Energy

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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%)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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??

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??

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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??

Click to expand...

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.