Fossil Fuels to the rescue...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,887
Location
'Stralia
Tasmania is a little Island state off the southern point of Australia, was largely self sufficient in energy, and was connected to the mainland via "Basslink", a high voltage undersea cable some decades ago, allowing flow both to and from the mainland.

They have massive hydro resources (could have had more, but certain groups in the past stopped certain dams and installations being installed).

The ability to move energy North and South has lead to the hydros being part of the national grid, and able to profit on high prices, and back off overnight when the prices are low. The market has been recovering that last 18-24 months, so there's been some money in it.

The bulk of the other thermal sources of power in the state have been closed down or mothballed.

6942448-3x2-700x467.png


Is the storage level of the dams over recent history, consider it stored electricity. They were critically low in 2015, and were importing 700MW from the mainland for most of the end of 2015 (that's about half a brown coal fired power station).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-15/co...orecast/6942438

Problem is that Murphy likes to wade into situations like this, and take a groin kick. Just before Christmas the cable broke. And it's going to take months to get the gear here to lift it and find it with the fault approximately 50km offshore.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/ba...lanning/7050714

So running out of water, and reliant on the shunned brown coal, they are now in a position where they had to wait nearly a month to get mothballed gas plants back online.

But I DID find this laughable...

Quote:
The Tasmanian Greens have called on the State Government to focus on renewable energy.

Greens energy spokesperson Rosalie Woodruff told 936 ABC Hobart that the current system was unsustainable.

"The point is that we don't have any policy or any plan in place to invest in renewable energy," she said.

"And that's the only real back up we can have that is going to make sure that this situation doesn't happen in the future."
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Shannow,

I truly appreciate the technical knowledge you bring to the board, but you waving the fossil fuel flag is getting old.


No, I'm waving the integrated system approach.

Hydro is great, it's governable, provides system stability et. al...just the greens stop it being installed in greater capacity in that case.

Wind and solar don't work without the ability to provide a grid through the use of hydro, themal, nukes, GTs etc.

How's YOUR fossil fuel free solar power electric car running ?
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Shannow,

I truly appreciate the technical knowledge you bring to the board, but you waving the fossil fuel flag is getting old.


Well they could build nukes. But then that gets shunned too...... I don't think Shannow is "waving the fossil fuel flag" as much as he is pointing out the folly in the agendra-driven push to "go green" with solar cells and wind turbines coming straight out of pollution-belting China with very little planning on the dynamics/response side of things. Going green isn't about actually reducing pollution but rather the image of doing so.

We have quite a demonstration of that going on here in Ontario, where the majority of our province's power comes from the three big nuke installs. Due to conservation efforts and a slowing economy we've been running an energy surplus for going on a decade now; we are selling power left, right and centre to Quebec and the USA because we have too much of it.

There was a plan put forth, approved, and then shot down for the expansion of the Darlington site to add four additional ACR-1000's (1200MW/unit) citing the energy surplus as the reason.

Then, the provincial Liberals dedicated 100 billion dollars to install wind turbines and solar panels
smirk.gif


They aren't shuttering the nukes. Heck, Darlington just started its refurb which gives it another 30 years. In fact they aren't reducing capacity in any way. The last coal plant in the province was shut down quite some time ago now.

So why the double-standard? If they were really concerned about pollution and BEING green, they would have done absolutely nothing. No dumping of millions of tons of concrete into the ground to prop up the wind turbines. No tons of pollution from the manufacture of these and the solar panels and the rape of the farm land they'll be fitted to. If we were already running an excess, that 100 billion SHOULD have gone back into paying off the bloody deficit.

But it isn't about BEING green. It is about LOOKING green and so wasting that money and burdening Ontarians with the highest hydro rates in North America is what's on the menu while Bruce, which is our largest nuclear install with over 7,000MW of installed capacity, pi$$es steam into the wind because it is cheaper to dump steam than sell the 13c/KW/h "green" energy to the USA.

That's what's being railed against.
 
Harry Reid railed against fossil fuel at a press conference in his home state of Nevada. He claimed it should be banned because it makes you sick. He forgot that fossil fuel is used for other things besides fuel. Then he got into his Cadillac Escalade followed by his body guards in Chevy Suburbans and went home.

We're lucky here in the US because we have politicians that know and understand everything and always have our best interests at heart (lol).
 
