Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2916
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:21 am

Wouldn't it be logical for Australia to build more coal-fired power stations, they are the world's biggest exporter of coal after all.
They can build much cleaner ones these days, or get Chinese companies to build them.

As Tony abbott wrote “Our effort, however herculean, is barely better than futile, because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s,” .


p.s Australia signed an agreement in paris a year or 2 back, that looks like a very bad deal (as Trump would say)on this .

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:52 am

Robertk,
In your view what would be the advantage of building more coal powered facilities....and what would be the disadvantages?
chownah
edit: I'm asking because it seems that australia has plenty of power already except for clearly defined peak periods. Natural gas fired turbines are everywhere considered to be superior to coal fired generators for meeting peak demands. Natural gas fired turbines can be brought on line and taken off line quickly and efficiently while coal generators lose efficiency if they are operated this way and have a longer response time. Also, note that australia has got a really lot of natural gas. Did I mention that natural gas peaking plants are cheaper to build and operate than coal fired generators?

Anyway, since the usual wisdom is that natural gas would be the way to go it seems that your view is different so I was wondering what your views are. My explanation of peaking plant usage was pretty sketchy....do you understand how peaking plants work and why natural gas is better (and cheaper) than coal for this kind of use?
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Daily Power Use in Australia

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:11 pm

Summertime 24 hour Electrical Usage curve for Australia
Image
[/quote]
Maybe a demonstration might help people see the scale of storage needed to supply the power needed to satisfy peak demand.

Consider the load curve. See the rectangles on which it is plotted. Notice that every rectangle is 6 Gigawatts (6,000 Megawatts) tall and one hour wide. You can verify this by looking at the rectangle in the lower left corner. That rectangle vertically goes from 0 gigawatts to 6 gigawatts so it is 6 gigawatts tall and it goes from 0:00 to 1:00 so it is one hour wide. The area of the rectangle is then 6 gigawatts times one hour which is 6 gigawatt-hours. You can verify this for any of the rectangles and you will see that every rectangle represents 6 gigawatt-hours.

Let's say that we want to use batteries to provide all the power required ABOVE 24,000 megawatts (24 gigawatts). To calculate how much battery capacity you would need you do this:
1. Draw a line horizontally at the 24,000 megawatt mark. Notice that it will cut off the top of the load curve starting at about 07:00 all the way over to about 21:00.
2. Estimate how many rectangles get cut off the top of the load curve with that horizontal line at 24,000 megawatt line. I do this by pairing small pieces with big pieces that look like they can fit together to make a whole rectangle and then adding up how many whole rectangles are made......my estimate is that it is about 10 rectangles.
3. Since each rectange is 6 gigawatt-hours and we have 10 rectangles to supply with our theoretic battery storage system then we need 60 gigawatt-hours of battery storage.
SO WE NEED 60 GIGAWATT-HOURS OF BATTERY STORAGE.

Consider that australia has about 20 million vehicles. Consider (I know this is not what presently exists but just play along and consider) that it is conceivable that they would all be at some time in the future electric vehicles with battery storage the same as the tesla model s with the big battery which is 100 kilowatt-hours. I know that this is not what is but I am doing this just to give us some kind of human scale for storage....I think that this is a plausible scenario which might be achieved at some time in the future so it hopefully will help us get a handle on just how big of a problem this storage scenario requires.....anway......20 million vehicles each with 100 kilowatt-hours of storage would altogether provide 20,000,000 vehicles times 100,000 watt-hours equals 2,000,000,000,000 watt-hours which is 2,000 gigawatt-hours.
PLEASE DO CHECK MY MATH ON THIS. I AM SURPRISED AT HOW BIG THIS IS.
So, if my math is correct the if all of the vehicles in australia had batteries with as much storage as a tesla model s (in the future battery sizes will almost assuredly be larger) namely 100 kilowatt-hours each then it would take only 3% of that storage to provide the 60 gigawatt-hours needed to satisfy ALL of the load above 24,000 megawatts.

This seems do-able......this seems inevitable.
chownah
p.s. Please do check this to find if I made a mistake.....I'm just sort of doing the math as I go along.
chownah

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2916
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:55 pm

Natural gas fired turbines are everywhere considered to be superior to coal fired generators for meeting peak demands
.
Sure if natural gas turbines are a better way then use them in place of coal.

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:58 am

robertk wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:55 pm
Natural gas fired turbines are everywhere considered to be superior to coal fired generators for meeting peak demands
.
Sure if natural gas turbines are a better way then use them in place of coal.
It really does seem that nat gas turbines are better than coal in every respect; cost, air quality, carbon polution, etc.and about the only ones who think otherwise are the big money people who are heavily invested in coal, the politicians they have bought, an the people who have fallen prey to their propoganda.

