Anyone Into Alternative Energy?

[Sourbastard]

Photovoltaic energy generation is a joke. Nuclear is a good alternative, its quite clean and reasonably safe, and many of the newer designs incorporate multiple safety systems that overlap to ensure a meltdown does not occur. The amount of nuclear waste is about 25 kg of spent fuel each year to provide electricity for a thousand people, and much less than this if the fuel is reprocessed. Compare that to a coal fired station, which is the primary source of energy in Australia as coal is so cheap. Also keep in mind that uranium is present in the ground already, and its already radioactive, it doesnt fall from the sky and suddenly become radioactive. Its present in australian geology in vast amounts and is present in our underground water supplies already. We live with radioactivity everyday, even from smoke detectors and more then enough from the sun. This concept of radiation free society, is ludicrous.

And if you dont want another chernobyl, dont let a bunch of drunk Ukranians run your 30 year old power station which you never maintain nor service. Its just a machine, bad drivers cause accidents, poor maintainence causes accidents. Avoidance is easy.

That being said, best renewable I've seen was done in a desert in the states, a few thousand 4 metre diamater concave mirrors follow the sun across the sky, and redirect the light onto very large steel tank, which heats very quickly, produces steam (In vast quantities I mgiht add) and in turn generates electricity.

As we have plenty of desert here in Oz, its mad that we arent using similar schemes.

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

And if you dont want another chernobyl, dont let a bunch of drunk Ukranians run your 30 year old power station which you never maintain nor service. Its just a machine, bad drivers cause accidents, poor maintainence causes accidents. Avoidance is easy.

Well said. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power stations, but only because of two issues, the 'human' side of the equasion (as pointed out above), and the problem of the nuclear waste. If we can find better solutions to both those problems, then I know I for one would not have a problem with Nuclear power.

Did anybody else see the show that was on TV a while back regarding exactly what happened at chernobyl? I think it was called "60 minutes to disaster" or something like that. They went into detail about exactly what happened at chernobyl to cause the worlds worst nuclear accident, and it was very interesting viewing. The way I understand it is that it was a result of many factors - the poor quality, workmanship shortcuts and general dodgy building of that nuclear reactor, the stubborness of the person who was directly in charge at the time, the lack of understanding of what was actually happening, and other issues.

Also, a big part of the problem was that they were doing a test that had been ordered to do to test what could happen if the nuclear power station was targetted in the event of war and the cooling system was offline - trying to manipulate the nuclear reaction while the water pumps were not circulating water to cool the system. Its sort of like trying to run your car without a water pump and with a slow leak, it might be ok for an extremely short time, but you'd still want to shut it down asap to avoid it running dry and overheating, which is exactly what happened at chernobyl - basically the reactor boiled dry.

At least, that is the way I understood it, I might be a little off with some of the details, but I think I've got the general idea right. :

[merlin]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Didnt someone invent these massive things they put in the water and the movement from the current in the water generates electricity?

yep - are you talking about a "wave generator"? Where wave energy from the ocean is captured somehow to spin a turbine. Apparantly used successfully in some parts of France. Australia certainly has a huge coastline.

But I reckon Nuclear power is the go (on a large scale) - the benefits far outweigh the risks (which are minimal) with the technology available currently. Solar power, wave energy, wind ect are all good for small communities ect but not on large scales like nuclear power.

Alternativley a few government papers theorise that communities will become smaller and self contained in the future so maybe solar/wind/wave ect can be used on these smaller scales.

[MITCHAY]

The things i was talking about were these massive machines that had something like a giant belt with fins on it. The currents in the water would turn the belt and generate electricity. By memory they were trialling them in Queensland.

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by bindi

Back 2 The Futura, yes I will be looking at getting a bigger and newer tank and system in the next couple of years. I was thinking about getting a natural gas system instead but I think solar is better for our needs.


Also I had heard there is an electricity project where if you can power your house and have enough left over, you can sell it back to the electricity company.

Bindi, atm you are entitled to a rebate paid by the Govt if you replace your existing solar system with a new one. You're also entitled to it if you replace an electric water system with solar (and in that case its a big saving), so its a big incentive to go with solar.

The scheme you are referring to is currently in place but its very hard to get into. It wil over time expand and become more commonplace, but to be honest at the moment it is sometimes more trouble than it is worth.

