Solar Energy Farms

[BA-Fan]

A friend of mine suggested something intriguing:

"Why play a carbon based energy game when you could fill the deserts with solar energy production plants and there would be enough green power not only to consume, but also to export in abundance. This country is OD'ing on solar rays and only a tiny fraction is harvested. That would be real green progress."

[ebxr8240]

Exactly why hand it BACK to the polluters..
Unless they are seriously going to do something to improve epa...
Whether you believe in this global warming or not it's good move ...
Plus as we all know.. There is an issue with power generation, or will be.. In NSW anyway...

[Raptor]

A carbon tax is one way to raise the funds to support such schemes. Duh!

This IS what it's all about ;)

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by SM0KED

A friend of mine suggested something intriguing:

"Why play a carbon based energy game when you could fill the deserts with solar energy production plants and there would be enough green power not only to consume, but also to export in abundance. This country is OD'ing on solar rays and only a tiny fraction is harvested. That would be real green progress."

Extracting Solar engergy simply is not that efficiant at the moment and is still very very expensive. It would require hundreds of kms square of solar panels just to produce enough energy for a small town. Not to mention it being a logistical nightmare in transfering the energy all the way from the desert to a capital city! The losses would be huge.

[BPXR6T]

Surely export wouldn't be feasible. Solar power is good though. I'm totally off the grid. I only run a 4.5KW system but its enough to run my place with all my tools, fridge, TV, radio, lights, washing machine, etc. No more power bills to worry about.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

Extracting Solar engergy simply is not that efficiant at the moment and is still very very expensive. It would require hundreds of kms square of solar panels just to produce enough energy for a small town. Not to mention it being a logistical nightmare in transfering the energy all the way from the desert to a capital city! The losses would be huge.

Very true, but one of the reasons it's not commercially viable yet is because the demand isn't as high as it should be. Kind of like the reasons for electric cars and hybrids being so expensive... once there is high enough demand for the technology it will come down in price.

California only recently used the idea of creating solar farms in the desert, using Australian technology.

Personally I would love to see wind farms in Bass Straight too. I was watching a Foreign Correspondent the other week. A farmer (somewhere near Copenhagen) had installed a few wind generators (windmill things) at an investment of 1.5mil... he was already making a couple hundred grand a year off them. Not a bad turn around. I'd love to see more concessions for this kind of thing, rather than handing the coal power plants the huge cash back schemes the ETS is planning.

[ivorya]

The CSIRO energy dev has released a report showing that if every existing and proposed dwelling were to get solar panels on their roof's (not sure of the kw rating of such a system) they could infact shut down power stations and not need to build new ones. I think they called it Macro power, ie/ the power infrastructure is already there, your suburb is going to provide enough power to run itself, excess going back into the grid.

'Extracting Solar engergy simply is not that efficiant at the moment and is still very very expensive. It would require hundreds of kms square of solar panels just to produce enough energy for a small town. Not to mention it being a logistical nightmare in transfering the energy all the way from the desert to a capital city! The losses would be huge.'

I believe the CSIRO have also released a report on this to. They have said that a (not sure of the measurement but lets say its) 500sqm solar farm in the middle of the desert could power the whole of autralia today ie/ shutting down ALL power stations. The report has also suggested that with a small increase to this size, they could power all of Australia without any extra funding thru to 2020 (this under projected increases in population). Now for everyone saying this can't be possible, how are they going to power thruout the night......Google the 'Haber process'.
They are now using the Heat generated from focussing sunlight to breakup NH3 gas. This energy is then released when the reaction goes back to NH3, this process is swithced on at a certain time to continue energy production.

Interesting times ahead, but when our country in particular has so much $$$$ in exporting the brown/black stuff, it's so cheap, so many jobs are involved, NO govenment will turn their back on it to embrace the future energy source. I beleive we'll see Nuclear before we see major solar infrastructure.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by ivorya

The CSIRO energy dev has released a report showing that if every existing and proposed dwelling were to get solar panels on their roof's (not sure of the kw rating of such a system) they could infact shut down power stations and not need to build new ones. I think they called it Macro power, ie/ the power infrastructure is already there, your suburb is going to provide enough power to run itself, excess going back into the grid.

