http://www.smh.com.au/business/handicapped-by-19thcentury-technology-20100202-nb3t.html
Are we serious?
(45 posts) (13 voices)-
dymonite69
MemberI would say our size and low population density makes many large scale project less economically feasible. Spain is twice the population sitting in 1/15th of the area (or a space smaller than NSW). They also have higher average levels of insolation.
Although we are heavily urbanised, the cities are spread out along our vast coastline still with a high proportion of rural residents. Sunshine varies considerably from Hobart to Darwin. Delivering renewable energy to all these places will be a challenge.
Posted Friday 5 Feb 2010 @ 10:37:06 pm from IP # -
PeterReefman
MemberNice post CPD. Matt's doing an incredible amount of great work with the zero emissions by 2020 campaign.
Sure it's a HUGE challenge. Mind boggling actually. But Spain and other places around the world (including some right here in Oz) is proving the technology is ready to roll out, and we NEED visions like Matt's if we've got any chance of getting there.
Posted Friday 5 Feb 2010 @ 11:51:37 pm from IP # -
dymo - I would have thought that low population density is actually an advantage we have over other countries. Lower density might mean more issues with transport but it does provide far better opportunities to install distributed generation like rooftop photovoltaics or even wind if you have the space. For sure one renewables solution won't fit all locations but by using a few different technologies (say wind, solar, hydro) we should be able to find a solution for many people.
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 3:21:56 am from IP # -
fifonik
MemberConcentrated population reduce price (and increase quality) of all services, related to wires and tubes (electricity, telephone+ADSL, water). It's very simple: 1 km of trench could allow to supply services for 300 families in AU and for 3000 in city with skyscrapers.
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 7:37:44 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberI think one of the points have been missed here......the infrastructure largely exists already, the infrastructure is required no matter what the supply source (although roof top PVs could have a real impact on upgrade neccessity) and the infrastructure needs to be maintained regardless the supply source.
Distribution is not really any more of an issue than it is now....and we accept that, simply because we want power on demand.....in abundance (yet another point made in that article)!
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 8:15:37 am from IP # -
dymonite69,
I cannot agree with you.
"... our size and low population density makes many large scale project less economically feasible ..."
Firstly our population density in our big five largest cities is most likely as high as in Spain. And this is where the majority of our populations lives.
Secondly, even if the first point was not true, large scale solar plants are not that big. The Andasol solar power plants are 50MW each. The largest existing coal fired power plants in Australia are 2640MW. ( http://www.energytoday.com.au/contentid74.html ) So there is plenty of margin to grow bigger.
And "...They (Spain) also have higher average levels of insolation. ..."
Rubbish! see for instance http://www.altestore.com/howto/Reference-Materials/Solar-Insolation-Map-World/a43/Sorry for being so rough, but your contribution looks like part of the denier campaign, where the facts are turned around to create a smoke screen to hinder the establishment of renewable energy.
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 9:49:07 am from IP # -
Well we better get serious if this report is even half true.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812229.htm?section=justin
Have to agree with you Sun2steam.
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 9:59:46 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberSun2Stream,
Before you speculate on my 'eco-credentials' let me tell you something about myself. We have just built a passive solar house that it is four times as energy efficient as our previous residence. We are self sufficient on water and recycle our wastewater for an orchard. We are intending to establish an organic vegetable garden and water saving ornamental one. I read widely on various issues related to sustainability. But this isn't the point.
In response to your statement. The five biggest cities in Australia are Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbance, Perth and Adelaide. This is a total of thirteen million people. Australia has approximately 22 million people. This leaves one third of our population outside of the 'majors' living in regional communities.
Ref: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3218.02007-08?OpenDocument
Your low-res solar insolation map certainly suggests that our continent has high insolation levels but if you superimposed our capital cities, you would see that the majority of them occupy the lower bands of insolation (lighter reds/oranges) not much different to the Spaniards. Most of our population simply don't live in the high insolation (red) sections.
I agree that our cities are densely populated but geographically they are very separate. Each would require its own energy generation site and there is less opportunity for load sharing and making use of idle capacity.
