|
Post by singletonengineer on Oct 22, 2017 17:21:33 GMT 9.5
Two years later and the tide appears, perhaps and just maybe, to be turning if only a little.
This is in part due to the Federal Government's approach to the proposed NEG, National Energy Guarantee.
The Climate Council, though, has dug itself into a hole entirely of its own choosing regarding unreliable electricity generation technologies.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Oct 22, 2017 17:10:34 GMT 9.5
Net evaporation rates along much of the eastern seabord of Australia lie between 1.5 and 2 metres per annum. By that I mean total evaporation minus rainfall. No runoff inflow allowed for. For an idea of what this means at scale, the water storages of AGL Macquarie, ie dams associated with operation of Bayswater and Liddell Power Stations, lose about 10Gl/year due to net evaporation. Total water use for other purposes is over 50Gl => 60Gl all up extracted from the Hunter River. 10m/year or even 5 m/y seems to be a gross over-estimate based on my experience. One on-line estimation for numerous Californian dams yields evap estimates of 2 to 7 mm/d, ie 700 to 2500mm. www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html. My best guess? Of the order of 1.5 to 2 metres per annum, after allowing for 700mm of rainfall inflow, so 2.2 to 2.7 metres before allowing for rain inflows, in coastal Eastern Australian conditions. Very shallow evaporation pans exposed to the wind, in dry (desert) conditions would of course be much thirstier. If crops/vegetation are involved, the correct term is evapotranspiration, to allow for water loss through plant leaves and stems. A certain Canberran researcher suggests that H=200m and envisions 2200 sites around Australia for pairs of pumped hydro dams. I think he is mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jun 12, 2013 8:36:20 GMT 9.5
Nice one, Geoff.
Your diligence and expertise never cease to amaze me.
Besides which, I like your writing style... a little humour combined with bluntness.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on May 6, 2013 13:03:54 GMT 9.5
Excellent paper. The full download is a much more satisfying read, but that is no a criticism of the shorter version, which must leave some things unsaid.
The amount of serious effort which goes into such a paper is staggering. It is just this type of commitment which will, hopefully not too late, lead the world to a better future.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on May 3, 2013 7:37:47 GMT 9.5
After reading the Exec Summary, I can see that to read the full report would be a complete waste of time.
Key quote: "the hypothetical cost of a 100 per cent renewable power system is estimated to be at least $219 to $332 billion, depending on scenario. In practice, the final figure would be higher, as transition to a renewable power system would occur gradually, with the system being constructed progressively. It would not be entirely built using costs which assume the full learning technology curves, but at the costs applicable at the time."
The report's authors have admitted that their work is inadequate. These are certainly not real world costs.
Not only do the authors admit ignoring the non-so-minor issues of costs associated with distribution network augmentation, stranded assets, land aquisition (only 5,000 sq.km, folks - the equal of a strip several km wide the whole length of the NEM), but they have based the whole thing on heroic and optimistic guesses re advances in engineering and reductions in construction costs.
To list a few, any assumption that hot rocks, wave energy, other geothermal, biogas and bagasse will provide about one third of the NEM's energy in 40 years and that another third will come from domestic PV, commercial PV and CST is simply dreaming unless backed up with answers to the obvious question: How can this be, when most of these have zero commercial capacity at present and investigation (eg re hot rocks) is going nowhere or backwards? Where is the crystal ball which the number-crunchers used?
Lastly, the paper explains that they have assumed that full anticipated benefit from technological advances and the experience gained from the initial 4 or 5 builds of each new technology will apply to the whole of the project. In other words, they have predicted that they will run before they learn to crawl or to walk. This is transparent BS.
If this paper can toss around numbers like $300B, then I feel justified in adding a bugger factor of another couple of hundred billion to make up for the admitted omissions - say $500B all up.
Pipe dreams, the lot of it, but hey, there's at least some good in reports such as these. They keep dangerously deluded individuals in paid employment and off the streets, where they may otherwise become dangerous!
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Mar 15, 2013 16:25:51 GMT 9.5
Edireland has unwittingly produced a proposed "solution" which actually demonstrates just how far from a solution we really are.