'Extracting Solar engergy simply is not that efficiant at the moment and is still very very expensive. It would require hundreds of kms square of solar panels just to produce enough energy for a small town. Not to mention it being a logistical nightmare in transfering the energy all the way from the desert to a capital city! The losses would be huge.'

I believe the CSIRO have also released a report on this to. They have said that a (not sure of the measurement but lets say its) 500sqm solar farm in the middle of the desert could power the whole of autralia today ie/ shutting down ALL power stations. The report has also suggested that with a small increase to this size, they could power all of Australia without any extra funding thru to 2020 (this under projected increases in population). Now for everyone saying this can't be possible, how are they going to power thruout the night......Google the 'Haber process'.
They are now using the Heat generated from focussing sunlight to breakup NH3 gas. This energy is then released when the reaction goes back to NH3, this process is swithced on at a certain time to continue energy production.

Interesting times ahead, but when our country in particular has so much $$$$ in exporting the brown/black stuff, it's so cheap, so many jobs are involved, NO govenment will turn their back on it to embrace the future energy source. I beleive we'll see Nuclear before we see major solar infrastructure.

Agreed. When you look at the major lobbyists for the governments around the world, including Australia, mining is right up there. No politician turns their back on this kind of free cash either.

It's a shame because Australia could be developing all this technology, trialling it out here, while still exporting coal to the rest of the world to protect jobs and the economy. Then when the world does switch over, we'd have lessened the blow of the switch by being the world leaders in the new technology and creating thousands of jobs.

Oh well...

[JutroXR8]

Originally Posted by ivorya

The CSIRO energy dev has released a report showing that if every existing and proposed dwelling were to get solar panels on their roof's (not sure of the kw rating of such a system) they could infact shut down power stations and not need to build new ones. I think they called it Macro power, ie/ the power infrastructure is already there, your suburb is going to provide enough power to run itself, excess going back into the grid.

'Extracting Solar engergy simply is not that efficiant at the moment and is still very very expensive. It would require hundreds of kms square of solar panels just to produce enough energy for a small town. Not to mention it being a logistical nightmare in transfering the energy all the way from the desert to a capital city! The losses would be huge.'

I believe the CSIRO have also released a report on this to. They have said that a (not sure of the measurement but lets say its) 500sqm solar farm in the middle of the desert could power the whole of autralia today ie/ shutting down ALL power stations. The report has also suggested that with a small increase to this size, they could power all of Australia without any extra funding thru to 2020 (this under projected increases in population). Now for everyone saying this can't be possible, how are they going to power thruout the night......Google the 'Haber process'.
They are now using the Heat generated from focussing sunlight to breakup NH3 gas. This energy is then released when the reaction goes back to NH3, this process is swithced on at a certain time to continue energy production.

Interesting times ahead, but when our country in particular has so much $$$$ in exporting the brown/black stuff, it's so cheap, so many jobs are involved, NO govenment will turn their back on it to embrace the future energy source. I beleive we'll see Nuclear before we see major solar infrastructure.

I work for an electricity distribution company, and one of my projects involves a study on solar power on our network (which I cannot go into any detail at the moment). The problem with solar power is that it is too expensive relative to coal power. Not to mention, the solar itself can only generate electricity when there is light outside. However, you can combat that with the use of batteries to store energy. Although that introduces extra maintence costs also potential enviromental issues relating to deposal of the battery units, and the batteries themselves only last 10 years.

The other issue is that people don't realise that the solar pannels need to be maintained regularly. Because everytime you get bird crap on the pannel, it significantly reduces the pannels out put (as the cell are connected in series). Also the pannels are only designed to last 25-30 years tops.

Another issue is that solar power (mainly the inverter) produces a lot of harmonics. To put it simply harmonics is like polution, but for electricity. For example if you imagine harmonics as rubbish and you have a clean river of water flowing down a hill, and at different points on the river people are dumping rubish into it. What you get is clean river at the top of the hill which gets more and more dirty down stream. This is what harmonics do to our network. The more "pollution" on our network, the fast your appliances will burn out and the more problems you will have.