Long term, maybe they should implement more wind power and use it to fill their hydro dam reservoirs? Pumped water storage is the green version of a battery which helps make renewables much easier to deal with.
Tasmania seems to be a very windy place, with lots of lakes at different elevations, so maybe it could pencil out to something reasonable.
They've also got waves and ocean currents, so lots of energy just passing by waiting to be harnessed.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Long term, maybe they should implement more wind power and use it to fill their hydro dam reservoirs? Pumped water storage is the green version of a battery which helps make renewables much easier to deal with.
Tasmania seems to be a very windy place, with lots of lakes at different elevations, so maybe it could pencil out to something reasonable.
They've also got waves and ocean currents, so lots of energy just passing by waiting to be harnessed.


I think tidal generation, which is consistent, has much more promise than wind, which is all over the bloody map and occupying land that could be used for other things. Not to mention the less than stellar life expectancy and relatively poor efficiency. It would take 600 wind turbines to match the installed capacity of a single ACR-1000, but using the 30% efficiency figure you'd need 1,020 of them to "replace" a 1200MW nuke/GT/dam (ignoring the fact you still need matched capacity in one of those forms as a standing backup).
 
Here's a "green" energy supply that I find laughable:
My in-laws live in Texas and my wife and I often take I35 through southern Oklahoma to get there. The south side of Oklahoma has the Arbuckle Mountain range, a scenic area that has lots of tourist spots, water falls and scenic beauty. At least it USED to have scenic beauty. I went through there a few months ago and they have cut off the peak of just about every tall mountain and have installed a wind turbine on each one.
I really feel sorry for the people who make their living from tourism, because now the scenic view has been diminished drastically. I think the people of Oklahoma have sold their souls.
 
Shannow, as you can imagine, this is a very topical issue in Tassie right now. There are big questions being asked as to how Hydro management and the state government let this situation occur, with no back-up plan should the poo hit the fan...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
How's YOUR fossil fuel free solar power electric car running ?


This is a great line.

On a side note, its funny here because the greenies are preaching renewable energy, but many here were against the wind farms out east. I don't consider myself a greenie by any means, but I still can't figure out why many were against them. They kill occasional birds and make noise? Interstates do about the same thing.
 
Originally Posted By: hpb
Shannow, as you can imagine, this is a very topical issue in Tassie right now. There are big questions being asked as to how Hydro management and the state government let this situation occur, with no back-up plan should the poo hit the fan...


It's scary if you are a Tasmanian or South Australian. Actually, although you guys are currently in a world of hurt, S.A. is the most likely to have a true "lights out" event.

Those two states are extremely exposed due to choices that have been made, and their unmentioned reliance on Victoria's "dirty brown coal"
 
Reduction of hydro lake levels are entirely possible in other worldwide locations as well, even here. It's the new normal.
 
The Bay of Fundy is one of the few locations where tidal generation may be effective. It has been considered or in use there for many decades. Is it proving cost effective, or do they restrict that information? Besides the occasional trapped whale and erosion, have other problems surfaced.
 
Originally Posted By: DoiInthanon
The Bay of Fundy is one of the few locations where tidal generation may be effective. It has been considered or in use there for many decades. Is it proving cost effective, or do they restrict that information? Besides the occasional trapped whale and erosion, have other problems surfaced.


Yes, it has limited applicability for sure. This was the article my sister shared with me a few months ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-tidal-power-dp-energy-1.3344629

I think it shows more promise than wind due to its ability to be consistent but the output of the turbines is still quite small compared to a dam or steam.

I believe they've had issues with durability due to an underestimation of the forces at work. Also, NS not having the most money, it is a slow development.
 
There are various agendas that end up impacting public policy on these sort of things.

Often times the law of unintended consequences rears its head and something unfortunate happens. If I understand the OP's point, fossil fuel may be the thing that will solve the problems caused by the law of unintended consequences in this situation.

Given the agenda of the people behind the public policy that led to these unintended consequences, I think it is an excellent point that the OP raised with fossil fuel coming to the rescue.
 
More can be done to filter emissions from coal. The mentality of companies running the plants is not to spend a nickle more than they have to. Here in the US. I can't speak for other countries.

I don't see any research or anything getting done about it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top