updated document on CC that pulls together the key research, Basic questions and Answers and the figures behind their work.

A bit longer than an Andrew Bolt blog but perhaps more scientifically based.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes

Climate Change Evidence and Causes Booklet
Download the Booklet

Download the full booklet
Download only the Q&A section of the booklet
Download only the Climate Basics section of the booklet
View a gallery of figures from the booklet

https://nas-sites.org/americasclima...ussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

About the Document

The leadership of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K.’s Royal Society convened a UK-US team of leading climate scientists to produce this brief, readable reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative information on the some of the questions that continue to be asked.

The publication makes clear what is well-established and where understanding is still developing. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national academies, as well as on the newest climate-change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It touches on current areas of active debate and ongoing research, such as the link between ocean heat content and the rate of warming.

 

[orr]

Thanks for the link Bas and to you Smurf... 'your worth more money'

 

[trainspotter]

Thanks for the link Bas and to you Smurf... 'your worth more money'

I did not want to say this but maybe they should be paid in "Carbon Credits" ?

 

[sptrawler]

I did not want to say this but maybe they should be paid in "Carbon Credits" ?

I bet Basillio, didn't know the ramifications of the current water usage, also the problem with having to supply the baseload to cover the unreliability of boutique renewables.

One has to wonder, how expensive we have to make our electricity, before we can have a clear conscience.

Maybe when we become third world.

At least then asylum seekers won't be a problem.

The boats will be heading to Indonesia.lol

 

[basilio]

I bet Basillio, didn't know the ramifications of the current water usage, also the problem with having to supply the baseload to cover the unreliability of boutique renewables.
QUOTE]

One of the biggest users of water at the moment are the coal fired power stations. Use squillions of litres for the cooling towers and other systems. The URL I listed below is well worth reading on this point

In the longer term the development of solar thermal power stations could replace coal with no need for back up. The fast development of industrial size battery systems is also an option to temporarily store power from wind /solar energy.

Water consumption from coal plants
Jump to: navigation, search

Power generation has been estimated to be second only to agriculture in being the largest domestic user of water.[1] To produce and burn the 1 billion tons of coal America uses each year, the mining and utility industries withdraw 55 trillion to 75 trillion gallons of water annually, according to the US Geological Survey.[2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plants

 

[trainspotter]

Thanks for the analysis and summary Smurf. Really clear.

So it seems that for the short term the direct effect of the carbon tax has been to switch power generators. from coal fired power stations to hydro as far as possible. Current wind and Solar generators just keep on going regardless of the carbon price. (I wonder however if the power companies can refuse to take supply if they can get it more cheaply from coal? I think however that the current legislation that demands a certain percentage of renewable energy takes care of that issue )

So when the carbon tax is taken off coal fired stations come back into full production including those that have been mothballed because of the tax. Up goes our CO2 emissions

And then the government attempts to use direct action to reduce CO2 emissions......

Is that an accurate interpretation ?

Cheers

Not quite old chum ... The Carbon Tax is merely passed on to the consumer. The big power generating companies don't care how they generate their electricity as they do not pay the tax. They merely add it to the bill of the consumer

QUEENSLAND'S largest power generator will today declare that Australia is one of the world's most expensive countries for energy and warn that the electricity market is being distorted by the carbon tax, mandatory renewables target and solar-rooftop subsidies.

After Stanwell took the extraordinary step yesterday of announcing it would mothball its biggest gas-fired power station and resurrect a coal facility built in the 1980s - sparking predictions that gas-fired power plants would be withdrawn in other states - it will today call for a scaling back of the renewable energy target.

Before the introduction of the carbon tax, the RET scheme and solar feed-in tariffs, the abundance of coal had made Australia a source of low-cost electricity, the company will say.

"These policies appear to have been implemented for ideological reasons with little analysis of the impact on electricity prices and economic growth," Stanwell chief executive officer Richard Van Breda will say.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-power-stations/story-e6frg9df-1226819086580#

But but but that is not supposed to happen?