As you can see it is not as simple as just saying lets just flood our deserts with solar.

In terms of new investment type projects, there are a lot of them out there (for obvious reasons I cannot go into them). But what we are finding is that many times, the theory does not always match the real world outcomes (whether that be cost benefit, output, efficiencies, etc). However, there are some projects out there that are looking like they might actual work. So stay tuned.

[JutroXR8]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Agreed. When you look at the major lobbyists for the governments around the world, including Australia, mining is right up there. No politician turns their back on this kind of free cash either.

It's a shame because Australia could be developing all this technology, trialling it out here, while still exporting coal to the rest of the world to protect jobs and the economy. Then when the world does switch over, we'd have lessened the blow of the switch by being the world leaders in the new technology and creating thousands of jobs.

Oh well...

Like I said, don't worry, there are a lot of new ideas being tried out in Aust. It won't happen overnight, though. This is because most ideas need to be trialled over a number of years and under different conditions.

[flappist]

Minor issues:

Wind:

They are bloody noisy and only work while the wind blows. If it stops for a week or two you have a BIG problem. As well as being noisy theu are also ugly so there will be exactly the same problem as mobile phone towers or radio towers or airports or race tracks or sewage plants or water storage or..........
We need them but not anywhere near me

Solar:

Photovoltaic: Expensive, DC, extremely inefficient, only work during the day and best during a short period in the middle of the day if it is not cloudy and fragile (deserts have lots of sand storms)
Thermal: Expensive, fragile, react slowly (need to warm up), unpredictable.

Deserts are nasty places....

The answer is Nuclear but the fear campaign run by vested interests has ensured that it will be difficult if not impossible to ever implement it.

And before the usual "3 mile island" "chenobyl" et al. loonies arc up remember that Hiroshima and Nakasaki were bombed but are ok now, Australia has had many nuclear "events" as has the Pacific, USA, USSR, China, India, Pakistan etc. and none of these glow in the dark any more.

But as like wind generators et al., we need them, just not near me

[mr smith]

I've had a look at the Bridgewater site, pretty impressive.

http://www.watoday.com.au/environmen...1128-jy13.html

[Gaz]

Nuclear is really not the answer, the amount of usable uranium will not see us though 2050, especially if every country jumps on the bandwagon - not to mentioned the amount of water they need.

Wind is a personal preference, in my view I don't find Wind Turbines an eyesore, I find them interesting and bloody impressive to look at. The worlds biggest are 6-7MW and almost 200m tall!

Go stand on the WA South West coast and give me a call when the wind isn't blowing - however I suggest taking a large ration pack, and maybe arrange your funeral there, cause you will be waiting a long long time.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Gaz

Nuclear is really not the answer, the amount of usable uranium will not see us though 2050, especially if every country jumps on the bandwagon - not to mentioned the amount of water they need.

Yeh and we will be out of oil by the year 2000......oops
Who says there is not enough uranium? Oh that right, all the people who don't want Nuclear power. They sure are unbiased.....

Originally Posted by Gaz

Wind is a personal preference, in my view I don't find Wind Turbines an eyesore, I find them interesting and bloody impressive to look at. The worlds biggest are 6-7MW and almost 200m tall!

I like airports and airbases, especially the ones that have high speed jets buzzing about. Lots of people in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth etc disagree....strange that.

I like car racing. Shame all the people who live near Lakeside, Surfers Paradise and every other track that has been closed don't...

I like radio towers...try and build one.....basicly anywhere...

Originally Posted by Gaz

Go stand on the WA South West coast and give me a call when the wind isn't blowing - however I suggest taking a large ration pack, and maybe arrange your funeral there, cause you will be waiting a long long time.

Shame no one lives down there.....

There is no drought or water shortage in Innisfail or Tully.....what is all the whinging about...
Move all of the Brizzo public vegetables to FNQ....problem solved...

