Resisting Climate Hysteria

Smurf1976 said:

...It is something that many hate to admit, but the state-owned electricity suppliers were genuinely first class operations.
...

Click to expand...

Genuinly thoughtful as ever Smurf. I never said the state-owned suppliers weren't efficient. But NSW needs solutions now, in the economic climate applying now.

We face a set of older power stations needing replacement, the current ones are expensive to maintain and less and less reliable. We desperately need new investment, and realistically that's only coming from public-private partnerships, and that means the operation of market forces in pricing.

And anyway, I'll never accept that free market competition necessarily leads to price rises - only in imperfect markets, eg when govts create uncertainty with carbon tax and ETS proposals (which is a whole other discussion), or ideologically oppose an array of options (such as coal-fired, dams etc). Or I might add, in the case of poorly regulated markets. As a positive example, the ACCC seems to be reasonably effective in it's role.

nioka said:

I'll suggest an amendment;

1. Build a dam, put in hydro.
2. Build another dam, put in hydro.
3 -10. Keep building dams, keep increasing hydro electricity availability.
11. Mothball the desal plants.
12. Investigate if there would still be a need for a nuclear power station.

I have not heard of a dam that ruined the enviroment. I have seen plenty that CHANGE it.... for the better.(visited one last week for an enjoyable day out. Better than my last visit to a weed infested national park.)

Click to expand...

So where are we going to put these dams? The only really viable places for hydro in Australia are Tasmania (usually good rainfall), Snowy Mountains (annual snow melt) and the Top End (wet season). The rest of Australia are not good options for hydro due to low and sporadic rainfalls. And even the existing systems have shown signs of stress, the Snowy Scheme has had very low dam levels in the recent past. They have also used some innovative business practices where they have used low cost off-peak electricity to pump water back up to the dam at night time at Talbingo to use to generate high value electricity at Peak times. That isn't very green.

Unless methods of reticulating electricity over long distances are developed I think hydro is near it's useful limit in Australia (Smurf - would be able to answer this one well for us). Otherwise our only real alternatives at the moment are gas, nuclear or coal.

derty said:

So where are we going to put these dams? The only really viable places for hydro in Australia are Tasmania (usually good rainfall), Snowy Mountains (annual snow melt) and the Top End (wet season). The rest of Australia are not good options for hydro due to low and sporadic rainfalls. .

Click to expand...

Suggest you travel all along the east coast of NSW and Queensland. Also ,it is because there is sporadic rainfalls in other places makes the building of dams more important. Look at the flooding in central N.S.W. and Victoria at the moment. A few years supply in excess of current usage.

Check out the BOM website, tick show rivers on the maps and see how many there are and how few are dammed.

Dams dont always have to be big to be worthwhile either.

nioka said:

Suggest you travel all along the east coast of NSW and Queensland. Also ,it is because there is sporadic rainfalls in other places makes the building of dams more important. Look at the flooding in central N.S.W. and Victoria at the moment. A few years supply in excess of current usage.

Click to expand...

While the recent rains were sizeable they are an outlier and were preceded by almost a decade of low rainfall. You need surety of supply if you are planning power generation and much of Australia cannot guarantee this.

from section 8.3 of the Australian Energy Resource Assessment 2010:

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth, with over 80 per cent of its landmass receiving an annual average rainfall of less than 600 mm per year and 50 per cent less than 300 mm per year (figure 8.8). There is also high variability in rainfall, evaporation rates and temperatures between years, resulting in Australia having very limited and variable sur face water resources. Of Australia’s gross theoretical hydro energy resource of 265 TWh per year, only around 60 TWh is considered to be technically feasible (Hydropower and Dams 2009). Australia’s economically feasible capacity is estimated at 30 TWh per year of which more than 60 per cent has already been harnessed (Hydropower and Dams 2009).

Click to expand...

nioka said:

Dams dont always have to be big to be worthwhile either.

Click to expand...