Goodness knows how many folk live less than 6 metres above the high water mark of the world's coastlines, nor how much food is currently produced there, or how many species rely on the mangroves, estuaries and swamps. The numbers would be enormous.
My rough guess is that about half of the world's food and half its population would be adversely affected by the engineering works needed to hold back 6 metres of ocean.
Then what? Do humans continue till all ice has melted and 6 metres becomes 10? Then 15? Then 20?
Get real. Engineered solutions must address the causes, not the effects if they are to be reliable, affordable and sustainable. As in the health industry, prevention is much better than cure.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Mar 14, 2013 20:43:09 GMT 9.5
Nice one, Geoff and Barry.
Unfortunately, I expect many more reports from WWF and Co before their supporters and apologists realise the realities of distance, logistics, geography and environmental impact.
Until the day arrives when the flow of nonsense from ZCA2020, WWF and other supreme optimists ceases must arrive in order for the real debate to begin in earnest.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Feb 4, 2013 22:00:21 GMT 9.5
Hi, Barry. Your tradition has been to avoid giving offence. This article, the contents of which I support emphatically, is nuanced differently in two places and thus risks losing the target audience.
I suggest that you review the following and tone it down a little, in order that your message may be more palatable to those well-meaning folk who have not yet understood the energy reality which the world faces, which is that renewables, by themselves, cannot get us to our climate security goals.
"grossly misinformed environmentalists (‘enviro-conservatives’?) object to technical solutions based on emotional or ideological grounds alone". If I was one of the target group, I would be offended by the words "grossly misinformed" and "alone", especially if I had used my best efforts to form my beliefs.
"...nuclear energy is assumed to be too expensive". Not all have simply assumed. I'm sure that some, including some really smart folk, have really tried to understand the issues but have either miscalculated or have adopted flawed (or worse) data and theories to form their beliefs - although, I firmly agree, these beliefs are erroneous.
Effective persuasion has been said to first require an audience. Once our audience has turned off, persuasion is no longer possible and further attempts become unproductive interpersonal conflict.
I offer these comments as one who has frequently failed to follow my own advice. I, too, am human.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jan 16, 2013 23:00:13 GMT 9.5
Cyrilr, what you say makes sense but is not the final word. In a finite world under extreme challenge, there is no need to adopt only a select range of preferred options - in fact, such an approach leaves unmet need which must be considered. Aviation fuel must come from somewhere, and this author has demonstrated that this could very plausibly be from the oceans.
It is easy to say that electric cars are better and perhaps they are, from an either/or point of view. But you have entirely failed to consider that both targets are essential.
"We can't spare the clean energy" you say. I say that we cannot afford to manage only the vehicles whilst ignoring air transport, heavy road transport, unelectrified rail (where this exists), ocean freighters and, in a world where resource wars are an increasing possibility, defence purposes.
That's far too much liquid hydrocarbon usage to ignore or to place in the "too hard basket".
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Oct 5, 2012 13:37:34 GMT 9.5
The article included a reference to TCase 4, for which the comments are now closed - or at least, if they continue on the new site I have not been able to find them.
So I'm here and one step removed.
TCase 4 examined the embodied energy in renewables. That was back in 2009. Things have moved on. For example, solar thermal arrays (collector fields) have been constructed using almost no concrete at all. Novatec, which is a German corporation with shareholders including ABB (Switzerland) and Transfield Holdings (Aystralia) have constructed lightweight but very strong and fine tolerance flat panel arrays which include: - Aluminium reflector frames, assembled by robot. - Light steel supporting structures. - Steel screw-type foundations.
There is no concrete in the collector fields, apart from minor quantities in footings for steam mains and in concrete drainage pipes. The total would be of the order of 1 cubic metre per hectare.
Now, three years later, references to TCase 4 should probably include a comment that, due to the passage of time since the original study was completed, the data and hence the results are indicative only and should be checked or revised before they are relied upon.
Of course, there will be substantial volumes of concrete and steel in the steam turbine and generators and associated plant. The end result may well end up similar, despite technical advances.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 27, 2012 14:51:06 GMT 9.5
Very interesting discussion of the cost of integrating wind and PV into Eurpoean energy grids, including effects on cross-border power flows and negative effects on those neighbouring countries. www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagina.php?id=3865There is also a good discussion thread, well worth reading. It seems that the EU is close to delivering a landmark report on this subject, perhaps due in October 2013.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 22, 2012 21:30:51 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 10, 2012 21:25:24 GMT 9.5
I wonder whether taking a rational stance is appropriate in this instance.
