This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
human ingenuity at its nest

http://www.livescience.com/49133-super-efficient-solar-energy-system.html


http://phys.org/news/2014-12-aims-r...e=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu

The researchers are the first to show that a flexible paper composed entirely of graphene oxide sheets can charge and discharge with sodium-ions for more than 1,000 cycles.
Click to expand...

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-thermoelectric-power-economically-competitive-renewable.html#nRlv

A new study predicts that large-scale power plants based on thermoelectric effects, such as small temperature differences in ocean water, could generate electricity at a lower cost than photovoltaic power plants.
Click to expand...
 
Smurf1976 said:
7:46AM today in Tasmania.

All was going fine...
Click to expand...

Note that what follows is a fairly technical post about an actual power system incident today. Point in posting is to highlight why the prospect of not having effective control over generation, as would arise from any major shift to distributed generation, scares the **** out of engineers and others who aim to keep the system up. All works fine until, a fraction of a second later, something breaks. That moment is when the ability to control things becomes critical, do nothing and we'll all be in the dark in no time.

It happened again at 3:28pm today. Sudden and complete loss of Vic - Tas transmission whilst fully loaded Vic to Tas.

Industrial load was automatically shed in Tas, subsequently restored with power from far more reliable rotating machines (hydro).

Generation was shed in various places, primarily (in decreasing order of significance):

Loy Yang (Vic), Torrens Island (SA), Eraring (NSW), Yallourn (Vic), Bayswater (NSW), Gladstone (Qld), Vales Point (NSW), Braemar (Qld), Hazelwood (Vic), Mt Piper (NSW), Tarong (Qld), Stanwell (Qld), Callide (Qld), Dartmouth (Vic).

All of those are conventional coal-fired stations with the exceptions of Torrens Island (gas-fired steam turbines), Braemar (gas-fired gas turbines), and Dartmouth (hydro).

Note that none of those power stations tripped offline or suffered other problems due to the transmission failure They remained under normal control and were simply required to generate less electricity, which is exactly what they did.

As you can see, it's all one big interconnected system and quite complex in operation. Vic - Tas transmission fails, and that affects generation as far away as Queensland and SA.

In Tasmania, industrial load was restored by (in decreasing order of significance):

John Butters (increased output), Reece (brought online from zero), Gordon (increased output), Mackintosh (brought online), Bastyan (brought online), Tribute (brought online), Cethana (increased output). All of those are conventional hydro stations.

For the record, wind generation in Tas was at a moderate level at the time, about 8% of system load, and declined slightly (by about 4% of the initial output) due to wind speed variation whilst all this was going on.

So overall:

1 transmission link (DC) failed.
Industrial load shed in Tas at several sites (mostly smelters).
14 power stations cut output in Qld, NSW, Vic and SA.
3 stations increased output and another 4 brought online from scratch in Tas to restore industrial load.

Vic - Tas transmission was restored about 7:45pm and is now operating normally, the quantity and direction of electricity transmission being in response to normal requirements.

As I said before, the point here is about control over generation and the inherent fragility of the grid as such. Having incidents like today's is one thing if you've got control over what's going in (generation) and can disconnect loads if need be. It's an entirely different problem if you don't have control over generation and disconnecting load also disconnects generation (as is the case with household solar etc).

I'm not saying that 100% renewable can't be done, I'm sure that it can be done, but it's nowhere near as simple as just putting panels on roofs. That only works as long as it's a relatively small share of total generation which, at present, is the case.
 
Hi Smurf,

In the past I can recall local power stations (coal) in Newcastle and other places. Gradually over time larger stations were built in the area, Eraring, Lake Munmorah and Liddell.

I think this was in the 1960/70 era, it was around that time the SM scheme started to produce as well.
Is this around about when the national grid came into existence ?

I imagine that the older plants were for local use only as I can't recall any pylons linking them to a grid, the huge pylons that stretch across the country now are a more recent addition, say last 40 years or so.