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by JutroXR8

I work for an electricity distribution company, and one of my projects involves a study on solar power on our network (which I cannot go into any detail at the moment). The problem with solar power is that it is too expensive relative to coal power. Not to mention, the solar itself can only generate electricity when there is light outside. However, you can combat that with the use of batteries to store energy. Although that introduces extra maintence costs also potential enviromental issues relating to deposal of the battery units, and the batteries themselves only last 10 years.

The other issue is that people don't realise that the solar pannels need to be maintained regularly. Because everytime you get bird crap on the pannel, it significantly reduces the pannels out put (as the cell are connected in series). Also the pannels are only designed to last 25-30 years tops.

Another issue is that solar power (mainly the inverter) produces a lot of harmonics. To put it simply harmonics is like polution, but for electricity. For example if you imagine harmonics as rubbish and you have a clean river of water flowing down a hill, and at different points on the river people are dumping rubish into it. What you get is clean river at the top of the hill which gets more and more dirty down stream. This is what harmonics do to our network. The more "pollution" on our network, the fast your appliances will burn out and the more problems you will have.

As you can see it is not as simple as just saying lets just flood our deserts with solar.

In terms of new investment type projects, there are a lot of them out there (for obvious reasons I cannot go into them). But what we are finding is that many times, the theory does not always match the real world outcomes (whether that be cost benefit, output, efficiencies, etc). However, there are some projects out there that are looking like they might actual work. So stay tuned.

I too work for an electrical distribution firm now as a HV protection systems designer. Whilst on the tools, amongst other projects, i worked on both wind turbine and solar panel installations. Current panels are not commercially viable. BUt will improve.

The real technology is Solar Thermal and Geothermal that we should be looking at. Going off Ausra's website to supply the Australian Energy Market (formerly NEMMCO) electricity consumption peaks of 32,000MWh you could quite easily do it with about 50km x 50km.

Edit: It would take 468km2, or 21.6km x 21.6km
http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/071105.html
At 177 megawatts of capacity, the project will use only one square mile (640 acres)

If you think the area is huge, it's not. Here in the Hunter Valley, the mines would collectively take up more space. Easily.

You could easily make them in 1km x 1km lots, adjacent to industry which then use the steam for their processes which is how power stations work in Europe where they often provide town heating as well as electricity.

They, AUSRA, have had a plant up and running for over a decade at Liddell PS, Muswellbrook. It feeds the steam to the main coal fired plant. Seamlessly. The government just wouldn't help out. Now they are US based as of 3years ago and going gangbusters...

The investment works out cost competitive with coal fired at $3M/MW. So about $100B could replace TAS, VIC, NSW, QLD & SA energy production.

As for energy storage, yes it's feasible, quite feasible, without batteries too. Using a Carbon-Graphite Storage which is like a 10T block which gets heated to 600deg celsius. This is similar to CSIRO tech being developed here in Newcastle.

The other alternative tech being developed here in Newcastle is call SunGas or SynGas. Which again uses reflected mirrors to superheat steam and this is mixed with regular town gas. The crux is that together, they create this new gas that has 50% more energy content, but no extra carbon!

As for geothermal, there is speculation that Tassie has vast amounts, and it will be within a reasonable distance of the main lines, although the terrain is not so friendly. Problem is, without building another 'SlowDC' BassLink there is limited scope to export the energy to the mainland.

Lastly, the handout these polluters got is just ridiculous. The architect of the original government report suggested they get NOTHING. Rio Tinto held a Climate Change conference in Sydney in 1993. This is how long the big companies have publicly known for.

Why should China Light and Power, TruEnergy and other overseas investors get more in free permits that can be sold off, than what their current assets are worth? Loy Yang B power station and the other Brown Coal are dirty filthy, old technology and have made hand over fist for these investors since being bought, but now cry poor.

The incumbents should not be given a free kick at the expense of new green industry.

Oh and the way the CPRS is written is crap. Poor legislation, but action is urgently needed IMO.

End rant!

[Gaz]

I agree

Electricity generation is one of the biggest polluters. Simply instead of a CRPS (Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme) or ETS (Extra Tax System) why not simply support zero emission generation forcing the phase out of existing generation?

There have been so many Australian start up companies that have ****ed off over seas cause we twiddle our thumbs here and now are freaking massive (EG Ausra).

[JutroXR8]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I too work for an electrical distribution firm now as a HV protection systems designer. Whilst on the tools, amongst other projects, i worked on both wind turbine and solar panel installations. Current panels are not commercially viable. BUt will improve.

The real technology is Solar Thermal and Geothermal that we should be looking at. Going off Ausra's website to supply the Australian Energy Market (formerly NEMMCO) electricity consumption peaks of 32,000MWh you could quite easily do it with about 50km x 50km.

Edit: It would take 468km2, or 21.6km x 21.6km
http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/071105.html
At 177 megawatts of capacity, the project will use only one square mile (640 acres)

If you think the area is huge, it's not. Here in the Hunter Valley, the mines would collectively take up more space. Easily.

You could easily make them in 1km x 1km lots, adjacent to industry which then use the steam for their processes which is how power stations work in Europe where they often provide town heating as well as electricity.

They, AUSRA, have had a plant up and running for over a decade at Liddell PS, Muswellbrook. It feeds the steam to the main coal fired plant. Seamlessly. The government just wouldn't help out. Now they are US based as of 3years ago and going gangbusters...

The investment works out cost competitive with coal fired at $3M/MW. So about $100B could replace TAS, VIC, NSW, QLD & SA energy production.

As for energy storage, yes it's feasible, quite feasible, without batteries too. Using a Carbon-Graphite Storage which is like a 10T block which gets heated to 600deg celsius. This is similar to CSIRO tech being developed here in Newcastle.

The other alternative tech being developed here in Newcastle is call SunGas or SynGas. Which again uses reflected mirrors to superheat steam and this is mixed with regular town gas. The crux is that together, they create this new gas that has 50% more energy content, but no extra carbon!

As for geothermal, there is speculation that Tassie has vast amounts, and it will be within a reasonable distance of the main lines, although the terrain is not so friendly. Problem is, without building another 'SlowDC' BassLink there is limited scope to export the energy to the mainland.

Lastly, the handout these polluters got is just ridiculous. The architect of the original government report suggested they get NOTHING. Rio Tinto held a Climate Change conference in Sydney in 1993. This is how long the big companies have publicly known for.

Why should China Light and Power, TruEnergy and other overseas investors get more in free permits that can be sold off, than what their current assets are worth? Loy Yang B power station and the other Brown Coal are dirty filthy, old technology and have made hand over fist for these investors since being bought, but now cry poor.

The incumbents should not be given a free kick at the expense of new green industry.

Oh and the way the CPRS is written is crap. Poor legislation, but action is urgently needed IMO.

End rant!

Yeah good points. Would love to reply and will try if i can get some time over the next week.

But, just keep in mind, that these projects usually end up costing more than just the initial build. Often many things are missed and overlooked, and not revealed until a trial is completed. For example, the governments initiative to install "energy efficient" lamps. Sure they save the customer money and power, but what is the real cost? No one realised that the distribution network is now getting more and more issues/complaints due to harmonic distortion. Which is now costing us big $$$ to fix.

Anyways mate, I gotta leave my rant there.

take care.

Dan

[Airmon]

Plenty of good reasons already here to explain the answer.
A few others, while it seems logical to put solar panels in the desert, they would need to be cleaned very regularly, dust collecting on the panels will make them even less efficient to what they already are.
You also have to look at bird migrations when dealing with wind turbines to ensure you have as little impact on the environment as possible.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by Gaz

Nuclear is really not the answer, the amount of usable uranium will not see us though 2050, especially if every country jumps on the bandwagon - not to mentioned the amount of water they need.

I can't understand why you would think that, one kilogram of uranium is enough to provide for all your stationary energy needs over your entire life.

Not to mention the millions of tonnes of uranium stored as waste. This waste alone is able to ensure energy security as less than 1% of the total energy available in a "waste" fuel rod has been used.

I'm all for renewable energy sources but I don't see how solar and wind generation are going to be able to compete with gas and coal both cost wise and in their ability to provide base load power.

Nuclear power seems appears to be the only real option we have "now" to decarbonise our economy.

