How Australia Perfected Solar Power and Then Went Back to Coal

[octave]

Although reducing power consumption is a good way to reduce emissions (and also has economic benefits) it is not the only solution. Much work is being done on carbon capture and sequestration, although there are still problems with these processes they are still developing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

 

Perhaps a better solution will be burning something cleaner for example hydrogen http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20141209-26169.html

[Old Koreelah]

...if you have the teen girl grandchildren over and each uses 400Litres of your 135Litre supply...Andy

...just let them run out of hot water!

 

When my teenager began endless showers I rigged the water pump to my wife's exercise bike. Before she had a shower, the kid had to pump enough water up to the gravity tank!

 

 

[geoffreywh]

QuOTE "So that puts the Yanks in debt $536 for every man woman and child, but us "innovators" here in Australia only owe $326.5 billion, which puts us in debt $13,838 for every man woman and child" ..........OUCH..... do some math please, You'll find that the debt in USA is $55,000 per person with a population of about 300 million. strange argument , about as bad as my "athesist rant"

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well, in that case, how is "the same legislative motivation which worked for the automotive industry apparently painlessly" going to reduce the CO2 emissions from power stations ? The only way to reduce the CO2 from power stations is to reduce electricity consumption, which needs motivation of the consumers, not the producers. Power stations are at least twice as thermodynamically efficient as motor vehicles; your parallel does not make sense.

The Federal Government, in spite of our loud claims that we couldn't do any better just went ahead and legislated for progressively lower emission performance year after year, and have successfully achieved reductions in the emissions they specified of around 97% from 1992 to the present.

 

I should have said Power Suppliers, not Stations.

 

The Federal Government can introduce performance standards for Power Suppliers, with progressively lower targets each year.

 

So let's say one target is CO2 emission. Because this is performance legislation, the Power Supply company could opt to find a way to produce the same amount of power at a lower fuel burn rate, it could go nuclear, it could go solar, it could invent a new process, but if it wanted to continue to stay in business, it would have to lower its output of the target material, such as CO2.

 

We didn't legislate to use our cars less (although the bike and public transport groups have continually tried to achieve that), and we shouldn't have to reduce our use of appliances.

 

In case someone gets agitated, that doesn't mean we can't have schemes to make the appliances use less electricity.

 

 

[skeptic36]

QuOTE "So that puts the Yanks in debt $536 for every man woman and child, but us "innovators" here in Australia only owe $326.5 billion, which puts us in debt $13,838 for every man woman and child" ..........OUCH..... do some math please, You'll find that the debt in USA is $55,000 per person with a population of about 300 million. strange argument , about as bad as my "athesist rant"

Yep Geoffrey that was a clanger alright, but if you read the rest of the post you would have noticed where I corrected it although not as accurately as Octave did later. ( I made the blue by not realising the calculator did not fit enough zeroes on the screen) . But thanks for highlighting it again, I appreciate it

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I don't know how accurate this is but it makes for some interesting reading http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Large numbers of American workers earn below the minimum wage so they exist on gov. supplied food stamps. Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour so many Americans don't qualify as tax payers!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Does anybody want to talk about "How Australia Perfected Solar Power and Then Went Back to Coal?"

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The Federal Government, in spite of our loud claims that we couldn't do any better just went ahead and legislated for progressively lower emission performance year after year, and have successfully achieved reductions in the emissions they specified of around 97% from 1992 to the present.

I should have said Power Suppliers, not Stations.

 

The Federal Government can introduce performance standards for Power Suppliers, with progressively lower targets each year.

 

So let's say one target is CO2 emission. Because this is performance legislation, the Power Supply company could opt to find a way to produce the same amount of power at a lower fuel burn rate, it could go nuclear, it could go solar, it could invent a new process, but if it wanted to continue to stay in business, it would have to lower its output of the target material, such as CO2.