[free-energy64]

Seano14 The old Dunlite, I'll take it off your hands and have a play with it if you have no further use for it? A real common gennie way back, I personally can't identify it. Nuclear sounds good at the start but the waste IS the problem and ever since it was invented NO ONE has come up with a realistic approach to dispose of the waste! Solar and wind ARE the future of the planet and people must conserve and not waste what is around. If the GOV passed a law that every new house must have a solar hot water system and a certain number of photovoltaic panels(like they have done with dual flush water cysterns) then there would be less concern with more coal fired power stations to meet rising demands, then wind and solar would eventually be able to phase out coal fired power stations. Much more public education is required from all vested interests.

[wulos]

Good to see there are a LOT of misunderstandings & MISrepresentations surrounding the topic of renewable energy (& power distribution in general)
Having had more then a little bit of experience in the industry, I think a fair number of comments in here need to be addressed.
Most of the southern energy generators(VIC) in Aus are run on 'brown coal' (poor low grade RUBBISH) known to produce more byproducts then its 'black coal' equivalent used in NSW. There are a HELL of a LOT MORE causes of acid rain then just power station emmisions. A lot of the waste products are also quite beneficially used as well, like usage of flyash in concrete products.
ALL High Voltage electrical apparatus has a limited servicable lifespan. To suggest that maintenance of these quite complex systems 30 odd years down the track on old & worn out equipment is easy is extremely naive.
:
k, now Ive got THAT out of the way - back on track.
EnergyAustralia has invested quite substantially into renewable energy, from quite a number of varied sources. They have operational Solar arrays, which are as previously pointed out can be connected & backfeed into the network(ONLY large scale customers atm have access to backfeed into the network). They also have several biofuel generator sets up & running & feeding into the network(Belrose tip in Sydneys North has 4 methane powered generators) In addition to this EA has a number of wind powered generators accross its area with the largest(read high profile) being installed @ Kooragang Island north of Newcastle. They also allow customers what they call a 'green power' option on their bills. What this is / means is that if the customer decides to go this option they pay a slightly higher rate (which is invested back into the new technology) & EA will supply the customer with energy that is sourced from 100% renewable sources.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by free-energy64

Nuclear sounds good at the start but the waste IS the problem and ever since it was invented NO ONE has come up with a realistic approach to dispose of the waste! Solar and wind ARE the future of the planet and people must conserve and not waste what is around. If the GOV passed a law that every new house must have a solar hot water system and a certain number of photovoltaic panels(like they have done with dual flush water cysterns) then there would be less concern with more coal fired power stations to meet rising demands, then wind and solar would eventually be able to phase out coal fired power stations. Much more public education is required from all vested interests.

Firstly fuel rod reprocessing is a realistic approach to radioactive waste, and will continue to improve as Generation 4 designs become more achievable. Do some research and dont just dismiss things out of hand because they dont gel with your politics.

Solar and wind power are not "The Future" for various reasons. Photovoltaic is of very low efficiency, and wind power is geographically sensitive. You cant just plonk them down anywhere and expect to run the Ford plant at geelong with it. As i've said, solar/mirror steam furnaces do work and work well, but they are also finite in regards to their geographic needs.

For industrial concerns, they simply do not cope in the long run in regards to power generation. As civilization progresses, so does its power needs. This has clearly been demonstrated time and time again, otherwise we would still be using gas lanterns to light our streets.

The future will eventually have to be a break in the thermo dynamics laws, or to come very close to it, and generate as much power in huge amounts for as little input and impact as possible. This leads to real pollution troubles though as is inevitable, and not smoke like we put up with now. But heat pollution, which is by all scientific accounts far more dangerous then any smog could be to a global environment model.

If you want to live with solar and wind only, either destroy a continent, or live in a hut, because the efficiency to run a world wide industry just isnt there.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by wulos

To suggest that maintenance of these quite complex systems 30 odd years down the track on old & worn out equipment is easy is extremely naive.

Yes they are complex(extremely), yes they have finite lifespans as all equipment does, maintainence is made easier by redundancy and funding, just like anything else that breaks down. If the money is there, and the redundancy available for downtime, what is the great hurdle that stands in the way? Most likely capitalism and politics.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by free-energy64

Seano14 The old Dunlite, I'll take it off your hands and have a play with it if you have no further use for it? A real common gennie way back, I personally can't identify it. Nuclear sounds good at the start but the waste IS the problem and ever since it was invented NO ONE has come up with a realistic approach to dispose of the waste! Solar and wind ARE the future of the planet and people must conserve and not waste what is around. If the GOV passed a law that every new house must have a solar hot water system and a certain number of photovoltaic panels(like they have done with dual flush water cysterns) then there would be less concern with more coal fired power stations to meet rising demands, then wind and solar would eventually be able to phase out coal fired power stations. Much more public education is required from all vested interests.