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 1:32:04 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberAs stated before, our desire for electricity means we build power stations. If costs are higher in construction here then, say Spain, then they're higher across the board, regardless of source..coal, nuclear, renewable, gas... (and I don't fully accept that ). Concrete, steel, copper .....all required for ALL generation methods and we make it...well dig it up...all here in OZ.
What you haven't factored in is land costs. Land in the highest insolation areas of Oz is dirt cheap (pardon the pun).....basically worthless. That's not the case in Spain. Also, the major cities aren't just "it". Each major region is supported by many, many near communities. Brisbane for example, should not be looked at in isolation. The South East Qld area consists of other major towns/cities like Gold Coast, Logan, Ipswich, Sunshine Coast and Toowoomba, all within 80-100km of Brisbane with a population of nearing 3 million...roughly 12 - 13% of Australias total population. Likewise, Sydney has Newcastle, Gosford and Woolongong (roughly 22%), Melbourne has Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo (roughly 20%) etc. Pick up the populations between these centres and it covers a pretty fair majority. Use the telcos coverage maps......they claim coverage for what, 95+% or something........population, not land area!
What about Adelaide....a fairly substantial power grid already runs right up into Woommera, which coincidentally has some of the highest insolation in Oz (and the world). The SEQ region has excellent insolation and suitable land within a few hundred kms. Go a bit further afield and you have almost the highest insolation levels available on the planet.
A new HT power link from Brisbane to Adelaide has been proposed to go via SWQ, NWNSW and NESA which if built, will not only pick up some very productive solar regions but also some potentially promising geo-thermal sites as well.
Electricity is not necessarily tied to one generation plant or locale. We have a reliable distribution network already tying each major city and town (and most smaller communities)together. Why are we even debating an issue of distribution? It's there now! Worse still, why compare construction costs to those costs abroad? We don't live abroad! We live here in Oz and want (need) electricity here in Oz....if it costs more than Spain, so be it. It certainly doesn't preclude us from using our attributes (human as well as environmental) to become world leaders. We just need committed Gov't that aren't binkered by the coal, gas, oil income (another debate).
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 8:41:23 pm from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberWho are the 'we' in the title of this thread? How many people are happy in this country to pay the increase in energy prices when we switch from coal to renewables. The conventional argument is that they PV needs to a around $1 per watt to make it economically superior (this will change as fossil fuels become depleted).
Spain's local energy sources is dwindling so the cost balance for the public begins to work in favour of wind and solar.
Differences do make a difference.
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 11:08:23 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberDoesn't that depend upon the spin doctors?
The nuclear lobby still just recently are claiming as low as US$1.4/W installed....trouble is, those figures are spin doctored! Not even the current overnight costs are that low (and rising) and respected world economic analyists like Moody's and Standards and Poors have recently upgraded their "real life" nuclear figure to around the US$8-9/W installed. In fact their after analysis advice is nuclear is not a sound financial model. Effectively, the only way a nuclear power station can get finance is to be 100% underwritten by Gov'ts (ie...us taxpayers)!
As for coal, cheap? Yes...for the moment. But when you factor in the externality costs, coal is far from cheap, whereas renewables (especially wind) has the lowest externality cost. Combine that with the fact coal/oil/gas is getting dearer (more and more frequently) and the fact renewables are getting cheaper (recent projects seem to suggest about AU$3/W installed (large scale) and the proven health implications of coal fired power and the lower embodied energy costs of renewables and the on going cost of fuel for non-renewables and etc etc etc......you end up with a pretty sound argument in favour of renewables.
All energy is going to cost us more......that much is a pretty sure bet!
Posted Saturday 6 Feb 2010 @ 11:57:59 pm from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberSwanning it said:
"you end up with a pretty sound argument in favour of renewables."
Now you will just to convince the masses! They are more serious about what happens to their back pockets now rather than a sustainable energy policy for the future.
If a person is already worried about making ends meet, the last thing they are concerned about is the cost of electricity in twenty years time.
None of our policy makers are either able or willing to speculate on this.
Posted Sunday 7 Feb 2010 @ 3:36:46 am from IP # -
swanning_it
Memberdymonite69 said:
"Now you will just to convince the masses! They are more serious about what happens to their back pockets now"Yes, I agree that will not be easy. The only up-side I see is at least here in Qld, Premier Anal Blight is assisting no end! It seems hardly a month goes by without someone from Gov't telling us electricity is rising yet again by another 15% or so!!!
