The climate change debate continues.

[pmccarthy]

Conservative means to conserve things the way they are. In other words, don’t stuff around with the system. Obviously a majority of Australians think that way.

 

 

[octave]

Conservative means to conserve things the way they are. In other words, don’t stuff around with the system. Obviously a majority of Australians think that way.

Conserve things the way they are when? Before the Wright brothers? Before Penicillin?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Conservative means to conserve things the way they are. In other words, don’t stuff around with the system. Obviously a majority of Australians think that way.

...or they are conditioned to think that way by our predominantly Right-leaning media, which has no answers for the big problems we face?

 

Even Blind Freddy knows we cannot go on living as we have done. Our planet hasn't even the resources to sustain the lifestyle we in the rich west enjoyed decades ago. Since we realised our species is living well beyond its means, billions more of us have moved to cities and demand cars, throw-away luxuries, air con, meat-rich foods... We are already seeing the destruction of most of our tropical forests, the overfishing of our seas and mass extinctions of our natural world. The results of conservatism.

 

 

[Bruce]

There is a report along the lines of what you guys are saying, and that is that solar and wind are cheaper. My only problem is that storage was not mentioned. Gas fired plants for emergency high loads were referred to but only in passing.

 

The trouble with this argument is that I hope to be wrong, because solar and wind suits my politics of independence. But so far the figures don't show the cheapness I want to see.

 

Dick Smith was lamenting that Australian food was manufactured much cheaper in France and they used Australian uranium in nuclear reactors and had much cheaper power costs than here.

 

I certainly don't want to see subsidies to build and run nuclear power, but neither do I want to see artificial costs and delays built in. Anyway, the nuclear argument has been lost I reckon. At least until the Chinese begin making cheap and modern reactors.

 

 

[octave]

There is a report along the lines of what you guys are saying, and that is that solar and wind are cheaper. My only problem is that storage was not mentioned. Gas fired plants for emergency high loads were referred to but only in passing.The trouble with this argument is that I hope to be wrong, because solar and wind suits my politics of independence. But so far the figures don't show the cheapness I want to see.

 

Dick Smith was lamenting that Australian food was manufactured much cheaper in France and they used Australian uranium in nuclear reactors and had much cheaper power costs than here.

 

I certainly don't want to see subsidies to build and run nuclear power, but neither do I want to see artificial costs and delays built in. Anyway, the nuclear argument has been lost I reckon. At least until the Chinese begin making cheap and modern reactors.

If you want to read about the economics of storage here is an extensive report Annual update finds renewables are cheapest new-build power - CSIRO full report available as a PDF. This report is quite long and I have not read it yet but I will.

 

In terms of cheapness, we need to take into account various scenarios. If we factor in climate change it is a no brainer but my understanding is we are reaching or may have reached the point where renewables are cheaper without factoring in climate change.

 

Annual update finds renewables are cheapest new-build power - CSIRO

 

"Our data confirms that while existing fossil fuel power plants are competitive due to their sunk capital costs, solar and wind generation technologies are currently the lowest-cost ways to generate electricity for Australia, compared to any other new-build technology.

 

“At a global level, the investment costs of a wide range of low emission generation technologies are projected to continue to fall, and we found new-build renewable generation to be least cost, including when we add the cost of two or six hours of energy storage to wind and solar.

 

“This also holds when the cost of fossil generation technology is adjusted for climate policy risk or not."

 

Critics of renewables seem to assume that the renewables sector has not considered the area of storage. How often does someone say "but what about when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow" der never thought of that. Here is a list of storage projects around the world

 

List of energy storage projects - Wikipedia

 

I can foresee a time when every house will have its own battery pack interconnected with the grid. As EVs become ubiquitous we will have enormous battery capacity interconnected to by a smart grid.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"I certainly don't want to see subsidies to build and run nuclear power,"

 

If the Coal industry can have subsidies . WHY NOT The opposition industry.

 

Double standards !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The precautionary principle would say we should not allow batteries to proliferate until we understand how the dead ones can be disposed of or recycled at the scale required. Who will pay for that? Yes, a little tongue in cheek, but it could become a problem to dwarf coal sludge dams and nuclear waste. Imagine ten million installations in Australian homes, each say 400kg, recycled every ten years.  That’s 400,000 t of highly toxic waste each year. Then scale up to the whole world.

 

 

[nomadpete]

That's a valid point, but there is one big difference between coal 'sludge' and dead batteries.

 

Dead batteries are more easily collected, transported, and are worth money when processed. So it's very likely that recycling batteries will become a money making business in its own right.