Every home with a photovoltaic array, affordable ones wouldn't generate enough to run the average family TV and video! Oh and where does the power come from at night, thats right batteries crammed full of chemicals and heavy metals. You think burying the odd drum of spent nukes in Roxby downs is a hazard, image the waste from a 2yr life cycle of lead acid accumulators from every dwelling.

I'm not anti alternate energy , I'm all for it but how about a bit of reality. In the 70's working as an electrician it was unlikely ever to see a new home go in uninsulated.
Now you can buy a Govt approved overpopulated spec home disaster villiage and buy a hideos box with no insulation in ceilings or walls, none on hot water piping and an undersized inefficient single phase air conditioner there waiting to be started. Go figure.

The energy companies are not standing still , but they stopped et every turn by government intervention, and raving loony do gooders with less than a clue.

Oh and for the record I actively use and promote photovoltaic solutions with my projects, I just use it in applications where it is appropriate.

[bindi]

Originally Posted by back2thefutura

Bindi, atm you are entitled to a rebate paid by the Govt if you replace your existing solar system with a new one. You're also entitled to it if you replace an electric water system with solar (and in that case its a big saving), so its a big incentive to go with solar.

Eeeeexcellent... I am always broke so this is a good thing Ta mate for the info! If I do this soon, I know who to contact!

[wulos]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Yes they are complex(extremely), yes they have finite lifespans as all equipment does, maintainence is made easier by redundancy and funding, just like anything else that breaks down. If the money is there, and the redundancy available for downtime, what is the great hurdle that stands in the way? Most likely capitalism and politics.

As youve pointed out, spare capacity is a major issue (most of the systems have NOT kept track of the unpredicted?? growth - far exceeds estimates) The other issue is skilled staff to perform this maintainence(I can quote any number of projects that have had staff travelling interstate & in some circumstances overseas to overcome this shortfall).
There is a distinct shortage of resources to keep this old equipment up & running(spare parts that haven't been made since the equipment was first built are no longer available) which could be addressed by replacing it. The costly decision is political in nature, NOONE is willing to pay 1c more, despite the fact that keeping the old stuff is actually COSTING more, then replacing things would.

[Tote]

There's a pretty interesting discussion on newer design nuclear power plants here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
It's a bit heavy but interesting reading. It's interesting to note that the US stopped building nuclear stations in the seventies.
Regards,
Tote

[free-energy64]

To simply dismiss solar and wind shows your ignorance and having read alot of info available on the net there is much support for more smaller generation methods to lower the demand off the grid. If each new house supplied only half its power requirements and without batteries during daylight hours then this would have a massive impact. And to think the only way to run a large factory is with grid power is wrong. There are plants all over the world who use PV's and co-gen plants to supply ALL of their power requirements. Surf the net and get informed.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by free-energy64

To simply dismiss solar and wind shows your ignorance and having read alot of info available on the net there is much support for more smaller generation methods to lower the demand off the grid. If each new house supplied only half its power requirements and without batteries during daylight hours then this would have a massive impact. And to think the only way to run a large factory is with grid power is wrong. There are plants all over the world who use PV's and co-gen plants to supply ALL of their power requirements. Surf the net and get informed.

Yes. As we know the internet never has misinformation nor outright lies in it.

Running heavy industry on photvoltaic would take most of the countryside hooked up to do one factory. Try running a standard 3 or 4 shift 24/7 Heavy Industry plant on photovoltaic power, try keeping metals or glass molten 24 hours a day while a plant runs on photovoltaics. Try running multiple conveyor belts, factory robotics and automation, air conditioning, standy by systems and safety systems, 240 - 1000W floodlights, computer infrastructure, everything down to the rotating snack machine in the lunch room. You simply have no idea of the amounts of energy required to do this.

Lets also not forget that the production of PV cells has its own environmental impacts. The greatest environmental risk with silicon cells is associated with the use of gases arsine and phosphine during the manufacturing process. Noone mentions this, because Solar Cells are just so green enviro happy tree hug friendly.

Noone mentioned, nor dismissed cogen, but usually you either have to have a related industrial process with waste you can use, or a local source of such waste fuel to make it economically viable. This is not a fix all method, its a method of convenience for *some* industries in *some* locations.

Surfing the net, does not make one an expert.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by free-energy64

To simply dismiss solar and wind shows your ignorance and having read alot of info available on the net there is much support for more smaller generation methods to lower the demand off the grid. If each new house supplied only half its power requirements and without batteries during daylight hours then this would have a massive impact. And to think the only way to run a large factory is with grid power is wrong. There are plants all over the world who use PV's and co-gen plants to supply ALL of their power requirements. Surf the net and get informed.