But wait ... electricity demand has been falling PRIOR to the carbon tax as solar PV households takeup the demand:-

As described above, the continuing reduction in summer daytime demand is manifestly cutting the lunch of the big generators, eating into their most profitable trading periods. Unsurprisingly, we are now seeing significant push-back by the energy utilities in an attempt to restrict further take up of the new distributed technologies, and the incentives that have motivated their take up.

While that’s hardly a surprising reaction from an incumbent, what is surprising is how long its taken for the industry push-back. Now some five years into the decline and the question is, is it too late?

In its crudest form, the electricity business model has been focussed above all else on selling more electrons. But after yet another summer on the NEM, it is clear that customers are not buying it.

And looking at the trends, you’d have to be crazy to think the decline will stop. Not only is demand for “poles & wires” electiricty declining because of the new technological drivers, but big energy users are also exiting the market, making for a perfect storm. The recent announcement that the Point Henry aluminium smelter will close, effectively commits a further reduction in 350 megawatts - representing about 1.5% of NEM consumption (~7% of Victoria).

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/18/smart-energy/utilities-say-kodak

And none of this will mean jacksh!t as the population increases and so does transportation and consumerism.

The total emissions, excluding increases in emissions from land-clearing, came in at 542.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the year to September, or 0.3 per cent lower than a year earlier. When changes in land use are added, overall emissions for the 12 months came to 567.5 million tonnes, or 1.2 per cent higher.

Pollution from transportation, not covered by the carbon tax, has been rising steadily, while emissions from coalmine expansion and new gas plants have been soaring. The latter two sources are only partially covered by the carbon tax, now at $24.15 per tonne, with offsets or free permits reducing the cost to polluters.

Crystal balls anyone?

 

[trainspotter]

But what is this? Australia not being told that global temperatures have not risen for 17 years?

Dr Pachauri's views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain's Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134#

Views outside the orthodox position eh? So if you disagree with them then your views/opinions are not valid even though the FACTS are staring you in the face ie global temperatures have not risen for 17 years.

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

So let's sit back and see what happens in another 30 - 40 years then ... crystal ball anyone?

 

[basilio]

When you almost solely use material from The Australian as your source TS you are in trouble if you are trying to establish facts. On CC The Australian is a systematic liar (with a very few honorable exceptions)

What has happened to the climate in the past 17years ?

The big talking point from CC deniers in the past few years has been the alleged failure of temperatures to actually rise. Or at least that is the story The Australian and co want to push.

The facts ?
1) For a start cherry picking a 17 year period and using that as the basis for saying that CC has halted is shoddy science. It is simply too short a period of time when dealing with long term movements in climate.

2) Guess what? In fact global temperatures did increase significantly in that period. One of the issues that was conveniently overlooked was the failure to incorporate very large increases in Arctic temperatures in hat period. When these are included in the graphs - we see a temperature increase

3) Global warming isn't simply increase in air temperature. Yes we measure the temperature on land as one indicator of warmth. But there is also increase in ocean temperature, loss of ice cover (melting ice requires heat) loss of perma frost (ditto). These have all shown steady increases.

4) Other factors effect climate No surprises here. El Niño effects, volcanic eruptions, sun spot activity,other increases in aerosol production that dim the sun and so on. The last decade has seen these activities on a larger scale than "normal" . They have had an effect on increased temperatures . But, and this is the concerning part, despite the conflation of these factors they have only made a small dint in the overall effect of increased CO2 levels.

What that suggest is that when we don't have El Niños and reduced sunspot activity etc the effects of CO2 on warming the atmosphere will not be masked.

The attached references offer a broader picture on these effects on our climate. And the referance is there to explain why CC denial is so much more attractive than recognising reality.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global_warming_still_happening.html
http://time.com/9717/volcanoes-may-be-slowing-down-climate-change/
http://theconversation.com/how-we-evolved-to-reject-climate-science-10711

 

[trainspotter]

When you almost solely use material from The Australian as your source TS you are in trouble if you are trying to establish facts. On CC The Australian is a systematic liar (with a very few honorable exceptions)

The big talking point from CC deniers in the past few years has been the alleged failure of temperatures to actually rise. Or at least that is the story The Australian and co want to push.