 

 

[octave]

The precautionary principle would say we should not allow batteries to proliferate until we understand how the dead ones can be disposed of or recycled at the scale required. Who will pay for that? Yes, a little tongue in cheek, but it could become a problem to dwarf coal sludge dams and nuclear waste. Imagine ten million installations in Australian homes, each say 400kg, recycled every ten years.  That’s 400,000 t of highly toxic waste each year. Then scale up to the whole world.

 

 

 

We already have allowed batterires to proliferate, phone and tablet batteries and many more.   To compare  litheum batteries to Strontium and Cesium etc. is a bit of a stretch.

 

Quite rightly though the question of the life cycle of large litheum batteries (and small but I guess you are not as concerned about them).    This is a common objection people have and fair enough.  Imagine if we had held up the proliferation of the mobile phone because at the beginning we weren't sure what would happen to the used batteries?    In the early days of the home PC old machines probably did go to land fill but because they contain valuable materials we found ways to recycle.  

 

So what does happen to all of these batteries?

 

First of all EV batteries are generally exceeding expectations

 

 https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/16/tesla-batteries-have-90-capacity-after-160000-miles-may-last-for-500000-miles/

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/16/tesla-battery-packs-live-longer/

 

Last year my son bought a BMW I3 second hand, it was 4 years old. The funny thing is I have so many times by the doubters have told me that the batteries will only last 4 years. As my son says, they come with an 8 year replacement warranty so he is pretty relaxed about it.  The real world case is this after 5 years this  battery is at about 97% of its original caapcity.  I have driven this car many times and it is a delight to drive and cost very little to run and maintain.    I wont get to drive this car again as he has bought a Tesla model 3 which I will be very excited to drive.

 

Although batteries dont last forever, their life is not yet over.  When EV batteries degrade to the point when they are no longer viable for a vehichle they still have plenty of life left in stationary applications.

 

https://www.indiatimes.com/auto/alternative/this-football-stadium-in-netherlands-is-completely-powered-by-used-electric-car-batteries-370127.htm

 

https://greenlight.nl/expert-views/a-second-life-for-old-ev-batteries/?lang=en

 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/nissan-reborn-light-ev-batteries/

 

In terms of recycling things are definately happening.

 

Tesla is developing a so called "closed loop" system https://electrek.co/2019/04/16/tesla-battery-recycling-system/  The need for these EV companies to build enough cars is ample incentive to ensure the raw materials are available.

 

“A common question we hear is, “What happens to Tesla vehicle battery packs once they reach their end of life?” An important distinction between fossil fuels and lithium-ion batteries as an energy source is that while fossil fuels are extracted and used once, the materials in a lithium-ion battery are recyclable. When petroleum is pumped out of the ground, chemically refined and then burned, it releases harmful emissions into the atmosphere that are not recovered for reuse. Battery materials, in contrast, are refined and put into a cell, and will still remain at the end of their life, when they can be recycled to recover its valuable materials for reuse over and over again.”

 

The fact is that large lithium batteries are being recycled, sure it is a slow start but as volume increaeses, so will encentive to reuses those valuable materials.  China is doing a lot in this area  but also other countries.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Mark Twain

 

 

 

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/29/adani-mine-would-be-unviable-without-44bn-in-subsidies-report-finds

 

"Australian governments will give $4.4bn in effective subsidies to Adani’s Carmichael coal project, which would otherwise be “unbankable and unviable”, a new analysis has found...

 

"The report also noted the use of corporate tax shield loopholes were common in the mining sector, and that Adani had not paid “any material corporate tax in Australia” despite owning and operating the Abbot Point coal terminal since 2011...

 

"For a handful of jobs and only a fraction of the royalties that coking coal provides to the Queensland budget, Adani’s thermal coal mine provides the state with so much less than alternative regional renewable energy investments would do.”

 

You can't sugar-coat a turd.

 

 

[spacesailor]

the talk of Batterie and nuclear waste, reminds me of the HUGE waste coal creates.

 

"https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Aberfan_disaster"

 

Mountains of coal tailings . all around the world, even in A swimming baths, that used coal to heat the water, Tons off to the tip every month.

 

Far, Far more than the NEW wast will ever  (Batteries & Nuclear ) make.

 

How much dirt will Adani produce in it's life. While the coal & profits go overseas.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

Octave is right about recycling Lithium batteries but ahead of his time. Last time I bought a lead-acid for the car, the price astounded me. Why so much?   " price of lead mate" the guy said.

 

"  Well there has been no lead used in this old  battery " so it  will be worth a lot in trade in huh?"