 

We didn't legislate to use our cars less (although the bike and public transport groups have continually tried to achieve that), and we shouldn't have to reduce our use of appliances.

 

In case someone gets agitated, that doesn't mean we can't have schemes to make the appliances use less electricity.

You're waffling. The efficiency of the Rankine Cycle (power station steam turbine plant thermodynamic cycle) is limited by the temperature difference between the superheated steam, and the cooling means available for the condensers. The upper limit to the steam temperature is set by the triple point of water; the lower limit is usually set by the water temperature in a lake. There's no practical way to alter those, short of shifting the power station to Antarctica.

 

A power station such as the Callide complex produces 1750 megawatts of electrical power. Solar cells run about 22% efficient in full sunlight, and the average solar radiation is of the order of 1 KW per square metre, about 50% of the daylight time. So figure around 0.11 KW, i.e. 110 Watts per square metre, on average.

 

So to replace Callide with Solar would need, by my admittedly dubious arithmetic, 1750000000 / 110 = approx 16 million square metres of solar cells, plus the control systems to collect that energy efficiently. Then it still has to be converted to alternating current, and transformed to high voltages for transmission. The economic life of a major power station is what - about 75 years? The economic life of solar panels is what - about 25 years?

 

Not this week, I think.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I wasn't waffling, I'm on record as saying that diesel engines producing full power had to blow black smoke, more or less the equivalent of what you've just said.

 

The Federal Government introduced performance standards, and we found a way to meet them; that's fact not waffle.

 

 

[octave]

Even though I lived in a solar powered house for 20 years, I would be the first to admit that we can not just simply replace our thermal power stations with solar photovoltaic generation. The key ingredient in our thermal power stations is heat, there are many ways to make steam., perhaps using solar power to generate hydrogen http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20141209-26169.html

 

When discussing photovoltaics the doubters usually only seem to talk about drawing power direct from the solar plant without considering the hydrogen option or thermal solar whereby enough heat is store overnight and in cloudy periods to continue to supply enough heat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Heat_storage_to_stabilize_solar-electric_power_generation

 

Other methods of power generation include tidal, wind, hydro and geothermal, all this methods have pros and cons as does the burning of fossil fuels.

 

As a country that exports coal of course we naturally worry about our economy if the world moves away form coal fired power stations, this is understandable but none the less is likely and we have to deal with it. I haven't checked the facts in this story yet but it may be already happening http://www.smh.com.au/business/risky-business-china-dumps-our-dirty-coal-20140916-3fvpf.html

 

I don't think we can just afford to sit back and relax because we have plenty of coal. Humans success on this planet has been the ability to adapt to change, no doubt stone age humans were suspicious of bronze

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I wasn't waffling, I'm on record as saying that diesel engines producing full power had to blow black smoke, more or less the equivalent of what you've just said.

The Federal Government introduced performance standards, and we found a way to meet them; that's fact not waffle.

No, it's NOT equivalent at all. The black smoke from a diesel is incomplete combustion; fixing it improves the overall efficiency. You fix it be either increasing the engine capacity about 15%, so it does not have to run above the smoke limit; or by turbocharging, which gets more air into the engine, to burn that fuel. There is NO such equivalent for a steam turbine power station; simple economics means they run as efficiently as possible, given the constraints of their location. The air-cooled Inglewood station has to accept a lower efficiency, because there's no cooling water available. It's no accident that Bayswater and Liddell power stations are located on the shores of lake Liddell.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You keep focusing on anything slightly technical I say; so delete even the thought of my mention of black smoke because it was the generic of the day used by the EPA before they got smart about specific gases.

 

So let's forget about any engineering terms or mention of anything that might allow some exciting comparisons and place ourselves at the end of the 1980's, when we said to the Government: "This is the very best our industry can do"

 

What the Government said to us was in general terms "We don't give a shit - from January 1 you are going to achieve a target of "x", and just to help you focus, by January 1 in two years time you are going to drop that to "y", and so on year by year up to the present time.