To appear on an automotive forum and begin calling its members ignorant because may have differing views to your own is ignorance in the extreme. To assume that all the other posters are oblivious to the range of alternatives, including some who work in the power generation industry is ignorance to the extreme!!!

Cogeneration from private homes, give me a break that only works in government or industry subsidised experiments, in reality how many could generate even a third of their requirements, even enough to run the toaster. Oh and those nasty polluting batteries are back in the picture, and we aren't talking a 6 pack of AAA's are we?

There is no point in going into detail and no I wont subscribe to your hobby horse, many here are interested in alternative sources of energy but show me some cold hard facts, actual quantities , cost benefits etc. Until you can do this then please refrain from labelling ignorance to those who are probably a whole lot better infirmed than yourself!

(and get the kombi serviced it's polluting our environment!)

[MITCHAY]

As with any energy source there can or is bad things about it. Even wind farms have bad things. They mess up the scenery and people have complained about it so thats a bad thing about it. In particular i dont really care about scenery as i dont live there but you can understand the people that do care as they have to see it day in day out.

[Perana]

Although Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are great for small scale energy production they are in no way viable for large scale energy production. Also the notion that they are all environmentally friendly is complete rubbish. All have various negative impacts on the environment as well as being very expensive for the energy produced.

The way to go at the moment is defiantly Nuclear Fission (which is the current method of Nuclear power generation), although there are risks associated with this they can be virtually eradicated by proper management and maintenance. Also a few kilograms of uranium can produce the same amount of energy as many thousands of tonnes of fossil fuel, as well as producing no air pollution and waste produced is only a few kilograms and when processed is minimised even more.

Originally Posted by Tote

There's a pretty interesting discussion on newer design nuclear power plants here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

This looks promising will be interesting to see how it goes

Although I think this is the way to produce energy at this stage the way to go in the future is defiantly Nuclear Fusion, which is a copy of the process that occurs in the Sun and every star. This involves fusing together 2 forms of Hydrogen (Deuterium and Tritium) to form Helium, which is in no way a pollutant. There have been many successful attempts to initiate this reaction but the problem at this stage is finding something to contain a liquid that’s temperature is 10-15 million degrees Celsius which is hot enough to melt concrete. There have been successful reactors in which electro magnetic energy has been used but in all of these the electricity used to produce this magnetic field has at the very least equalled what the reactor has output. With development this will change though and it will become a very viable choice. There is also thousands of year’s supply of Deuterium in the sea water and tritium can be obtained from Lithium which there is also thousands of year’s worth of supply in the ground. There is no chance of meltdown as well so it is inherently safe

A far as consumables when it comes to power production, To produce 1000 Megawatts of electricity, 9000 tonnes of coal are required releasing 30,000 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, 600 tonnes of Sulfur Dioxide and 80 tonnes of Nitrogen Oxides. By comparison Fission of Uranium requires only 3.2 kilograms of Uranium while Nuclear Fusion requires 450 grams of Deuterium and 1.3 kilograms of Lithium releasing 1.8 kilograms of Helium.

[merlin]

ah yes nuclear fusion...the ultimate invention

[Raptor]

Well, my engineering degree included a thesis on Solar Collector Effeciencies.

I can also see this soon to be operational turbine wave generator from my office window as I sit typing this.

http://www.energetech.com.au/index.htm

So, I guess I qualify to contribute to this thread. I just don't have too much to add to what's already been said.

[free-energy64]

Am I ignorant? Do you see proliferation of nuclear power stations across the globe? Why is wind production growing at unprecidented rates around the world? Why is PV production the same. Why are scientists backing the use of the above ? So I'm ignorant so what. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thats the way it should be. Thats it for me.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by free-energy64

Am I ignorant? Do you see proliferation of nuclear power stations across the globe? Why is wind production growing at unprecidented rates around the world? Why is PV production the same. Why are scientists backing the use of the above ? So I'm ignorant so what. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thats the way it should be. Thats it for me.

Sad thing is its a topic that holds a lot of interest, pity its always hijacked! As you can see already there are a few posters with professional expertise a lot more in the informed catagory.

Calling others ignorant! "Thats it for you",may be a good idea on this one. I'd rather swap notes with those in the know, thanks all the same they can offer opinion and knowledge without denegrading others. I think engineering degrees with a thesis on Solar Collector Effeciencies and real world knowledge and employment relating to actual energy authority projects may hold some weight. just my humble opinion. _2:

[merlin]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

Do you know what an ocean is? I'll let you pause now for thinking music!!! then may be can think of something a little more feasible like solar collectors on the moon, or veal powered wireless.