When did all the states link to the national grid ?
 

A bit of the climate topic, but to answer the question.....

Tasmania (1916) and Victoria (1924) were the first in Australia with high voltage transmission over long distances and a plan for a state-wide grid and they're still the only states with a true state-wide grid as such. The other states generally became keen on big transmission lines much later - 1950's to the 1970's depending on location.

Historically, NSW, Vic and Tas were the major producers and users of electricity and lead much of the industry's development. Load growth in the other states is somewhat more recent, becoming significant from the mid-1960's onward in Qld, SA and WA (those states had electricity way before that, but didn't use much of it).

That said, to this day most of WA isn't part of a main grid, there's really only the south-west system (including Perth) and another one in the north-west. Neither are connected to each other or to another state. For the rest of WA, and that's most of the physical land area, it's a local diesel or gas engine supplying a town or two each.

NT is similar to WA but a lot smaller. There's a very limited "grid" around Darwin (very heavily dependent on one major power station plus a couple of small ones) and a small but locally significant power station at Alice Springs. Everything else is a diesel / gas engine powering a town or two as a standalone system (apart from the bauxite mine and former alumina refinery at Gove with an oil-fired steam turbine plant).

Interconnection between states as follows:

NSW - Vic. AC link (so the two state grids became one as such) about 1961 (I think, could have been as early as 1955 when the first parts of the Snowy scheme started operating). The Snowy scheme was always intended to supply power to both states, interconnection of NSW and Vic was just part of what needed to happen in order to make it work. Whilst the entire Snowy scheme is physically in NSW, electrically two of the power stations are in Victoria (Murray 1 & 2).

Vic - SA. AC link in 1990 followed by a smaller DC link in 2003. The rationale was initially based on SA obtaining surplus off-peak electricity from Vic (produced from coal) at very low cost thus reducing the use of much more expensive gas in SA's power stations. The other initial benefit was being able to obtain some peak power from Vic, thus enabling closure of two old (worn out) power stations in SA without having to replace them. Overall, it was simply the cheapest option at the time in the context of supplying SA (flow from SA to Vic being vary rare until quite recently). In more recent times, development of multiple large wind farms in SA has seen an increasing tendency toward flow from SA to Vic at certain times.

Qld and NSW were linked in 2000 via a small capacity DC link, then with a larger AC one in 2001. The rationale was based partly on technical aspects and sharing of generating capacity, since Qld's peak demand isn't generally coincident with the other states, and partly on the ideological basis of competition.

Tas and Vic were linked in 2006 via a single DC link, among the longest high capacity undersea cables in the world. The rationale was always based on the notion that Tasmania's generation is energy constrained whereas a predominantly thermal system (in the other states) is constrained by peak capacity. Adding in the major difference in timing of peak demand (Winter morning in Tas versus Summer afternoon elsewhere), there was an obvious opportunity to share resources. Send off-peak electricity to Tas as a bulk energy source (avoiding the need to build more energy capability into the system) and use Tasmania's surplus (during Summer) peak capacity to meet peak demands in Victoria. A very rational concept, and one that was investigated on numerous occasions back as far as the 1930's, always failing on the basis of cost. But with the end of large dam construction in Tas (1994) and the end of brown coal construction in Vic (1996) combined with improvements in technology it finally stacked up financially (but only just) and was built.

The idea of a NSW - SA connection has been investigated on several occasions, the basic rationale being cheap coal in NSW displacing expensive gas in SA. Or more recently as a means of getting a potential future intermittent surplus of generation (from wind) out of SA whilst providing a backup when the wind isn't blowing. The fundamental problem has always come down to economics, not helped by the relatively high losses along the various proposed routes (largely due to pushing existing infrastructure to its' limit in order to limit capital costs).

The idea of a Qld - Mt Isa (currently a separate system) - Darwin link has also been proposed. It's more a political idea than an economic or engineering one however.

There's also been some thought of a PNG - Qld link. The basic concept is to develop baseload hydro generation in PNG and send that into Qld. So the link is effectively part of a generation proposal rather than being purely an interconnection as such.

Also around is the idea of upgrading or duplicating the current interconnectors, indeed some work to this end has been done on various occasions (most notably NSW - Vic and to a far lesser extent Vic - SA). It really comes down to economics as to whether it's worthwhile or not.

So far as day to day operation is concerned, electricity can flow in either direction between states and the determinant is market price but typically the outcome is:

Qld - NSW = flow is mostly from Qld to NSW. Cheaper generation costs in Qld are the reason.

NSW - Vic = flow is generally Vic to NSW (counting the Murray power stations as being in Vic) most of the time except during demand peaks in Vic and SA.

Vic - SA = flow historically almost all from Vic to SA and that is still largely the case. Exceptions are high demand periods in Vic especially when SA demand is moderate (eg last day of a heatwave, cool change has arrived in Adelaide but not yet in Melbourne). Also flow SA to Vic when wind speed in SA is high and demand is low.

Vic - Tas = varies, net flow over 12 months can be in either direction. Broadly speaking, the basic concept is flow Vic to Tas when price in Vic is low (off-peak) and Tas to Vic when price in Vic is high. Complicating this is that Hydro Tas has a huge water storage capacity, such that it's possible to take a long term approach. Eg it's possible to buy or sell heavily for a period of years if the situation warrants it, the definition of "peak" and "off-peak" doesn't need to follow a daily cycle. That said, if there's a heatwave in Vic and SA then you can be pretty sure that flow will be from Tas to Vic, likewise that's generally the case during the Winter evening peak. Any other time, it depends on the market. In recent times, price in Vic has been low most of the time so flow has mostly been Vic to Tas, reversing when the price spikes. The resultant under-production of hydro resources doesn't mean water is being wasted, it just goes into long term storage and will be used at some future time when prices are higher. And suffice to say that right now there's plenty of space in which to store water, no chance of running out of room anytime soon.
 
Thanks Smurf,

Now to bring it back on topic

Reading through your detailed post (twice) it seems to me that by connecting to a (almost) national grid we are making far better use of resources. The ability to share surplus power means that less fuel is used to generate power when the problem can be solved by using another states surplus.

Taking the grid as a whole, we are using quite a lot less fuel right across Australia, got to be a good thing, both financially and for the climate

I realise this thread is supposed to be about the "hysteria" surrounding climate change but I think that something that explains how we can use less fuel to make the required power is climate related.
 
burglar said:
It was always my understanding that Telsa outgunned Edison,
because DC was difficult to transport over long distances!
Click to expand...

In the War of Currents era (sometimes, War of the Currents or Battle of Currents) in the late 1880s, George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison became adversaries due to Edison's promotion of direct current (DC) for electric power distribution against alternating current (AC) advocated by several European companies[1] and Westinghouse Electric based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which had acquired many of the patents by Nikola Tesla.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents
 

The theoretical effect is to maximise efficiency at the generation level. Where it gets complex is how you define "efficiency" since it's based either on actual cost (old days) or price offered to the market (modern approach) noting that the price offered does not necessarily reflect the underlying cost of production in the short term (as with any market).

But the overall effect is that, mostly, we end up heavily loading the cheaper to operate generation facilities then using progressively more expensive ones as demand rises on the daily / seasonal cycle and vice versa as it falls. Complicating that is maintenance outages, some plants with very variable actual costs, and those with intermittent fuel supplies (most notably wind).

But in broad terms, the outcome is use of the cheapest to operate plant regardless of which state it's in. Right now Qld and Vic are supplying 19% of the load in NSW for example.
 

Well, here's the point mate if you care to read the attached link by Bob Carter JCU Townsville on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef contrary to the propaganda spread by the Looney Left and the Greens.

One of your alarmist stated half the Great Barrier Reef is already dead.....What a lot of nonsense.