But....developing solar and wind is even better.
chownah

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2916
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:23 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:58 am
robertk wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:55 pm
Natural gas fired turbines are everywhere considered to be superior to coal fired generators for meeting peak demands
.
Sure if natural gas turbines are a better way then use them in place of coal.
It really does seem that nat gas turbines are better than coal in every respect; cost, air quality, carbon polution, etc.and about the only ones who think otherwise are the big money people who are heavily invested in coal, the politicians they have bought, an the people who have fallen prey to their propoganda.

But....developing solar and wind is even better.
chownah
If it is cheaper- in addition to the other points you mention- then surely it must be used. I really doubt that the coal business in Australia has bought enough politicians to subvert common sense.

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:51 am

robertk wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:23 am
chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:58 am
robertk wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:55 pm
.
Sure if natural gas turbines are a better way then use them in place of coal.
It really does seem that nat gas turbines are better than coal in every respect; cost, air quality, carbon polution, etc.and about the only ones who think otherwise are the big money people who are heavily invested in coal, the politicians they have bought, an the people who have fallen prey to their propoganda.

But....developing solar and wind is even better.
chownah
If it is cheaper- in addition to the other points you mention- then surely it must be used. I really doubt that the coal business in Australia has bought enough politicians to subvert common sense.
This article talks about cost issues and things related for australia:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-n ... lia-62268/
chownah

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2916
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by robertk » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:32 am

according to this renewables are expensive for Germany:
http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-r ... rgy-solar/

why is China still planning to build over a hundred new coal stations. Wouldn't they want to minimize costs and go for solar or wind that the article you cited suggests are more economical. Or is that due to subversion of politicians in China by the coal industry?

I was in New zealand last winter for a month, and I was amazed that in this day and age so many people are having to minimize heating (and new zealand winters are cold) due to the cost of electricity. They surely need cheaper alternatives such as wind (so much available in NZ) if they are really cost-effective.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:17 am

robertk wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:23 am
chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:58 am
robertk wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:55 pm
.
Sure if natural gas turbines are a better way then use them in place of coal.
It really does seem that nat gas turbines are better than coal in every respect; cost, air quality, carbon polution, etc.and about the only ones who think otherwise are the big money people who are heavily invested in coal, the politicians they have bought, an the people who have fallen prey to their propoganda.

But....developing solar and wind is even better.
chownah
If it is cheaper- in addition to the other points you mention- then surely it must be used. I really doubt that the coal business in Australia has bought enough politicians to subvert common sense.
:rofl:
Your opinion of our ruling illiberals is waaay too high.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/0 ... _21710206/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/c ... ys/5810244
and finally http://tonyabbott.com.au/2017/10/transc ... er-london/ in which Tony Abbott, former and wannabe-future prime minister, denies climate change and ... no, see for yourself.

:toilet:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:23 am

robertk wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:32 am
why is China still planning to build over a hundred new coal stations. Wouldn't they want to minimize costs and go for solar or wind that the article you cited suggests are more economical. Or is that due to subversion of politicians in China by the coal industry?

I was in New zealand last winter for a month, and I was amazed that in this day and age so many people are having to minimize heating (and new zealand winters are cold) due to the cost of electricity. They surely need cheaper alternatives such as wind (so much available in NZ) if they are really cost-effective.
Both of these, but particularly new coal in China, are transitional effects.
18 months ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/busi ... -coal.html
12 months ago: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... hina-india

:reading:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Daily Power Use in Australia

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:33 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:00 am
Australia has been facing electrical power shortages for the second summer in a row.

Summertime 24 hour Electrical Usage curve for Australia
Image
In technical jargon this is known as a load curve. These summertime load curves are similar in nature for towns, for cities, capital cities, regions, States, as well as for the overall Country. These curves are similar to those during the summer months in many of the warmer US states.
Unfortunately the hours of highest need -- 4pm - 7pm -- don't match the hours of peak production for solar PV.
-- https://papundits.wordpress.com/2017/07 ... australia/
Here's what solar power actually does to reduce the peak demand on the grid - http://reneweconomy.com.au/rooftop-sola ... ave-33766/

I'm not quite going to say papundits is a really crappy source of information on this stuff :rolleye: but I will say that there are many better ones.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:03 am

Changes in electricity generation in Australia's NEM, by fuel source

Image
Image
All sources, including rooftop solar, are included. Thanks to papundits for extracting the charts from the pdf file.
Source STATE OF THE ENERGY MARKET MAY 2017, Australian Energy Regulator
Figure 1.9, page 31
-- https://www.aer.gov.au/publications/sta ... t-may-2017

------ No Changes in Demand
Note that nationally demand is not increasing. Nor is it expected to increase.

------ Already Built Generation Facilities
The State of the Energy Market reports that generators in the country have recently shut down two coal stations and have mothballed gas fired stations. Thus there is not a shortage of electrical generators in Australia!