 

"Doesn't work that way mate", I was told. $2 for the old battery and $160 for the new one.

 

 

[octave]

Interesting video on lithium  battery recycling.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

The old Lead is part peroxide powder and some lead sulphate in degraded batteries  and sludge residues in the bottom.. Not a real safe exercise to be involved with the recovery but is worthwhile. Lead mining has caused concern  and leaves residues everywhere it's been done. Cadmium plating is almost non available because of the environmental effects. Zinc-Nickel is a substitute used in the aviation Industry but on what scale I don't know. I will be making some enquiries soon. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I recall reading years ago that WWII fight planes used NiCad batteries for starting. It had to be true because it was on the net...

 

Just had another search and can't find anything about that, but did find that NiCads were invented in Sweden in 1899, and lots of exotic battery types invented since then are still under consideration. 

 

One thing is certain: coal and other dirty technology is rapidly being made redundant.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not sure about the Battery starts on WW1 planes. I never heard of it. Inertial yes and cartridge. Cartridge (probably Cordite) was even the original method on the DH C-1 but replaced with a fairly inadequate electric starter on all the Civilian stuff as far as I know. We hand swung them mostly unless you were somewhere on your own and doing a warm restart, and were full of hope..  Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Nev I was talking about the second WW. How they started those massive engines has always fascinated me. 

 

I presumed Merlins used electrical starters when connected to an external "accumulator" trolley.

 

The electric starter hidden on the other side of this 1/6 Merlin is enormous.

 

I knew an old 109 pilot who described the closing months of the war, when ground crews had been reassigned. He had to hand crank his own flywheel starter before taking off to attack Allied bombers.

 

I believe the Japanese used flywheel starters as well, but I've seen pictures of truck-mounted starters that plugged into the propeller spinner.

 

[ATTACH]50290._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[spacesailor]

The climate?

 

Only in Australia !.[ATTACH]50291._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

spacesailor

 

[willedoo]

The climate?

 

Only in Australia !.[ATTACH]3224[/ATTACH]

 

spacesailor

 

I knew it! Cows emitting methane.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Don't smoke near it,

 

Only a willy-willy.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

What I would have called a "willy willy" is much bigger in section than that one which more resembles a waterspout in it's presentation.. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

[ATTACH]50302._xfImport[/ATTACH][ATTACH]50303._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Electricity prices related to installed wind and solar capacity. No politics, just the facts at present.

 

[ATTACH]50302._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]50303._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[octave]

[ATTACH]3238[/ATTACH][ATTACH]3239[/ATTACH]

 

Electricity prices related to installed wind and solar capacity. No politics, just the facts at present.

 

[ATTACH]3238[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]3239[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Background

 

The ACCC’s preliminary findings are that, on average across the NEM, a 2015-16 residential bill was $1,524 (excluding GST). This average residential bill was made up of:

 

• network costs (48 per cent)
   
  
• wholesale costs (22 per cent)
   
  
• environmental costs (7 per cent)
   
  
• retail and other costs (16 per cent)
   
  
• retail margins (8 per cent).
   
  

 

The ACCC which certainly does not go easy on renewables claiming that rooftop solar should have it's subsidies reduced but none the less finds the environmental costs of electricity in Australia are 7%.   I am assuming you reject these findings, it would be interesting to know where you believe its findings are faulty.  As for your above offerings the first chart  shows a correaltion but only compares some countries and not others.   I note that Australia in 2016 was at 14.5% renewables and th UK was  27.9% in 2016 and yet the per capita price is more in Austraila than in the UK. Norway 97.2% yet fairly low prices. Finland 44.2% and yet cheaper than Australia. New Zealand 83.9% yet does not appear on graph. There are many reasons for differences in cost of electricity. The ACCC goes into this in a lot of detail.

 

The second graph is a table of electricity costs, it does not give any reasons.  I would suggest that given our sparse population and large land mass direct comparrison may be problematic.

 

Like it or not new technologies are coming.

 

 

[robinsm]

Best argument for not believing climate change comes from the green leader today in a statement about the Queenland bushfires.   .   Di Natalie is rapidly becoming another speak before you think expert.   Please, all you greens out there, speak to the people on the land, people who actually know what the situation is and live with its effects before you get on your high horses in your city dwellings, turn off your airconditioning and actually think using facts and real world evidence not rubbish spouted by "experts" with no experience.   There may be a problem but walking off the cliff with everyone else because some "expert"says so turns people into sheep.   Talk to real life people living with the land and climate, not high rise plastic tree huggers...