:

Originally Posted by Raptor

Well, my engineering degree included a thesis on Solar Collector Effeciencies.

I can also see this soon to be operational turbine wave generator from my office window as I sit typing this.

http://www.energetech.com.au/index.htm

So, I guess I qualify to contribute to this thread. I just don't have too much to add to what's already been said.

That thing looks awesome - from your location i'm guessing it's in Kiama - wouldnt mind going for a ride and checking it out...

[NAK302]

[QUOTE=Casper]Bloody hope so. Regardless of what people say it is far cleaner and safer than burning hundreds of tonnes of coal and creating acid rain.QUOTE]




you trying to do me out of a job :

the coal burnt in energy producing power stations is lower quality thermal coal, this produces about 12-18% ash. ash is the primary measurement used to determine the quality of the coal. this is basically what is left after a sample is subject to high temp burning after the volatiles have been burned off. there is a lot of investigating on how to capture these volatiles before they reach the atmosphere, unfortunatly most of the older power stations wouldn't be applicable to this sort of technology.
then we have the higher quality coking coal used in the manufacture of steel. this usually burns at a 3-9% ash content. China can't get enough of this at the moment.

i don't have problem with nuclear as long as i get to keep my job :
as for nuclear waste, pack it in a rocket and send it to the sun, after all that's what the sun is.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by merlin

:



That thing looks awesome - from your location i'm guessing it's in Kiama - wouldnt mind going for a ride and checking it out...

All well and good Merlin! Clever stuff but hardly the universal solution to Australias energy needs, but looks like an excellent option in the right location. My original comments were in regards to Mtchays infereence that all these solutions are here and just lieing about unused. There is no one simple solution if there was it would have been implemented long ago. Engineers are working long and hard to make all these things feasible.

What annoys me is the naive voices from the trees of industry conspiracys and the like, is pays little respect to those out there actively creating solutions.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by free-energy64

Am I ignorant? Do you see proliferation of nuclear power stations across the globe? Why is wind production growing at unprecidented rates around the world? Why is PV production the same. Why are scientists backing the use of the above ? So I'm ignorant so what. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thats the way it should be. Thats it for me.

It is well known that solar and wind generation would not have the numbers it has now if it was not for huge government subsidies. The cost per Kilowatt for solar and wind is quite high and as long as the general public has a conniption fit whenever the cost of power rises, these subsidies will keep flowing to keep the cost per Kw down, to make these forms of generation econonmically viable.

And yes we do see a proliferation of nuclear power stations, mostly into developing countries such as China and North Korea. Their power requirement are expanding at a geometric rate, and they are rushing to keep up.

You can find a scientist to back anything up, depending on their own personal interests and politics. Just like you can find an activist to back up any airborn pastry product depending on their interests, medications and what not.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how shoddy the workmanship of it.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

All well and good Merlin! Clever stuff but hardly the universal solution to Australias energy needs, but looks like an excellent option in the right location. My original comments were in regards to Mtchays infereence that all these solutions are here and just lieing about unused. There is no one simple solution if there was it would have been implemented long ago. Engineers are working long and hard to make all these things feasible.

What annoys me is the naive voices from the trees of industry conspiracys and the like, is pays little respect to those out there actively creating solutions.

i agree :

[Casper]

Originally Posted by nak351

you trying to do me out of a job :

the coal burnt in energy producing power stations is lower quality thermal coal, this produces about 12-18% ash. ash is the primary measurement used to determine the quality of the coal. this is basically what is left after a sample is subject to high temp burning after the volatiles have been burned off. there is a lot of investigating on how to capture these volatiles before they reach the atmosphere, unfortunatly most of the older power stations wouldn't be applicable to this sort of technology.
then we have the higher quality coking coal used in the manufacture of steel. this usually burns at a 3-9% ash content. China can't get enough of this at the moment.

i don't have problem with nuclear as long as i get to keep my job :
as for nuclear waste, pack it in a rocket and send it to the sun, after all that's what the sun is.

If Aust shut down every coal burning power station over the next 20 years in favour of another source I doubt you would lose your job. Fact is that we are rich in cheap coal and as you said, China would probably buy as much as we could produce and be happy to do it.....at least till they hook up the 30 odd nuke plants they have planned to build in the next 50 years....by which time you will be retired anyhow.

[One Drone]

Naturally.