If this is a crisis it is a crisis that is the result of social, political and economic/market decisions including the national Renewable energy target scheme (RET) . See box 1.3, page 34
State of the Energy Market wrote:{RET] Certificate prices recovered sharply from late 2014, and have continued to rise as it became clear that new renewable investment was not keeping pace with the rising target ...
------------- State of Coal Fired Generation
1.2.2 Coal fired generation (page 29)
Coal fired generation remains the dominant supply technology in the NEM, accounting for 52 per cent of
registered capacity and supplying 76 per cent of output in 2015–16.
  • I quote the bits about capacity because it's important to understand that registered or 'name plate' capacity is not the same thing as actual output over a period of time.
  • Capacity factor = average power produced over a period of time / registered capacity.
  • Capacity factors varies widely between technologies
Closed coal stations:
2016 Alinta -- 546 MW
2017 Hazelwood -- 1600 MW
Total: 2146 MW

The coals plants retired in the last two years could have supplied ~ %13 of national peak power - or put another way, would have provided a %13 safety margin. (Assuming a peak load of 28000 MW (rounding up from last weeks 27369 MW))
1.2.3 Gas powered generation
Gas is often described as a transition fuel towards a lower carbon economy, with the fast response times of open
cycle gas fired generators complementing the NEM’s rising dependence on intermittent wind and solar sources of
generation.

Across the NEM, gas powered plant accounted for 19 per cent of registered capacity in 2015–16, but
supplied only 7 per cent of output. South Australia is the region that most relies on gas powered generation.

Gas powered generation rose strongly while carbon pricing was in place (July 2012 to June 2014). But the abolition
of carbon pricing in 2014, coupled with rising gas fuel costs linked to Queensland’s LNG projects and a lack of
new gas supplies, has stalled gas powered generation
. In Queensland, for example, it slumped from 22 per cent of
NEM output in 2014 to just 12 per cent in 2016. A similar squeezing of gas powered generation is apparent in most
regions.

This trend is reflcted in the mothballing of gas plant, some of which was commissioned after 2000. Queensland
generator Stanwell, for example, mothballed its 385 MW Swanbank E gas plant in 2014, following the repeal
of carbon pricing. Rising gas fuel costs prolonged the mothballing of Swanbank E to December 2018 and also
contributed to the mothballing of part of South Australia’s gas fired Pelican Point plant in 2015.
This may partly address robertk's question.
------------------------------
Final Thought: Push a green strategy too hard and it becomes the next "elect a anti-green government into power" plan. Policies with bi-partisan or multi-partisan support are more likely to be successful and bring harmony.
Socially and politically active Buddhists ignore this lesson at their peril. I say that the dharma of engaged Buddhism needs be guided by a diverse, multi-partisan understanding.

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Daily Power Use in Australia

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:16 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:00 am

Summertime 24 hour Electrical Usage curve for Australia
Image
In technical jargon this is known as a load curve. These summertime load curves are similar in nature for towns, for cities, capital cities, regions, States, as well as for the overall Country. These curves are similar to those during the summer months in many of the warmer US states.
Unfortunately the hours of highest need -- 4pm - 7pm -- don't match the hours of peak production for solar PV.
I think you have misinterpreted the chart. I think that the peak load happens between 14:00 and 17:00 which is 2pm - 5pm.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:52 am

I have held off on bringing new research articles to this thread because there would be so many that it would just clutter up the thread....but....since there has been alot of questioning as to whether batteries could be developed that could provide storage able to provide base load power levels with solar/wind inputs I thought I would bring this article to reassure us that there are great possibilities being pursued with likelihood of success. This article is not a guarantee but it is just one example of advances in battery technology which are regularly being made.

https://scitechdaily.com/metal-mesh-bre ... ry-issues/
This one might be implemented....if not this one then there are others which might...
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:35 pm

Pumped Hydro Energy Storage better than Batteries.
Pumped hydro is most the cost effective solution for large scale electricity storage ...

Here are some bullet points from a recent report by an Energy task force commissioned by the New South Wales government.
Everything here has been out in the public domain for years, decades even.

For how many readers is this new or unfamiliar information?
(See the discussion of 'social license' below.)