Mr Lovins has, as demonstrated, failed to justify the foundations, whether technical, performance or cost. These are his modus operandi, established over four decades. previous rational dissection of his work has resulted in (a) clear demonstration that, as in this case, it is founded on meaningless aspirational nonsense, and (b) the author doesn't give a hoot, because his target audience is prepared to be as irrational as he is.
I suggest that this dichotomy is at the heart of the failure of the debate about anthropogenic climate change: those who don't want to listen to facts are certainly not going to be impressed by more facts. Those who want, deep in their hearts, to believe that the current trends can continue without incurring a future cost will hang onto opinion, whether factually sound or not, which promises to give them the future that they desire without pain either now or later.
So, while on one hand I value the work done by Ted Trainer, I am sure that it will not strike at the core of the two constituencies to which Lovins appeals.
These are: (1) Climate science denying, do-nothing, hope merchants who are along for the ride; and (2) Well intented optimists who really, really want to avoid the pain of climate change but are seeking to avoid the emotional and financial pain of facing up to the true costs and magnitude of a renewables-only energy future. These folk are not making decisions on the basis of facts: they have used emotional and aspirational filters to cherry-pick their way to a vision of an energy future which, though enticing, can never be within reach.
My greatest fear is that, by giving this book oxygen in the form of critical review, its author and its contents both are afforded credibility which is not deserved.
In conclusion: I'm coming to the opinion that it is worse than useless to argue with such as Lovins. He should be banished, ignored and sidelined until such time as he offers detailed, rational and critically reviewed responses to the many criticisms of his previous work.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 9, 2012 21:30:37 GMT 9.5
Eclipse: "How much would it cost to ... whack up some cooling towers?"
If we are talking of dry cooling, then what is needed is multiple football fields in area of cooling towers, plus the power supplies to drive many large fans. If the design of the power station does not include such items, then the switchyard may need to be relocated 100+ metres further away.
This is not a trivial problem and there can be no trivial solution.
Either power stations are designed for dry cooling or they are not. Once constructed, it is all but too late to switch.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 9, 2012 18:11:49 GMT 9.5
Lanced Dendrite is absolutely correct. Australian loads and systems are suited to 500 - 750 MW units. However, a unit double that size would not present major hurdles.
Each relatively modern black coal power station in NSW, Liddell, Eraring, Bayswater and Mount Piper, was designed for 4-packs of 500 or 660MW. The transmission system has demonstrated several times during recent years to be able to handle simultaneous failure of several units.
Single units equal to two of the above are thus perhaps not ideal from a fault management perspective, but are not out of the question, either.
My own opinion is that the ideal mix of NPP's in the East Australian Grid is several (not too many) variants, probably along the following lines: 1. One or two designs in the range 50 to 100 MW for local loads, eg as support to mines and to enable feed from remote-ish locations to reduce the transmission losses. EG: Broken Hill? Tamworth? 2. 700MW and 1000MW units, which offer lower whole-of-life unit costs and will fit quite well onto or near existing sites. Example: In NSW, the four power stations mentioned above, plus Vales Point, Munmorah and Wallerawang.
That's 7 potential sites for NSW alone, each with excellent grid connection, existing local workforces experienced in construction, maintenance and operation of power plant and with access to cooling water.
Note, however, the water requirement can be reduced by at least 90% by use of dry cooling condensers. These require substantial footprint and, due to their large fans, are noisy, so it's probable that only for the four western (freshwater cooled) stations would this attractive.
Let's not get too hung up about unit size - there's more than enough range available right now, from a bunch of suppliers and with more coming.
In closing, it should be remembered that a 30MW unit was considered to be large about 60 years ago. By 30 years ago, 660MW units were at the small end of standard sizes for baseload applications. Doubling or even tripling the unit size to 2GW is a technical, cost-benefit issue and is in no way related to the topic of this thread. Let's have the debate!