Posted Sunday 7 Feb 2010 @ 5:29:02 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberDymo, I'd say "we" as the entire country with the full bell-curve of different opinions/cares/worries. Where does our average fall?
Yep, it's a "wicked problem" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem> but just because it is hard, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be serious about addressing it. Quite the reverse!I'm always hoping for a true leader to emerge who will take a parenting approach to government and deliver what people need, not necessarily what they want, and in a way that leaves room to respect a steadfast and rationally consistent approach.
Posted Sunday 7 Feb 2010 @ 9:02:24 am from IP # -
I think the "we" in this duscussion is everyone who enjoys the privilege of living in a wealthy nation with the resources and technology to actually make a difference to the world.
We need to have a "glass half full" approach to the real challenges we are facing in the coming years. As for the willingness of people to pay the rising cost of energy, water, food, health and other essential services, well they better get used to it. The good news is that the benefits are many.
So what could we be doing? Many EASY choices remain in our country, even for people on low incomes. For example, just the money that is spent on alcohol, drugs, smoking and gambling would solar power every home in Australia.
So when I am talking to someone who is standing in front of me whinging about their power bill, while they put two cartons on cigarettes in their shopping trolley, I offer them the alternative. Ditto for two cartons of beer going in the trolley. Power is dirt cheap compared to what people spend on takeaway food or coffee.
Like I always say, everyday is CHOOSEDAY.
Posted Sunday 7 Feb 2010 @ 9:38:11 pm from IP # -
alfresco24
MemberI think the source article was sloppy in making broad comparisons based on population and size - without considering industry mix, geography, health, the nature of local and wider politics, and proximity to other populations.
I think some of the (negative) comments are equally sloppy, simply repeating a bunch of naive tree-hugging socialist reform agenda's.
If those of you out there are willing to compromise our country's ability to grow and invest wisely and appropriately - by forcing up our already sky high energy prices even higher - then I'll only go along with you as long as you agree to pay my energy bill.
We (the globe) are years away from clean efficient abundant energy generation at a scale that makes any kind of sense. And for those out there rising up to point at their solar PV with a smug grin, remeber you have not counted the embodied and embedded energy in those things. If you include that in your calculations then PV doesnt even break even for 12 to 15 years at best.
There is no single 'winner' in the renewable energy realm. All the alternatives comprise wedges to form a 'total' solution that covers both stationary and non-stationary energy generation. And, it's fair to say that in Australia, even the part you live in, the mix of energy solution will change from location to location.
I'd like to see the bar raised on the calibre of discussion here.Posted Monday 8 Feb 2010 @ 12:10:11 am from IP # -
Embodied energy is gradually being reduced and has been in the single digit years for quite a while now. Seimens are already claiming as little as 18mths. Of course no one talks about the embodied energy in building power stations, mining that destroys our best arable land and pollutes our underground water supplies. A few quotes from the glass half full brigade below.
A commonly asked question about solar panels is "How long does it take to make back the energy used in the manufacture of the panel?" This energy (otherwise known as embodied energy) is produced by a Siemens panel in about 18 months. So that gives another 23.5 years of free electricity before the warranty even runs out! Other brands of solar panels would have similar amounts of embodied energy.
New technologies are cutting this even further. "Amorphous silicon modules have a significantly lower embodied energy. Combine this with not requiring an aluminum frame and galvanized steel mounting brackets the embodied energy is even lower."
"Aluminium frames on modules account for a large amount of the embodied energy [but] are no longer necessary in newer models."
Posted Monday 8 Feb 2010 @ 2:55:07 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberDymo, I agree about the nanny state (and the poor range of primary choices), but I see the "nanny state" failing as being mollifying/coddling/trying to appease everyone rather than decisive, firm and rational.
Regarding embodied energy, I'm trying to find a reference I had about a year ago to relative embodied energy (of construction only) payback periods of different power sources. Coal/Nuclear was listed as ~1mth, wind 6mths, PV 24~60mths (down from 20yrs in the 70's).