No you're right, and most of the projected hydro power growth is from these small setups. Although the estimate is that these small hydro power setups will add an additional 0.2% capacity annually up to 2029.

hydro section:http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ch_8.pdf
entire report: http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ga_aera.html

Logique said:

And anyway, I'll never accept that free market competition necessarily leads to price rises - only in imperfect markets, eg when govts create uncertainty with carbon tax and ETS proposals (which is a whole other discussion), or ideologically oppose an array of options (such as coal-fired, dams etc). Or I might add, in the case of poorly regulated markets.

Click to expand...

The operation of the market directly lowers the technical operating efficiency of power stations through a short term focus.

Give me a market that has guaranteed outcomes 7 days ahead and then we'll be able to operate generation efficiently. But when you realise that it takes a day to start or stop a major power station, but the market works in only 30 minute increments, then you see where the problem is. All sorts of technically wasteful and inefficient things are done simply because the traders changed the price unexpectedly. It wastes a lot of fuel, wears things out and generally increases costs, particularly through the forced running of high cost, inefficient plant.

Bottom line is the market is causing expensive peaking generation to be run whilst much lower cost plants sit idle. That's a clear waste of money and unnecessary pollution too.

In principle, I am a supporter of free markets (genuinely free being the key word here). But the electricity market as it stands just isn't working well - efficient outcomes are prevented by speculation (which directly affects actual production - remember that unlike other commodities, electricity is not stored) and all sorts of funny goings on.

I don't doubt that an efficient market quite probably could be devised. But what we have now is clearly not working.

derty said:

Unless methods of reticulating electricity over long distances are developed I think hydro is near it's useful limit in Australia (Smurf - would be able to answer this one well for us). Otherwise our only real alternatives at the moment are gas, nuclear or coal.

Click to expand...

Detailed post to follow when I have more time. But I'll leave you with these photos for now. They show rather clearly what happens when system overload and drought are combined... (photos taken by Smurf).

derty said:

While the recent rains were sizeable they are an outlier and were preceded by almost a decade of low rainfall. You need surety of supply if you are planning power generation and much of Australia cannot guarantee this.

Click to expand...

There are rivers, not dammed that run all the time. (Clarence and Richmond are two) With dams they would supply a lot of electricity and some of that water could go over the range to augment the inland in those times of low rainfall. Check out a map showind the headwaters of these. At Glen Innis the Beardy which ends up in the Murray, is on one side of the town and the Mann river, which ends up in the Clarence, is on the other. The Glen Innes Council actually pump water from one to the other at times.

Smurf1976 said:

Detailed post to follow when I have more time. But I'll leave you with these photos for now. They show rather clearly what happens when system overload and drought are combined... (photos taken by Smurf).

Click to expand...

The pictures are no argument against dams- it doesn't look like that now, that's the whole point.

La Nina year, floods in Victoria, SE QLD rivers discharging huge volumes to waste. Floods in southern NSW. The Hume Hwy was closed. Water lapping the spillway at Burrinjuck Dam and about to burst over, Blowering Dam 90% plus full, and rain still falling now.

The Snowy Hydro scheme has always pumped water backwards and forwards, in good years and bad, that's what they do.

Logique said:

The pictures are no argument against dams- it doesn't look like that now, that's the whole point.

Click to expand...

I've posted the photos in the interest of balance prior to posting a more technically detailed list of possibilities as viewed from a purely engineering viewpoint.

Also in the interests of balance, I'll point out that the very low levels shown in those two photos are not a consequence of drought as such. Rather, they are a consequence of failing to build enough new dams (or alternatives) to ensure reliable operation under all foreseeable weather conditions.

Provided that the system is operated within an appropriately determined output capacity, water storages should never be empty and, if the storage is large enough, should never be full either.

Undeveloped hydro-electric schemes in Australia that I am aware of are as follows. This is industry information that is publicly available and has been for many years.

Note that output values are for the scheme and not necessarily for the power station itself. That is, if construction of a new scheme also diverts additional water into an existing power station, then the entire increase in output is attirbuted to the new scheme and none of it to the existing. This does not represent double counting.

Note that the output data is annual energy generation, not peak power. In general, hydro-electric power stations in Tasmania operate at high load factor (average load as a % of peak) to provide baseload supply whilst those in other states have larger installed peak capacity, relative to annual output, and are used primarily to meet peak power demands.