[ABoringUsername]

From a grid electrical point of view, one of the main problems with many forms of renewable energy (i.e. most types that contain a converter) is that they simply don't react like a synchronous machine to system disturbances. i.e.

-Inertia and Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS)- usually they will remain at constant output during a frequency disturbance, leaving the FCAS supply to more traditional synchronous generators. Note this isn't necessarily because they technically can't provide it, but because they don't have to. As with all storage less forms of generation, providing raise FCAS would involve spilling some of your energy input, and no renewable energy proponent wants to do that. For a wind turbine, there is no technical reason that a modern variable speed turbine could not provide inertia (see GE's WindInertia technology), but most manufacturers have not done the research because there is plenty of demand from inertia rich grids like Europe.

-Fault level and fault response- A synchronous machine will usually provide 3-5X its rated current to provide voltage support during a fault. Converter based renewable energy will usually max at around 1pu. This leads to increased voltage sag during the fault, or voltage collapse after it. It can cause commutation failure on DC links. Fault response is also often a weak point for renewable technologies, often more due to placement. No one wants to live where it is windy or too hot so there is often little or no grid there to supply into. What you do during a fault can easily make or break a project at the end of a long transmission line. This can often be fixed using HVDC or lots of STATCOMS (or synchronous condensers... hows that for old technology...) but comes at a cost.

-voltage control- this is a weak point for many types of renewable generation as he reactive supply ability is often significantly weaker than that of a synch. gen. This is easily fixed with suitable application of capacitors, and STATCOMs...

In my experience harmonics are rarely a problem for a well designed converter, in fact most can be tuned to be darn good active filters. This does not however apply for cheap converters that may be used at distribution connected sites, or for particularly weak connection points.

Some forms of renewable generation can be a synchronous generator such as solar thermal or geothermal. additionally steam pressure or heat storage could be used as a thermal battery to assist supply overnight.

I am a power systems engineer.

[ebxr8240]

Solar panels on EACH house is way more efficient !!
Only issue is Governments cannot get their greasy hands into taxing the meters...

[xtremerus]

ABoringUsername
Heavy stuff there, but is what you are saying, is that a TOTAL solar, wind etc. power generation system, without a bass load generation of some sort, is a major problem. Because too many people think that getting rid of coal and nuclear generation is the only answer.

[baboon]

Originally Posted by BPXR6T

Surely export wouldn't be feasible. Solar power is good though. I'm totally off the grid. I only run a 4.5KW system but its enough to run my place with all my tools, fridge, TV, radio, lights, washing machine, etc. No more power bills to worry about.

Nice! I'd like to learn how too.

Start small where one or two houses supply power for the whole street, in exchange for regular maintenance/mechanical/electrical/food/sexual help.

Multiply this with all the streets in the suburb, then multiply by all suburbs in the city.

Get everyone off the grid and working together as a community again! Less time on forums and foxtel, more time walking, helping and giving!

How bout that?

[ebxr8240]

Yea good idea.. Trouble is I'll do myself out of a job!!

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

ABoringUsername
Heavy stuff there, but is what you are saying, is that a TOTAL solar, wind etc. power generation system, without a bass load generation of some sort, is a major problem. Because too many people think that getting rid of coal and nuclear generation is the only answer.

Don't need to get rid of it all, keep it there to some extent and fill in the demand areas with renewables.

Base load is also really something created, our base load level is simply because we have lots of coal power stations that can't be turned down, they are either on or off, as such the electricity is generated no matter what and needs to be consumed.

I've heard from network engineers that's why they don't like the idea of switching street lights off or changing to LED street lights, cause they need them on to consume the base load over night.

[SB076]

I beleive solar has a part to play as do other renewable options (such as wind, tidal/waves etc) and as the technology improves the the costs will come down and the efficiency will improve.

This is an interesting device that to me shows promise.

http://www.neco.com.au/bluegen

I also watched a documentary recently which was showing a Chinese Nuclear reactor that cannot "meltdown" and the was completely safe (so safe they were dicussing reactors so small they would fit in a house and you could have one next door and never even know its there)

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

I can't understand why you would think that, one kilogram of uranium is enough to provide for all your stationary energy needs over your entire life.