So here is all the evidence you are screaming for and it is also backed up by Professor Peter Ridd, a marine biologist form JCU Townsville who had studied the reef for over 30 years.

I have rejected propaganda from the alarmist who have one thing on their agenda and that is to interrupt progress in the expansion of the coal industry in Queensland.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y-misconceptions/story-e6frg6zo-1227168703706

Bob Carter is a marine geologist and an Institute of Public Affairs fellow researching the GBR.
 

So all is revealed noco, you are a coal man, self interest pure and simple.

My concerns are for the future generations of people.

When I first dived the reef off Airlie Beach in 1966 the reef was in clear colours, since then it has gradually faded and today in those spots is an off white colour and looks dead. You can quote all the oil/coal lobby on the payroll scientist's you like noco, but from my view they are wrong and Flannery is right.
 


OMG, you really are in denial...Where is your scientific evidence.

Flannery is right?????????????you have to be joking.
 
noco said:
OMG, you really are in denial...Where is your scientific evidence.

Flannery is right?????????????you have to be joking.
Click to expand...

The scientific knowledge is distorted by the oil/coal lobby, (your mob noco) who out of many thousands of pieces of information sift through it all and highlight a few bits to suit thier agenda.

I have been a nature watcher from childhood and know from what I have seen and experienced that climate change is very real, not overstated and it is now clear that it is your mob noco are the ones being hysterical.

Anyhow, specifically state some of the points of Flannery that you think are wrong. And not what someone else says, something that you think and believe.
 
Further to previous posts about how the electricity grid works:

Power is worthless in SA at the moment, literally it's worthless. Indeed the price is slightly negative (ie below zero).

There's not much demand in SA due to the time of year and the weather, meanwhile the wind is blowing such that wind generation alone exceeds total demand in SA. Add in 3 thermal (fuel) generating units that are trying to remain online so as to avoid shut down and start up costs, and the end result is that electricity is less than worthless at the spot price.

The lines are fully loaded sending electricity from SA into Vic but that's not enough.

It's also very cheap in Vic at the moment, about 1.2 cents / kWh, with moderate load and the supply coming from SA being the cause. The lines are fully loaded sending electricity from Vic into NSW, whilst the Vic - Tas link is operating at reduced capacity (Vic to Tas) on account of widespread lightning in Tas and the risk of transmission failures as a result.

SA - 28% of total production is being sent into Vic, that being the limit of what the lines can handle. Most thermal units offline with the rest minimising output.

Vic - some very low cost generation (coal) forced to cut output since there's nowhere for it to go. Some hydro generation still running in order to release water for irrigation etc. Gas generation completely shut down. A lot of wind in Vic at the moment too.

NSW - 14.5% of supply is coming from Vic (limit of what the lines can handle) and a further 6.5% from Qld (normal market operations on account of price). Price in NSW is 3.1 cents / kWh and in Qld it's 3.0

Tas - 16% of supply coming from Vic, limited due to the lightning issues. We'd be taking fully 44% from Vic, the limit of the link's capacity, if not for the lightning given the very low price at the moment. 1.2 cents / kWh = outright bargain.
 

Firstly, I believe I have lived a lot longer than you and have seen more of nature than you would have had hot dinners.

If you still believe in Flannery, then I am sure you still believe in Santa Clause.

Flannery said in 2007, there would never ever be enough rains in the future to fill the dams in Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne and what did those looney left do?.......They convinced the Labor Governments in those three Eastern states to spend $billions on moth balled desalination plants...and then it rained and all the dams were filled to overflowing...Now how is that for starters?

Flannery also stated the seas would rise to the height of ten story buildings by the end of the century and then goes and buys a block of land on the Hawksbury River just 2 meters above high water mark......Now how is that for seconds?

You have probably seen the alarmists showing videos of big chunks of ice falling into the sea stating the glaciers are melting causing the seas to rise....They even lied by telling people it was in the Arctic or the Antarctic..I advise you do the cruise up to Alaska, the ship will take you into Glacier Bay and you will see the exact same shots taken by the alarmists...Big chunks of ice falling into the sea the size of a bus....I took some excellent photos to prove it....I have traveled to many other parts of the world as well and observed lots of nature including 12 months around Australia.

Ah yes, the deceptive propaganda......you can't beat it but still and all the naive believe it.
 
explod said:
You can quote all the oil/coal lobby on the payroll scientist's you like noco, but from my view they are wrong and Flannery is right.
Click to expand...
You don't think it's possible the 'side' opposing eg Carter might also be following the grant money?

I'm not sure what particularly qualifies either Carter or Flannery to be considered experts on climate.

From Wikipedia on Flannery:
A little hard to perceive the connection between kangaroos and climate, but there you go.
Mr Carter's Wiki info is

explod said:
The scientific knowledge is distorted by the oil/coal lobby, (your mob noco) who out of many thousands of pieces of information sift through it all and highlight a few bits to suit thier agenda.
Click to expand...
And possibly, to use your term (your mob, explod) might similarly sift according to their own agenda.

I have minimal interest here but just wanted to point out that neither of the two individuals apparently under discussion seem to be absolutely specifically qualified on climate.

The hysteria, from whatever side, is usually counter-productive.
 
I just can't see what's in it for governments to propagate a myth about climate change ?

Surely it would be a lot easier for governments to soothe the voters feelings by saying there is nothing to worry about instead of threatening to hit voters in the pocket with CC preventions like direct action or carbon taxes and thereby losing votes ?

Most governments including ours accept that climate change is real, even if they don't want to do anything about it. When so many governments acknowledge a hard reality it's pretty difficult for the deniers to say it's all cr@p.
 

Of course climate change is real.......the climate has been changing for thousands of years .......even in my life time I have seen decades of climate change.

GLOBAL WARMING .........NO WAY.

This is why the alarmist changed from Global warming to climate change because science has proven them wrong that the globe is not warming and has not warmed in the past 17 years.......It is a proven fact but I sure one of the alarmist on this forum will come back with some fictitious " peer reviewed facts".
 

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]

American television comedian Stephen Colbert coined the word in this meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
 
SirRumpole said:
I just can't see what's in it for governments to propagate a myth about climate change ?
Click to expand...
If you are a country without economically extractable fossil fuels then so long as the world relies on coal, oil and gas for energy you are at a competitive disadvantage.

Likewise any country with large non-fossil energy sources capable of being developed at below average cost stands to gain should there be a global shift to non-fossil energy.

Reverse that if you have a lot of fossil fuel in the ground and/or don't have a good position in non-fossil energy resources.

If you take a look at the position which countries, or even regions within a country, have on the CO2 issue then there's a definite correlation between that and their natural resource situation.

At one extreme, the EU has no reason to want anyone using fossil fuels given that it's a huge problem for them. Little oil, not much gas and an uneconomical coal mining industry puts the EU as a whole, and most of the countries within it, at an economic disadvantage so long as other countries have access to cheap fossil fuels.

On the other hand, you won't hear Saudi Arabia arguing against oil anytime soon. Their entire economy is heavily tied to it, and to the extent that they've got anything else it's petrochemicals and natural gas.

Even within Australia, political views on the subject are different in Qld and WA compared to Tas and SA and again resources explain the difference. The former have lots of coal (Qld) and gas (both) with an economy heavily tied to the mining industry in general. In contrast, the latter have an advantage in hydro (Tas), wind (both) and are likely places for building any future large scale solar (SA) or geothermal (both) operation. State politics in general tends to reflect this reality.
 

I guess you must be one of those naive people who has full confidence in Tim Flannery and Al Gore.

Intelligent examination???...more like an intelligent CON job....The evidence and logic is rhetorical propaganda starting from the UN Secretary General down the line through to the Fabians, Tim Flannery and Al Gore and backed up by the ABC, Fairfax, the Guardian and GETUP....It is a pity those cronies didn't tell the truth......They could not lie start in bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...