Potential new hydro-electric power stations.

POWER STATION, ANNUAL OUTPUT (gigawatt hours), STATE

Gordon-below Franklin, 1580 GWh, Tas
Franklin and King, 1472 GWh, Tas
Burdekin Falls, 800 GWh, Qld
Herbert, 560 GWh, Qld
Huon, 429 GWh, Tas
Apsley, 400 GWh, NSW
Upper Franklin, 263 GWh, Tas
Upper Gordon, 245 GWh, Tas
Lower Arthur, 237 GWh, Tas
Davey, 236 GWh, Tas
Albert Rapids, 219 GWh, Tas
Jane, 219 GWh, Tas
Middle Arthur, 202 GWh, Tas
Mersey Lakes, 202 GWh, Tas
Upper Arthur, 184 GWh, Tas
Wilson-Huskisson, 175 GWh, Tas
The Brothers, 148 GWh, NT
Que, 131 GWh, Tas
Cleanskin, 126 GWh, NT
Whyte, 114 GWh, Tas
Mt Nancar, 111 GWh, NT
Donaldson, 105 GWh, Tas
Upper Meander, 96 GWh, Tas
Budd's Mare, 90 GWh, NSW
Savage, 79 GWh, Tas
Katherine Gorge, 70 GWh, NT
Quirindi Gorge, 70 GWh, NT
Upper Nive, 61 GWh, Tas
Traveller's Rest, 61 GWh, Tas
Ejong Waterhole, 58 GWh, NT
Judbury, 44 GWh, Tas
Lake Dixon, 39 GWh, Tas
Lake Spicer, 26 GWh, Tas
Lake Beatrice, 26 GWh, Tas
Ringarooma, 18 GWh, Tas
Bradys Lake, 13 GWh, Tas
Calder Inglis, 13 GWh, Tas
Derwent Bridge, 11 GWh, Tas


Existing hydro-electric schemes in Australia as follows (there's a couple missing from this list but it's mostly complete).

Gordon, 1472 GWh, Tas
Murray 1, 1408 GWh, Snowy
Poatina, 1295 GWh, Tas
Reece, 1007 GWh, Tas
Tumut 1, 894 GWh, Snowy
Murray 2, 816 GWh, Snowy
Tumut 2, 785 GWh, Snowy
Tarraleah, 638 GWh, Tas
Tungatinah, 618 GWh, Tas
Tumut 3, 582 GWh (partly pumped storage), Snowy
John Butters, 569 GWh, Tas
Trevallyn, 534 GWh, Tas
Liapootah, 493 GWh, Tas
Wivenhoe, 450 GWh (pumped storage), Qld
Cethana, 436 GWh, Tas
Bastyan, 385 GWh, Tas
Mackintosh, 385 GWh, Tas
Kareeya, 363 GWh, Qld
Dartmouth, 350 GWh, Vic
Devils Gate, 314 GWh, Tas
Lemonthyme, 312 GWh, Tas
Wayatinah, 280 GWh, Tas
Blowering, 270 GWh, Snowy
Catagunya, 265 GWh, Tas
Tribute, 263 GWh, Tas
Hume, 260 GWh, NSW
Barron Falls, 253 GWh, Qld
Fisher, 238 GWh, Tas
Meadowbank, 220 GWh, Tas
Bendela & Kangaroo Valley, 202 GWh (pumped storage), NSW
Eildon, 192 GWh, Vic
Repulse, 176 GWh, Tas
West Kiewa, 173 GWh, Vic
Paloona, 152 GWh, Tas
Guthega, 144 GWh, Snowy
Wilmot, 135 GWh, Tas
McKay, 105 GWh, Vic
Cluny, 100 GWh, Tas
Lake Echo, 88 GWh, Tas
Rubicon scheme, 80 GWh, Vic
Butler's Gorge, 71 Gwh, Tas
Lake Margaret, 60 GWh, Tas
Clover, 60 GWh, Vic
Burrinjuck, 50 GWh, NSW
Rowallan, 43 GWh, Tas
Oaky, 15 GWh, NSW
Keepit, 13 GWh, NSW
Todd's Corner, 11 GWh (diversion pump energy recovery), Tas
Cascade, 7 GWh, Tas
Meander, 7 GWh, Tas
Wellington, 5 GWh, WA
Brown Mountain, 4 GWh, NSW
Cairn Curran, 2 GWh, Vic
Bogong, ??? GWh, Vic
Ord, ???, WA