 

And they backed those statements by legislation.

 

When we said "We'd go broke if we had to do that" the response was more or less "tell someone who cares"

 

So we spent the billions and did it, albeit seeing the end of Caterpillar truck engines, and things like the Holden Colorado having a Fiat engine and the Nissan Navara V6 being a Renault engine, but we did it.

 

So if the Government applied the same method of laying down performance standards for power generation, then your technical claims about steam turbine power would be just greeted by "Tell someone who cares, find a way to meet the target".

 

And someone somewhere in the world will find a way to do it and make a lot of money.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You keep focusing on anything slightly technical I say; so delete even the thought of my mention of black smoke because it was the generic of the day used by the EPA before they got smart about specific gases.

So let's forget about any engineering terms or mention of anything that might allow some exciting comparisons and place ourselves at the end of the 1980's, when we said tho the Government: "This is the very best our industry can do"

 

What the Government said to us was in general terms "We don't give a **** - from January 1 you are going to achieve a target of "x", and just to help you focus, by January 1 in two years time you are going to drop that to "y", and so on year by year up to the present time.

 

And they backed those statements by legislation.

 

When we said "We'd go broke if we had to do that" the response was more or less "tell someone who cares"

 

So we spent the billions and did it, albeit seeing the end of Caterpillar truck engines, and things like the Holden Colorado having a Fiat engine and the Nissan Navara V6 being a Renault engine, but we did it.

 

So if the Government applied the same method of laying down performance standards for power generation, then your technical claims about steam turbine power would be just greeted by "Tell someone who cares, find a way to meet the target".

 

And someone somewhere in the world will find a way to do it and make a lot of money.

OR - the multi-nationals who control those thing will simply walk away from Australia.

 

I focus on your technical inaccuracies because your fundamental tenet is that the laws of physics can be coerced. Motor vehicles were as crude as the manufacturers could get away with, at the time you describe. So there was plenty of scope for the Government to get tough. But before you assume that ploy can be applied to power generation, at least get some understanding of the basic physics involved.

 

I'm by no means an advocate of coal-burning to produce electrical power - but at least I have some notion of how massive a problem it is to get away from it. You cannot take a power station such as Bayswater, and set an arbitrary requirement on the % improvement in its efficiency - because that's what governs the amount of CO2 it produces - per year. The efficiency of such a plant it what is designed into it. You can scrap a truck - what, every fifteen years? A major power station is costed over more like 75 years. I have no doubt that the Japanese companies that contracted to build Bayswater will have a cast-iron contract; if the Government were to make an unrealistic demand, they'd close it down and call in their lawyers. So your argument is nonsensical. The government can call for competetive tenders for any new power stations, and if they have the technical nous - which I strongly doubt - they could insert appropriate clauses in the Request for Tender. So we're looking at long-term in any change from coal-fired steam plant - and I don't think we have any politicians who are capable of thinking past the next election.

 

So please stop talking utter crap.

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK, you come up with something positive then.

 

 

[2tonne]

How about the 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition (including 9,029 with PhDs) all claiming that there is no scientific evidence of human induced global warming. See: http://www.petitionproject.org/

Sorry, just had to go back to this one. Skepticalscience.com makes the point that "10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent"

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...You cannot take a power station such as Bayswater, and set an arbitrary requirement on the % improvement in its efficiency - because that's what governs the amount of CO2 it produces - per year. The efficiency of such a plant it what is designed into it... So we're looking at long-term in any change from coal-fired steam plant - and I don't think we have any politicians who are capable of thinking past the next election...

Surely some power stations can be economically retrofitted to improve efficiency. There are other ways to boil

 

water besides burning coal. Not far under Bayswater PS is one of Australia's most promising concentrations of hot rock. Why can't we tap that heat to run the two thermal power plants sitting right above it?