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Aug 17, 2012 17:12:58 GMT 9.5
This thread is developing into a very strong, compact resource. Many thanks, Barry and Ben.
Ii is interesting that some don't understand that the French government still effectively owns EDF and the confusion which persists elsewhere regarding the meaning of LCOE, despite extensive discussion of LCOE on BNC over the past several years. This demonstrates the value of threads such as this, which refresh the community understanding and, hopefully, leads to broader and deeper understanding of the real issues involved in transitioning to low carbon energy options.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Aug 13, 2012 14:24:53 GMT 9.5
The comments beneath this article on The Conversation's site are repetitive and predictable, although there are a few plus points to them.
First, there are the usual loud and prolonged cries of "We'll all be doomed" from the anti-nuclear mob. Perhaps disappointingly, nothing at all that is new has appeared and most was either entirely irrational or purely statements of personal opinion, rather than rational debate or even discussion.
Second, the noise appeared to come primarily from half a dozen serial posters. There's hope that a large number of non-posters gained something from Barry's article.
Third, some names I recognise from this and other sites devoted considerable effort to addressing the substance of the comments, rationally and civilly.
Although at first glance, it appeared that Barry's words had fallen like the seed in the parable, on stony ground, I suspect that it was worth the effort.
Thanks, Barry, for taking your message to another forum. Here's hoping that it was worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Aug 3, 2012 13:18:38 GMT 9.5
Unfortunately, in a country with a population of millions, people only come to understand the reasoning behind this article one at a time, and even then a percentage will fail to act on that understanding.
So, I thank the author for giving us this article. Let's hope that some of those millions get to read it.
For this reason, I often direct others to BNC. It seems to me that this article is an ideal entry point to this site.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jul 28, 2012 23:31:03 GMT 9.5
The Stanford article about 130 probable deaths from Fukishima was reported widely, including by Australia's ABC, as 1300. This factor-of-ten error is only part of the problem. The Stanford article's author has been criticised as having an antinuclear stance. Let's wait for peer review which looks into the methodology behind the predictions before we get too excited. These predictions spread across almost a 100-fold range, so the actual figure is, clearly, highly imprecise and questionable. However, headlines such as "Dr Caldicott's estimate of death toll is 1.9 million percent above the average of an expert's estimate" do not sell newspapers. Here is a partial quote from Stanford's press release: " the researchers found a range of possible death tolls, from 15 to 1,300, with a best estimate of 130". Here is the actual press release: news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/fukushima-health-impacts-071712.htmlHere is a note about Caldicott's predictions, as it appears in the third comment on the above article: " MarkGoldes at 11:39 AM July 17, 2012: Helen Caldicott MD has stated that the total deaths from Fukushima Daiichi might eventually reach 2.5 to 3 million." I wonder which figure is remembered by the undiscerning reader: The Stanford lower limit of 15, which is still likely to be questioned, or the Caldicott millions? Is an intemperate shout louder than a considered whisper?
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jul 28, 2012 22:49:02 GMT 9.5
Re concrete volumes in solar thermal power stations:
I have recent experience in the construction of Australia's largest solar thermal array. There is no concrete at all in the arrays and only a tiny amount in survey monuments, drainage structures and steam pipe anchor blocks - mainly in the latter.
Without clear references, this type of incomplete information is easy to shoot down, thus representing an own goal.
For those who are interested, the mirror arrays were entirely supported on small steel screw piles, which were positioned with milimetre accuracy using total station (ie, 3-dimensional) survey equipment which is commercially available the world over. Smart folk, those Germans!
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jul 20, 2012 20:49:13 GMT 9.5
Brian H: Your attempt at humour is understandable, however it is also misguided.
It is neither funny nor productive to make fun of others' fears, regardless of how ill-founded you may believe them to be.
I may agree that the LNT hypothesis is severely tested and that there is at least some credibility in the hormesis proposition, however as far as I know, neither of these has broad public acceptance.
Take a leaf out of Barry's book. He is always and unfailingly courteous to those with opposing views. Communication without respect is impossible. Changing long-held viewpoints is difficult enough in a favourable environment; it becomes impossible in an adversarial environment.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jul 10, 2012 23:11:21 GMT 9.5
Well done, Barry. Your approach is a fine example of how to present an argument on an emotionally charged topic.
Still, I suspect that nobody has been converted either way.
Here's hoping that at least some of the listeners were influenced to question their reasons and beliefs about low- and no-carbon energy sources, comparative safety of nuclear power and the practical limits to energy efficiency.
Ludlum pereformed as expected: no more, no less. At least he gave the impression of attempting to be rational, which is not always the case with politicians.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jun 17, 2012 23:37:08 GMT 9.5
Geoff is, as usual, most persuasive.
I note today's news from Japan that political approval has been granted to recommission the first two of their reactors. For the sake of the planet and of the Japanese economy, here's hoping that there are another following in quick succession.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jun 13, 2012 12:08:30 GMT 9.5
Hi, Jimthe geordie. You are trying to juggle a heap of unknowns, so your conclusion, whatever that ends up being, must be suspect.
"Countries such as China are buying up substantial agricultural tracts of land" - Sure about that? Ever since white settlement, the Poms have owned very large acreages indeed, yet the nation hasn't collapsed. Without actual... umm... data, this assumption of yours is worthless.
"Paid back in China" - What makes you think that (a) the Chinese intend to seek to bring their own workers to Oz, and when? (b) That any such application from the Chinese will be successful? (c) That workers in Australia will not be subject to Australian industrial relations regulation, which includes regular payment in Australian money, either into their hand directly or into a bank account? or (d) that any such Chinese enterprise will be able to flout the taxation law in respect of preditory transfer pricing, thus enabling their profits to be shipped off shore without payment of tax?
To found a discussion on such nebulous grounds is to step into the unknown, sans clothes.
I am sure that you could indeed go on all day, as you wrote. A better use of your time would be for you to put your keyboard to one side and read up on some of the topics which interest you before you return to the subjects of population control, agricultural land management, industrial relations and the rules of international commerce.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on May 18, 2012 12:17:25 GMT 9.5
Here's a link to Novatec Solar's web site, although the site is somewhat out of date. Construction activities are now complete and commissioning well advanced, though the completed project was not running regularly when I last visited, a week back. There was no opportunity to discover detailed status of commissioning and operation of this plant, in part because my visit to site was not connected with this particular project. However, informal advice received was to the effect that construction and commissioning had proceeded normally and that final completion is imminent.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on May 18, 2012 12:10:30 GMT 9.5
Martin, the relative proportions of concrete and steel used for construction of solar thermal and nuclear power stations is changing.
Recent personal experience with construction of a ST plant in NSW, Australia, was interesting. No concrete foundations under the arrays - only efficient steel ground anchors shaped like screws. It has a very light structure with many, many legs. Compared with previous similar plant, I would guess 99% less concrete and 50% less steel. The manufacturer and installation contractor was Novatec, a German manufacturer with more than 50% Australian ownership.
That said, the concrete and steel resource needed for nuclear plant still compares very well against ST of comparable energy sent out capacity.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on May 13, 2012 11:56:49 GMT 9.5
This past week I had the opportunity to visit a newly commissioned CSP plant in NSW.
Weather: approx 30 degrees, full sun, no wind.
These are perfect conditions to generate steam and thus replace coal in the steam cycle of the adjacent power station's boilers.
Unfortunately, nothing was happening. The mirrors were turned away from the collectors.
I have high hopes for CSP, but these will not be achieved until it is developed beyond demonstration plants, trial runs and pretty pictures. I am waiting to see straightforward, everyday production supervised by normal power station operators, as against boffins and commissioning engineers whose purpose is to gather proof-of-design data.
Conclusion: Any assumption that CSP will displace baseload coal fired generation is not yet firmly founded on fact. Thus, by extension, ZCA2020's plans for zero carbon within a decade or two are doomed via this path. ZCA's 3-legged stool of PV, CSP and demand reduction has lost this leg.
This is unfortunate, but is also the only rational assessment possible based on current achievements.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Apr 30, 2012 22:22:03 GMT 9.5
Thanks, Chris and Barry.
This is a discussion which is past due. Although not elaborated on, the comment re the irrelevance of carbon sequestration is worth several reads - it is counter intuitive.
This short post could/should become a game changer.
|
|