Energy storage is likely to play a key role in the future energy system and technology is advancing rapidly. Storage technologies can play a number of different roles in the system depending on the type – including providing grid security services, peak demand
management, and firming intermittent generation sources.
  • It's unlikely that a single technology or category of energy storage will dominate.
  • Different storage technologies are best suited for different functions.
  • Where geology and water availability permit, large-scale energy storage by pumped hydro is most cost effective for delivering energy reliability.
  • Pumped hydro systems do not have to interreupt or dam existing rivers. It re-uses it's water in a closed loop.
  • Today Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) accounts for 97% of energy storage worldwide.
  • One study identified over 22,000 potential PHES sites in Australia, with 8,578 potential sites in NSW, amounting to a combined storage capacity of approximately 29,000 GWh.
Dis-advantages of batteries.
  • Higher cost.
  • There are a number of environmental impact issues with Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries such as obtaining raw materials (including rare earth minerals), manufacturing, transporting, operation and disposal.
  • Fire.
  • Sensitivity to heat - higher temperatures reduce efficiency and increase wear.
=============================================

Final report from the Energy Security Taskforce
NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer, 19 December 2017
-- http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/re ... -taskforce
AEMO - Australian Energy Market Operator
NSW - New South Wales, Australia
3.3 STORAGE
Energy storage is likely to play a key role in the future energy system and technology is advancing rapidly. Storage technologies can play a number of different roles in the system depending on the type – including providing grid security services, peak demand management, and firming intermittent generation sources.

There is unlikely to be a single technology or category of energy storage that dominates the market, as different technologies are best suited for different functions (Godfrey, Dowling, Forsyth, Grafton, & Wyld, 2017).

The Australian Council of Learned Academies (Godfrey et al., 2017) reported that “Battery systems are the most cost effective when stabilising the grid, provided they have a ‘fast frequency response’ capability through appropriate power electronics to synthesise the fast frequency response, and are ready for immediate discharge when required. By comparison, where geology and water availability permit, large-scale energy storage by pumped hydro is most cost effective for delivering energy reliability”.

Types of energy storage are usually broken down according to their method of energy storage (Luo, Wang, Dooner, & Clarke, 2015; Aneke & Wang, 2016):
• mechanical (such as pumped hydro or flywheel energy storage)
• electrochemical (such as conventional, rechargeable lead acid or lithium-ion
batteries)
• electrical (such as capacitors)
• chemical (such as hydrogen fuel cells)
• thermal (heat storage, such as molten salts)
• geothermal reservoirs
• thermochemical (solar fuels).
This section primarily discusses batteries and pumped hydro and their potential for the NSW electricity system ...
3.3.2 Pumped hydro energy storage
Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) increasingly has potential in Australia to act as an effective electrical energy storage technology as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, batteries. PHES can contribute to both reliability and security of the grid, as it can provide the system security services associated with synchronous generation. Energy is stored when prices are low, such as from solar or wind energy, or overnight coal generation. During this time, water is pumped to the higher of two reservoirs and stored, then released when energy is needed.

PHES accounts for 97% of energy storage worldwide (Blakers, Lu, & Stocks, 2017a). Recent investment internationally has been in response to increased renewable generation as a flexible means to build reliability into electricity markets (Barbour, Wilson, Radcliffe, Ding, and Li (2016). In 2016, Japan had the largest PHES capacity at ~25 GW, followed by China at ~23 GW (Barbour et al., 2016). Europe currently has a combined installed PHES capacity of ~33 GW, with the largest proportion in Germany.

No large-scale PHES facilities have been constructed in Australia in the past 30 years (Godfrey et al., 2017). However, recently the Commonwealth Government announced a feasibility study to develop 2 GW of PHES through extension of Snowy Mountains Scheme. Further, ARENA has also recently funded a feasibility study for a coastal PHES project in South Australia that utilises the ocean as the lower reservoir. Also, construction of the Kidston PHES project in northern Queensland utilising a disused gold mine is due to commence shortly.

A study led by Andrew Blakers at the Australian National University identified over 22,000 potential PHES sites in Australia, with 8,578 potential sites in NSW, amounting to a combined storage capacity of approximately 29,000 GWh (Blakers, Stocks, Lu, Anderson, & Nadolny, 2017b). This assessment excluded national parks and protected land. Blakers et al. (2017b) also noted that the sites were often close to the transmission grid. Maps showing the locations of these potential sites are available (Blakers et al., 2017b).

Site selection for pumped hydro facilities requires multiple criteria to be considered with topography, climatic conditions and proximity to the grid being the main limiting factors. This is followed by water availability, wider environmental factors and ‘social license’. As described by Godfrey et al. (2017), “land use and water requirements for PHES have the potential to negatively influence the social license for the technology if environmental and water use impacts are not appropriately managed”.

In anticipation of proposals coming forward for new PHES developments, the Government should prepare for how it would manage approvals for this type of generation infrastructure in the NSW landscape through the planning system and what environmental approvals would be required. This could include developing guidelines for proponents, which could be similar to those developed for solar and wind developments (e.g. the Wind Energy Guideline by NSW DPE).

Recommendation 4
That the Government do pre-work on environmental permissions for likely new styles of energy infrastructure, for example pumped hydro, in order to facilitate the smooth adoption and development of appropriate energy technologies.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests