Energy Security

SirRumpole said:

Hydro has been around for decades , the engineering is well known, all that is needed is the political will to stand up to the Greenies and provide the finance because it's likely that the private sector won't be interested given the long lead in time.

Click to expand...

Same with solar and windmills land and sea.
Hydro like those inefficient concepts comes down to how much money a company can make out of the total manufacturing and construction of the project

if it was anything about the environment cct or nuclear would be built or theorem or Nicola Tesla’s theory of kinetic energy would be examined more! But they are not

we just keep going back further! Place the words green or renewables in front of most things and simpletons lap it up despite it being toxic and very damaging to the environment

Investoradam said:

Same with solar and windmills land and sea.
Hydro like those inefficient concepts comes down to how much money a company can make out of the total manufacturing and construction of the project

if it was anything about the environment cct or nuclear would be built or theorem or Nicola Tesla’s theory of kinetic energy would be examined more! But they are not

we just keep going back further! Place the words green or renewables in front of most things and simpletons lap it up despite it being toxic and very damaging to the environment

Click to expand...

I do understand where you are coming from, I worked in power stations the whole of my working life, but what has to be realised is there is a huge tidal surge toward renewables.
A lot of it is fueled by the fact renewables are getting cheaper, more efficient and people ability to complain on a global scale has become increasingly easy.
That however doesn't change the fact that it is hard to justify on paper, that it is better to burn coal with its pollution than to capture solar energy for nothing, just put the ranting to the side and think about that statement.
Right if you have got this far, the next step is if most people want to do it even though it probably wont happen the way they think, the way a democracy works is where possible the will of the majority should be followed.
Now if following that renewable mantra, ends up with either a risk of an unreliable electrical system or a cost for electricity that will cripple your economy, other options have to be put on the table.
Until that point is reached, the groundswell is definitely toward renewables, time will tell if the groundswell is maintained.
I hope you can follow my reasoning, because I've seen enough in my time, to realise you can't change the ships direction quickly.
These days people don't learn from history or reasoning, they only learn from experience, as is being shown in many fields of engineering.
The last people who are listened to are old engineers, they didn't have computers, they didn't have consultants.
But they also didn't have apartment blocks cracking and they did put men on the moon.

sptrawler said:

I do understand where you are coming from, I worked in power stations the whole of my working life, but what has to be realised is there is a huge tidal surge toward renewables.
A lot of it is fueled by the fact renewables are getting cheaper, more efficient and people ability to complain on a global scale has become increasingly easy.
That however doesn't change the fact that it is hard to justify on paper, that it is better to burn coal with its pollution than to capture solar energy for nothing, just put the ranting to the side and think about that statement.
Right if you have got this far, the next step is if most people want to do it even though it probably wont happen the way they think, the way a democracy works is where possible the will of the majority should be followed.
Now if following that renewable mantra, ends up with either a risk of an unreliable electrical system or a cost for electricity that will cripple your economy, other options have to be put on the table.
Until that point is reached, the groundswell is definitely toward renewables, time will tell if the groundswell is maintained.
I hope you can follow my reasoning, because I've seen enough in my time, to realise you can't change the ships direction quickly.
These days people don't learn from history or reasoning, they only learn from experience, as is being shown in many fields of engineering.
The last people who are listened to are old engineers, they didn't have computers, they didn't have consultants.
But they also didn't have apartment blocks cracking and they did put men on the moon.

Click to expand...

look up the toxic materials required to manufacture them, the land destroyed and polution and run off toxic waste, the land destroyed in constructing the wind mill or solar panels, the run off in to the ground. after there life span how they are disposed of land fill as they are to toxic to recycle

they need base power at all times when the sun doesnt shine the solar doesnt work. when the wind doesnt blow the wind mills need base power pumped back on them to spin other wise the weight of the blade collapses the bearings casing it to seize.

its great for me as i work in mining more choice of work but also get to see the land be torn up, water ways poluted and tail-end ponds etc.
of course billionairs and governments love thm as more materials dug from the ground the more endless royalties, etc

Investoradam said:

look up the toxic materials required to manufacture them, the land destroyed and polution and run off toxic waste, the land destroyed in constructing the wind mill or solar panels, the run off in to the ground. after there life span how they are disposed of land fill as they are to toxic to recycle

they need base power at all times when the sun doesnt shine the solar doesnt work. when the wind doesnt blow the wind mills need base power pumped back on them to spin other wise the weight of the blade collapses the bearings casing it to seize.

its great for me as i work in mining more choice of work but also get to see the land be torn up, water ways poluted and tail-end ponds etc.
of course billionairs and governments love thm as more materials dug from the ground the more endless royalties, etc

Click to expand...