Errmmmmmmmm Nope .. it was THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, who acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

So if the UN's climate change chief is acknowledging this FACT then there maybe something to this then?

Which is why I quantified it with this "So let's sit back and see what happens in another 30 - 40 years then ... crystal ball anyone"

So Britain's Met Office is wrong? The UN's CC chief Rajendra Pachauri is making this up? Just the facts please.

 

[wayneL]

Oh basilio, whose only reference is the Graniad/Unskeptical Science axis?

Oh the irony!

 

[Smurf1976]

The King Island Smart Grid iPhone app is about to be released, also the installations are on track as well as the monitoring website etc.

iPhone app provides live data on the grid itself as well as for the individual customer. Website has login for each customer (same as anything you log into - banking etc) and gives more detailed data on their load and smart grid interaction etc.

The images are generic samples, but this is basically how it all looks.

Current data - King Island is running 64% wind / 36% diesel right now.

For the rest of Tas it's currently 69% hydro, 16% wind, 15% gas with 17% of total generation being sent to Victoria.

 

[sptrawler]

One of the biggest users of water at the moment are the coal fired power stations. Use squillions of litres for the cooling towers and other systems. The URL I listed below is well worth reading on this point

In the longer term the development of solar thermal power stations could replace coal with no need for back up. The fast development of industrial size battery systems is also an option to temporarily store power from wind /solar energy.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plants

Coal fired power stations use cooling water, to condense steam back to water, then reuse that condensed water to make more steam. The steam system and cooling water system are seperate entities. That is what makes me laugh when you see cooling towers in all the adverts,dumb $hit, to feed dumber activists

The solar power stations, you are talking about, will use the same amount of water to condense the steam back to water.

Maybe you should read up more on the thermodynamic cycle, before spewing crap.

It's garbage like that, which tilts the arguement, just based on, as GG would say a 'brain fart'.

Actually it is quite annoying that you, who make youself out to be some sort of knowledge guru with regard this subject.
Doesn't have that sort of fundamental knowledge, it just shows how shallow your arguements are, unfortunately.
Just my opinion. lol

 

[wayneL]

An interesting development at the American Physical Society:

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/

Finally, Some Real Climate Science

The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned.......

 

[basilio]

SP I don't know where you find your facts or whether you simply make them up.

There is excellent information on the amount of water used in Victorian Coal fired power stations. You'll notice if you actually read the reference that there is the opportunity to recycle water - but the Hazelwood plant doesn't do it.

Solar thermal Power stations will also use water for cooling. But they won't have the extra use associated with coal production.

The simplest search will show how much water is used in coal fired power stations as well as the whole coal industry. Trashing me for pointing that out is just crap. Stay civil.

http://environmentvictoria.org.au/index.php?q=content/coal-and-water-use
http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets..._generation_industry_replace_final_280709.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Victorian_coal-fired_electricity_industry_and_water

 

[basilio]

What we know about Climate Change

The American Association for the Advancement of Science have released a new report again summarizing what is currently understood about CC.

An Alarming Wake-Up Call From A Brand New Report On Climate Change
Dina Spector Today at 6:57 AM
January 2014 Land and Ocean Temperature PercentilesAccording to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for January 2014 was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest for January since reliable record keeping began in 1880.

The evidence linking human activities to climate change is as strong as the data supporting the idea that smoking causes lung cancer, a new report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) warned on Tuesday.

“Many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world,” according to the “What We Know” report.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...ement-of-science-climate-change-report-2014-3

The full report can be found at the following site

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/


The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world’s largest non-government general science membership organization and the executive publisher of Science, a leading scientific journal. Its mission is “advance science for the benefit of all people.” Its goals include providing a voice for science on societal issues and promoting the responsible use of science in public policy. There may be no more pressing issue intersecting science and society than climate change and the What We Know initiative was born in response to that reality.