Historic hydro-electric schemes no longer in operation:

Waratah, around 5 GWh, Tas, 1893 - 1963. Abandoned ruin.
Duck Reach, around 15 GWh, Tas, 1895 - 1955. Preserved empty building. Water now used at Trevallyn.
Morinna, 5 GWh, Tas, 1907 - 2008. Fully intact but not operating. Water to be used for irrigation.
Waddamana A, Tas, 395 GWh between both A & B stations, 1916 - 1965. Museum open to the public.
Waddamana B, Tas, 1944 - 1994. Mostly intact apart from pipes but not operating. Water now used at Poatina.
Shannon, 90 GWh, Tas, 1934 - 1964. Demolished. Water now used at Poatina.

Julia said:

What utter ***** nonsense. Surely the good citizens of Norfolk Island are not about to have this on?

Just another demonstration of the absolute craziness of the alarmist religion, and they wonder why the general population isn't prepared to go along with their zealotry.

If the whole global warming thing were somehow definitively rubbished, it would take them about a minute and a half to find some new cause about which to be catastrophically alarmed.

Click to expand...

An update on the Carbon Credit trial in Norfork Island from Andrew Bolt, who talks to Egger on the trial:

I suggest that the proposed Carbon Credit scheme (the aggressive version, not the PR version running in Norfolk) be applied to recipients of the AGW Gravy train, politicians and to the AGW alarmists in this forum, we can then revisit the scheme in 5 years to see who is still "onboard".

An iconic river, and a wet year, so good timing for some environmental releases. I note without comment or insinuation of any kind, that Snowy Hydro will receive $13.7M compensation from the Fed Govt for the released water.

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2010/11/04/Snowy_River_roars_once_more_534885.html

Snowy River roars once more Thursday, November 04, 2010

Billions of litres of water has begun cascading down the mighty Snowy River - the biggest flow the parched system has seen in more than 40 years.

Victorian Premier John Brumby and Water Minister Tim Holding travelled to Jindabyne, in southeastern NSW, on Thursday to witness water returning to the Snowy.

More than 17 billion litres of water is flowing from the Jindabyne Dam following an agreement between the Victorian, NSW and federal governments to repay the Snowy 'water debt' two years early.

The release, three weeks before the Victorian election, fulfils Labor's 1999 promise to return environmental flows to the river.

Under the three-way agreement, the federal government will compensate Snowy Hydro $13.7 million for water released as environmental flows.

The water started spilling from Jindabyne Dam on Tuesday and will continue for another nine days.

It cancels out the 'water debt' accumulated by the two states during the drought-ridden last decade, after an agreement to return water to the Snowy was signed but before water saving projects were in place.

Another 16 billion litres of water will be released in April next year, taking total river flows for the financial year to 70 (70) billion litres.

Mr Brumby said the government was on track to return the Snowy flows to 21 per cent by 2012.

'Flows in the legendary Snowy River are finally returning to levels that made it one of Australia's most iconic rivers,' he said.

'The return of this water is a great result for the environment and a great result for Snowy communities that have fought for so long and passionately to get their Snowy River back.'

Logique said:

'The return of this water is a great result for the environment and a great result for Snowy communities that have fought for so long and passionately to get their Snowy River back.'

Click to expand...

Yet another environmental "win" that comes directly at the cost of increased CO2 emissions.

Either CO2 is really the "number 1 issue" or it isn't. Judging by the actions of environmentalists over the past 40 years, it is not something they seem overly concerned about.

Wrong or right? I'm not judging, just observing. More water in the river there is, and more CO2 in the air is the direct consequence. Which is more important? Restore a river that's been dry for decades? Or keep CO2 out of the air?

Smurf1976 said:

Yet another environmental "win" that comes directly at the cost of increased CO2 emissions.