That is all true, but a lot of the endless media coverage of climate change and the demand to change over to renewables next week, is driven by media hype and raw emotion from the environmentalists.
Once you put that aside, there is a real requirement to reduce the emissions we produce and also to reduce our wastage, the planet has a finite amount of everything, except the amount of babies we can have.
We will get to a point of using all the resources the world has eventually, that is just a given, the more people, the more consumption.

We in Australia think the iron ore will last forever, it wont, the easily removed will last a long time but our recovery techniques are improving, so we can remove it faster.

So electricity is a small part of a huge problem, too many people wanting too much $hit, if we didn't flip our phones, t.v's kitchens, houses, cars etc.
We just trash everything and it takes energy to replace it, knock over a house, put it in landfill, then the bricks have to be remade, the wood milled, the steel re cast, the tec screws, everything uses energy and all we do is make more people that need more $hit made?
Eventually the problem becomes obvious, too many people.
Even if you make everything carbon neutral, the next problem will probably be either food or water, eventually the population gets large enough to expose the next problem, until we either become extinct, colonise another planet or control our population numbers.

sptrawler said:

That is all true, but a lot of the endless media coverage of climate change and the demand to change over to renewables next week, is driven by media hype and raw emotion from the environmentalists.
Once you put that aside, there is a real requirement to reduce the emissions we produce and also to reduce our wastage, the planet has a finite amount of everything, except the amount of babies we can have.
We will get to a point of using all the resources the world has eventually, that is just a given, the more people, the more consumption.

We in Australia think the iron ore will last forever, it wont, the easily removed will last a long time but our recovery techniques are improving, so we can remove it faster.

So electricity is a small part of a huge problem, too many people wanting too much $hit, if we didn't flip our phones, t.v's kitchens, houses, cars etc.
We just trash everything and it takes energy to replace it, knock over a house, put it in landfill, then the bricks have to be remade, the wood milled, the steel re cast, the tec screws, everything uses energy and all we do is make more people that need more $hit made?
Eventually the problem becomes obvious, too many people.
Even if you make everything carbon neutral, the next problem will probably be either food or water, eventually the population gets large enough to expose the next problem, until we either become extinct, colonise another planet or control our population numbers.

Click to expand...

Yes, population has always been the elephant in the room, and now its made a hell of a mess that has to be cleaned up.

SirRumpole said:

Yes, population has always been the elephant in the room, and now its made a hell of a mess that has to be cleaned up.

Click to expand...

The problem is, can the clean up get ahead of the compounding mess, I don't think so.
As third world countries become first world countries, do you think their energy consumption, food consumption, health and life expectancy wont increase?



Now think about India and Africa.
I can't see how this can end well, for humans.LOL

IFocus said:

Batteries (electrical) are not for storage purposes perse (Smurf correct me if wrong) but for fault conditions / maintain stability of networks etc which leaves gas as the only stop gap measure but then there's the supply and prohibitive cost issues particularly on the East Coast.

Click to expand...

It's a scale issue.

Batteries do store energy but aren't economic for storing large volumes of it. They do however have incredibly rapid response time in both directions.

That being so, they have a viable application as standby plant to immediately ramp up in the event something else fails, they have value for ancillary services (frequency control etc) and they also have value for short duration peak power.

What they're not good for is bulk energy storage. To transfer some energy from midday and discharge it during the 6pm - 8pm peak demand period sure they can do that. With present economics however they're a rather expensive means to supply load right through the night and they're out of the question for being the means of dealing with a week of calm overcast weather. Technically they can do it but the cost is a problem.

Putting some figures around that:

Hornsdale Power Reserve (the original "big battery in SA) as built has a discharge capacity of 100 MW but only stores 129 MWh, so that is 1 hour an 17 minutes at constant full output. Both figures have since been increased 50% with an expansion.

Victorian Big Battery is 300 MW / 450 MWh so 300 MW for 1.5 hours.

AGL is building a 250 MW / 250 MWh battery in SA at present so 1 hour.

Energy Australia has proposed a 350 MW / 1400 MWh battery in Victoria so 4 hours.

They're all of that order, 1 - 4 hours generally.

In contrast Snowy 2.0 (pumped hydro) will be 2040 MW / 350,000 MWh so 175 hours at constant full output.

The existing Shoalhaven pumped hydro scheme in NSW is 240 MW for 28 hours and is more typical of pumped hydro systems built for 8 - 48 hours.