Posted Monday 8 Feb 2010 @ 9:46:26 am from IP # -
KarenS
MemberDymonite69,
A couple of things:
"I agree that our cities are densely populated but geographically they are very separate. Each would require its own energy generation site and there is less opportunity for load sharing and making use of idle capacity."
Basslink (the piece of string which ties Tasmania to the north island) is already being used for load-sharing between Tassie and Victoria - Tassie needs lots of juice on cold winter mornings, and Victoria needs it on hot summer afternoons. (shame that the Victorian electricity comes from brown coal). And while the distance isn't huge in Australian terms, it does go underwater, and Bass Strait at that. So that piece of infrastructure is already there, with power going both ways, coal-fired from Vic, and hydro from Tas.
No reason why similar can't be done elsewhere, using existing or upgraded-existing infrastructure - the wires don't mind whether the electricity was generated from coal, water, wind, whatever, or teenagers on a treadmill ...."If a person is already worried about making ends meet, the last thing they are concerned about is the cost of electricity in twenty years time."
As you know, I'm not your typical Joette Bloggs, but being a pensioner, I am already worried about making ends meet, which is why I have an application in for a Green Loan, so I can do stuff to my house because of what the cost (and price) of electricity is likely to be in 5 years time, let alone 20! I probably won't be moving out of this hovel until I go to the Old Folks Home, and my chosen OFH has a current waiting list of around 6 or 7 years, and I am EXTREMELY concerned about how the hell I'm going to be able to afford to cool this house in the meantime!
And I am not alone - in another place, there are a number of us oldies discussing the relative merits of the air-cons in and bus services to several shopping centres - we might as well use air-cons which are operating already rather than each run our own, for the benefit of one or 2 people.
Posted Tuesday 9 Feb 2010 @ 4:33:20 pm from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberThe transmission infrastructure is already there but the question is how many solar power stations we would need to build across the country. If you believe the Wiki then there are 38 coal and 18 gas stations in Australia. Are we likely to need more or less renewable plants and where we would put them.
Posted Tuesday 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:36:28 pm from IP # -
The Nov09 issue of Scientific American discusses this very issue. I have taken this from their Key Concepts section. They firmly believe that a carbon free power grid is doable. This is there glass half full view.
1. Supplies of wind, solar and accessible land to achieve this dwarf the total energy requirements of the human population of 9.5 billion expected in 2050.
2. This will require 3.8 Million wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants and numerous geothermal, tidal and roof top solar installations worldwide.
3. Projected cost will be less than fossil fuel and nuclear power options.
They also believe that projected fossil and nuclear needs are about 16.9 TW (Terawatts) where as renewables will achieve the same result with only 11.5TW due to better efficiencies.
4. Greatest obstacles will be a few speciality materials and political will.
See here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
Posted Wednesday 10 Feb 2010 @ 12:19:08 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberHere is a serious document produced by the Dept of Energy. It summarises energy production and use and the potential for renewable production. There are some useful maps and graphics demonstrating regional statistics. Interestingly they predict brown coal reserves are in excess of 500 years.
http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/Documents/facts%20statistics%20publications/energy_in_aus_2009.pdf
Here is a shorter summary comparing world energy prices:
Posted Wednesday 10 Feb 2010 @ 12:26:43 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberOther ways of developing a sustainable future?
Let's reduce our per capita energy consumption in line with Haiti's. 1244 MWh/person to 4.31 MWh/person. We can make it last over 250 times as long.
Australia uses four times a much energy per capita than the World average and more than 2/3 rd of all the countries in the world.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2042rank.html
Posted Wednesday 10 Feb 2010 @ 1:44:07 am from IP # -
.."Interestingly they predict brown coal reserves are in excess of 500 years."
And we have enough nuclear material to destroy everyone many times over, but that doesn't make it sensible to use it.
You are spot on about reducing consumption, in fact that is an integral part of any renewable based future energy supply. And it gets down to the end user level straight away. You can actually have your cake and eat it too.
We have double the amount of electrical technology in our home than 20 years ago but our energy bills are actually lower than they were in the early 90's. I see opportunities everywhere to make savings all the time. We choose to spend our money on good quality, energy efficient products, and we a reaping the benefits.
Posted Wednesday 10 Feb 2010 @ 1:54:28 am from IP #
Reply »
You must log in to post.