Not to mention the millions of tonnes of uranium stored as waste. This waste alone is able to ensure energy security as less than 1% of the total energy available in a "waste" fuel rod has been used.

I'm all for renewable energy sources but I don't see how solar and wind generation are going to be able to compete with gas and coal both cost wise and in their ability to provide base load power.

Nuclear power seems appears to be the only real option we have "now" to decarbonise our economy.

Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with you... as a stop-gap measure. But another part of me says that humans are incapable of changing, meaning that the stop-gap will become too comfortable and then we will stop pressuring to develop new technologies.

[ABoringUsername]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

ABoringUsername
Heavy stuff there, but is what you are saying, is that a TOTAL solar, wind etc. power generation system, without a bass load generation of some sort, is a major problem. Because too many people think that getting rid of coal and nuclear generation is the only answer.

With the current way renewables are added to the grid, yes essentially, most forms of renewable energy require synchronous generation to essentially control the grid. Not only base load, but peakers that can take up the slack when there is no wind, and provide FCAS. Basically generation falls into three broad categories:

-Base load - these plants don't really like changing their output much, and are usually slow and energy intensive to start so they are usually running and close to full output. Common examples of this are coal, combined cycle gas and nuclear. hydroelectric generation can also fill this role. It is likely geothermal would be of this type too. At the moment, combined cycle gas is the most likely of these to be built. it is more cleaner than coal, but still a thermal plant. it also doesn't have the stigma nuclear has associated with it.

-Peakers - these plants will be used to provide for peak load. they will not usually be running at low times. they don't have the extended start times that most base load types have and will usually respond much quicker to system disturbances. They are, however, usually less efficient than base load plants, which is why they aren't usually run as base load. common types are open cycle gas turbines and Hydroelectric plants.

-non scheduled or semi-scheduled generation- many renewable types fall in this basket. they generate when they can, and don't when they can't. They will usually displace peakers or to a lesser extent base load when running. Note the more random nature of their generation means that they can't plan their generation for high price times on the market like a peaker can.

The above classifications are not as clear cut as they seem, for example solar thermal would usually be a synchronous generator and through thermal storage can provide generation when there is no sun.

energy storage is often another issue that is raised in these sorts of discussions. In a large grid it would be quite rare for there to be storage. The only one with sufficient volume to large grid use so far has been pumped storage schemes. In the future, especially if we see more large price fluctuations we may see more being commercialised.

Remote area power is another ballpark entirely. When you have to buy diesel to generate, many forms of renewable energy and storage start to look mighty nice. That's why on some remote area grids we can sometimes see close to 100% renewable penetration.

In a grid, usually more than half of load, especially at low load times, will be made up of base load, which is usually major industrials.

For anyone interested in things like this, the AEMO website has lots of information freely available, including all price data, transmission line ratings, and known network constraints. The transmission authorities' annual planning report which they are required to make freely available also contains lots of interesting information - including info about proposed developments. Also the AEMO Statement of Opportunities. For anyone who likes legalese and wants to know what is actually required of generators and transmission service providers, look at the national electricity rules. S5.5.1a and S5.5.2 are the technical requirements.

[ABoringUsername]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

I can't understand why you would think that, one kilogram of uranium is enough to provide for all your stationary energy needs over your entire life.

Not to mention the millions of tonnes of uranium stored as waste. This waste alone is able to ensure energy security as less than 1% of the total energy available in a "waste" fuel rod has been used.

Depends on the technology used. Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed, and fast breeder rectors can be configured to create more fissionable material than they consume. India are quite interested in Thorium fuelled reactors as they have lots of thorium.

[ebxr8240]

Way out of my league here..
BUT recently I was talking to a nuclear scientist ..
He said they are about [or already have] made the nuke fuel rods very small or multiples of small rods so they latter can be used in households for heating etc..After they have been used in big projects.. Being so small they are far more controllable.. Said they could make them the size of golf balls. It saves the issue of storage when they are spent on power station etc..