 

The last I heard about this fascinating resource was years back when a measly $5 million was grudgingly allocated to research its potential. Was it found to be a dumb idea, or has King Coal nudged the idea aside? .

 

The concept of using alternate heat sources has already been trialled: solar collectors at the nearby Liddell power station preheat some of the water for its generators.

 

The infrastructure is already in place and functioning. Why not give it a try?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

approximately 0.3 per cent"

 

So you can produce the figures out of the 10 million who is a currently a practicing scientist with personal investigative results, who is even still alive and of those who even give a toss for the subject?

 

The content of your post is beyond stupidity.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

There are other ways to boil water besides burning coal.

 

I worked for Mitchells Drilliing 12 years ago on Rig 19 running around the country side drilling for cores looking for gas in coal seams, there's huges reserves of it and they know damn well it's easy to tap into, clean burning, plenty of diesel engine generator plants available, etc. so I don't know what the story is there.

 

 

[2tonne]

Bex, my point exactly! All stupid when you start mentioning numbers without any context or qualification. And I have a PhD but know nothing that qualifies me as an expert on climate change - so what meaning is there in those numbers that were provided in the earlier post - none

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bex, my point exactly!

Sorry, I thought you were being serious!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Surely some power stations can be economically retrofitted to improve efficiency. There are other ways to boilwater besides burning coal. Not far under Bayswater PS is one of Australia's most promising concentrations of hot rock. Why can't we tap that heat to run the two thermal power plants sitting right above it?

 

The last I heard about this fascinating resource was years back when a measly $5 million was grudgingly allocated to research its potential. Was it found to be a dumb idea, or has King Coal nudged the idea aside? .

 

The concept of using alternate heat sources has already been trialled: solar collectors at the nearby Liddell power station preheat some of the water for its generators.

 

The infrastructure is already in place and functioning. Why not give it a try?

Why not, indeed. But trying to bludgeon it into existence by legislation is not the way.

 

CO2 is a fertilizer, by the way; plants structures are built from it. I would imagine that it would make considerable sense to use some of the CO2 emitted by power stations to promote the growth of food crops in intensive (greenhouse) cultivation. I've no idea of the acreage involved; but it's a pertinent question I think - makes more sense than CO2 sequestration.

 

 

[2tonne]

ummm, what I was actually getting at is that you can use numbers/statistics to say whatever you want (insert usual quote about statistics here). So, the original assertion about 32,000 scientists signing a petition is pretty meaningless when we don't know how the petition was framed, which "scientists" were asked, how the signed petitions were distributed and verified etc. Do we know how many of them worked within a field of science to climate change? That's why I used an equally meaningless statistical analysis based on an assumption that there are 10 million scientists that qualify to sign the petition to make that point. But I am sure you saw that straight away.

 

And thank you for the suggestion that I am beyond stupidity - it's kinder than many things my wife says about me

 

 

[biggles]

There are other ways to boil water besides burning coal.

Yes OK.there is another way ....... It's called Nuclear Fission .

 

Bob

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I worked for Mitchells Drilliing 12 years ago on Rig 19 running around the country side drilling for cores looking for gas in coal seams, there's huges reserves of it and they know damn well it's easy to tap into, clean burning, plenty of diesel engine generator plants available, etc. so I don't know what the story is there.

In the US bex the average life of a CSG gas well is only 7.5 yrs after which time the value of the gas falls below the value to collect it. The production declines rapidly after the first 3 years. Think of CSG like a mentos in a bottle of diet coke, what seems like an abundant energy source fades pretty quickly

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

In the US bex the average life of a CSG gas well is only 7.5 yrs after which time the value of the gas falls below the value to collect it. The production declines rapidly after the first 3 years. Think of CSG like a mentos in a bottle of diet coke, what seems like an abundant energy source fades pretty quickly

There's a lot of concern on the Darling Downs about CSG drilling; it evidently destroys the artesian aquifer, and the Downs is Australia's richest agricultural area, relying on artesian water.