For conventional on-river hydro it can be even larger. Eg the Great Lake - South Esk system in Tasmania stores a rather large 7,345,000 MWh whilst the Gordon scheme stores 4,680,000 MWh and the Tasmanian system in total stores more than 14,400,000 MWh.

So in the context of a future system where wind and solar are the main method of generation:

Batteries can soak up the surplus at midday and can discharge to supply the evening peak demand no problem but when it comes to dealing with a week of persistent low yields then the available options are some combination of overbuilding wind and solar to still capture enough energy despite the unfavourable conditions, transmission to somewhere else with consistently different weather patterns, long duration storage hydro (either pumped or on-river dams) or something that burns and which can itself be stored or supplied on demand (eg gas, diesel but hopefully also hydrogen / ammonia becomes established).

Within those technical options, economics plays a big part in what's a goer and what's not. It's not much good having something that works technically if nobody can afford it.

@Smurf1976 a terrific summation, I just can't understand why people keep disbelieving it and defaulting back to media nonsense and hype.

sptrawler said:

As third world countries become first world countries, do you think their energy consumption, food consumption, health and life expectancy wont increase?

Click to expand...

Of course they will but they may be curtailed by the amount of resources available.

Unless they move to renewables + storage and better land management then they will be restricted by available supplies of coal, oil and gas, arable land and water supplies etc.

It's a self limiting system, like the koalas, if they eat themselves out of their habitat, they die.

SirRumpole said:

Unless they move to renewables + storage

Click to expand...

or nuclear..

SirRumpole said:

or nuclear..

Click to expand...

If and when we go nuclear subs and if there is a transfer of technology (unlikely) then nuclear makes sense but currently we would be exposed security wise if we went nuclear now plus it costs a bomb, plus lead time is massive, plus gas is cheaper.

IFocus said:

If and when we go nuclear subs and if there is a transfer of technology (unlikely) then nuclear makes sense but currently we would be exposed security wise if we went nuclear now plus it costs a bomb, plus lead time is massive, plus gas is cheaper.

Click to expand...

Sure , I was really talking about countries that don't have reserves of gas or other fossil fuels.

SirRumpole said:

available supplies of coal, oil and gas

Click to expand...

Hijacking your comment slightly but I'll simply observe that with the Russian situation what has long been feared by those looking ahead has now occurred. Gas has become an expensive, uncertain energy source and a political weapon. The EU in particular is firmly backed into a corner of it's own making.

Suffice to say that comes as no surprise - there's stuff written literally 45 years ago by credible authorities and experts at the time noting the future risk there.

A classic example of ignoring an all too obvious danger.

One of the big problems with reliance in imported energy is that it's much like a drug addiction, it compromises you in every way since you'll do whatever it takes to maintain supply.

The situation with Germany Vs Russia at present ought to make that abundantly clear to anyone who doubts it.

Now realise that Australia's oil supply is in the same position as Germany's gas with a very high reliance on imports.

Smurf1976 said:

One of the big problems with reliance in imported energy is that it's much like a drug addiction, it compromises you in every way since you'll do whatever it takes to maintain supply.

The situation with Germany Vs Russia at present ought to make that abundantly clear to anyone who doubts it.

Now realise that Australia's oil supply is in the same position as Germany's gas with a very high reliance on imports.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, The US is kindly looking after our oil reserves, and will let us have them if it wants to. Bwwwaaaahhh

SirRumpole said:

Don't worry, The US is kindly looking after our oil reserves, and will let us have them if it wants to. Bwwwaaaahhh

Click to expand...

We wont need them soon, when everything is electric, well maybe not everything.

sptrawler said:

We wont need them soon, when everything is electric, well maybe not everything.

Click to expand...

Yes, soon, like 50 years !

Smurf1976 said:

One of the big problems with reliance in imported energy is that it's much like a drug addiction, it compromises you in every way since you'll do whatever it takes to maintain supply.

The situation with Germany Vs Russia at present ought to make that abundantly clear to anyone who doubts it.

Now realise that Australia's oil supply is in the same position as Germany's gas with a very high reliance on imports.

Click to expand...

Not just refined fuel supply's but a mind boggling amount of pharmaceuticals and most of our manufactured goods coming from China, then there's the small issue of our current elevated living standards paid for by exports of iron ore etc to China.

We are far more exposed than the EU in regards of their gas supplies.

SirRumpole said:

Yes, soon, like 50 years !

Click to expand...

Can you imagine an electric tank in battle, that would be funny, they would have to have a dedicated person on battery watch so they knew when to high tail it.
At least you could push the E.V away from the charge point, or just park on it. ?

You know it's getting interesting when the US needs to approach Venezuela about producing some more oil...