Either CO2 is really the "number 1 issue" or it isn't. Judging by the actions of environmentalists over the past 40 years, it is not something they seem overly concerned about.

Wrong or right? I'm not judging, just observing. More water in the river there is, and more CO2 in the air is the direct consequence. Which is more important? Restore a river that's been dry for decades? Or keep CO2 out of the air?

Click to expand...

Add to that the extra cost for electricity because the water was diverted from the hydro system. Electricty that would have reduced generation during periods of peak usage. Admittedly the river needed some water but was the allocation overdone?.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/solar-panels-going-on-white-house,18252/
Solar Panels Going On White House
President Barack Obama announced that he was putting solar panels on the roof of the White House in order to lead by example in the drive toward renewable energy. Here is a brief history of electricity consumption at the presidential residence:

Sept. 1901–Mar. 1909: The White House spends a fortune on incandescent bulbs due to Teddy Roosevelt's habit of shooting the lights out every night with his Winchester Model 1895
Dec. 1910–Mar. 1911: William Howard Taft goes an entire winter without turning on the heat, living off 220 pounds of stored fat
May 14, 1926: In the custom of the Roaring '20s, Calvin Coolidge installs a large, energy-consuming neon sign on the roof that flashes "USA"
Nov. 2, 1939: FDR saves electricity by not using White House elevator
Apr. 15, 1955: Twenty percent of the White House's electricity is supplied by Vice President Richard Nixon pedaling a stationary bicycle
Aug. 8, 1977: Jimmy Carter does some bull**** with peanuts
Feb. 10, 1984: President Reagan delivers a two-hour-long speech to his staff on the importance of turning the lights off in a room if you're not using it
Dec. 11, 1989: A Secret Service man is assigned to keep an eye on the thermostat

New pressure on Labor now Barack Obama has dumped tax on carbon...........

IFocus said:

New pressure on Labor now Barack Obama has dumped tax on carbon...........

Click to expand...

He has dumped Labor too. He is touring Asia but sends Hillary to see Julia .For "secret womens business" I suppose.

IFocus said:

New pressure on Labor now Barack Obama has dumped tax on carbon...........

Click to expand...

And more here in this article: Labor urged to follow Obama on carbon

Mr Warburton said Australia would be "stupid" to introduce a cap-and-trade system without the US. He said claims by Julia Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that a carbon price was needed to stimulate investment in electricity generation was wrong.

Click to expand...

This decision by Obama - although absolutely sensible - does put Julia Gillard in a very awkward place. Obviously she should follow.
The Opposition will rightfully be asserting that their direct action model is, in all the circumstances, more appropriate.

But if she backs down once again, she's going to give Abbott and Co endless ammunition.

Anyone ready to put money on her taking the sensible option and backing off a carbon price?

Or is it more likely that the sensible option will once again be sacrificed for what the government will see as its only political option?

It's a bit like the Nauru thing on asylum seekers: they refuse to re-start the perfectly functional centre on Nauru - despite having no feasible alternative - just so they don't give the Opposition that opportunity to say "hey, after all, you had to revert to our solution".

Utopia would be where a government actually did what was best for the nation. Won't ever happen here.

The final results from the Scientific American survey are in. Not withstanding the very poor survey design, the results are interesting.

Results here ===>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

More evidence the warmists are losing the PR war.

Once the GW gravy train starts drying up, maybe all those scientists can study something worthwhile...

...or get a job in politics.

Bad couple of weeks for the Govt.

Clobbered (politically) by Joe Hockey on the banks, and in the US, indirectly by the Tea Party in a big turn to the right in US politics, and the ensuing cap and trade scheme 'swan dive' on Presidential announcement. And then there was the wild mob in Northam WA to highlight their handling of our national borders.

Stunning climate survey results there Wayne. Dick Warburton is on the money, uncertainty is the real blockage in the investment pipeline, not the lack of a price on carbon. I'd take his opinion over (former trade unionist) Gerg Combet's any day.

I want to be fair to President Obama, I admired his courage in pushing the new health care bill through, and Hillary Clinton supported that as well. Scandalous the cost of medicine in the US.