Climate Change
Thanks Macca for pointing out my mistake . Sorry to all and especially Stu for my basic mistake .
No excuse . I am hoping that my analogy with a wave is correct . 10,000 feet versus 4 feet .
I have given the disclaimer before on this site to check my maths .
Can SN ban hutchy he's a fuck'n pest
Time a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down Hutchy.
There's no need to comment on every thread. Especially with strong views in a topic that isn't your area of expertise.
That last point applies to quite a few other people too.
Will do Ben but I do not post regularly on every thread . Thanks Pop re monoxide . Interesting .
If we are only allowed to hold opinions on our areas of expertise I’d better start a thread about laying on a beach and procrastinating jobs around the house.
Stu- One child policy worldwide will sort out global population pressure within a generation or two. Nothing to do with immigration or human movement around the planet, we just need far less people. Killing isn’t a pleasant suggestion so it’s birth control as the best option. It might provide a few strange societal outcomes but the alternative to sorting out population growth is something along the lines of Mad Max 2.
And I really don’t look good in arseless leather chaps ala Lord Humungous of the Wasteland. I suppose I could pull it off it I had plenty of prior notice. A few squats to tighten the buns maybe.
I’m no expert on arseless chaps and wouldn’t be able to pick you out of a police line-up Blowin, but I’m happy to join the anti-Lord Humungous apparel bandwagon. Mainly because I’m not sure they’d suit me either. No one wants to see ginger bum fluff.
Anyway, back to the parts per million.
If we are only allowed to hold opinions on our areas of expertise I’d better start a thread about laying on a beach and procrastinating jobs around the house.Stu- One child policy worldwide will sort out global population pressure within a generation or two. Nothing to do with immigration or human movement around the planet, we just need far
less people. Killing isn’t a pleasant suggestion so it’s birth control as the best option. It might provide a few strange societal outcomes but the alternative to sorting out population growth is something along the lines of Mad Max 2.
blowin , so embracing China's Totalitarian policy of only one child ....now there's a possiblity that China will rule the world...you might get what you want.
the problem is the capitalist system is predicated on growth....more people more customers...so are you suggesting a future with a Totalitarian Global Govt?
One reading of the Xi's recent spate of new decrees is that he wants to ease the pressure on parents, encouraging them to have more children and thus arrest the trend towards demographic decline and provide the growing population needed to fuel the engine of a superpower.
The future success of Chinese communism/totalitarianism/capitalism - whatever you want to call it - is predicated on continual growth.
thermalben wrote:Time a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down Hutchy.
There's no need to comment on every thread. Especially with strong views in a topic that isn't your area of expertise.
That last point applies to quite a few other people too.
The preceding back and forth reminded me of the Olympic surfing commentary.
Hutchy is Johnny Ryan, proxy for the interested but ignorant everyman chucking softballs to the expert Barton Lynch - here the various Swellnet rebutters - who inform the audience of the subject matter’s technicalities, in engaging and absorbable bite sized chunks.
As someone who has always just accepted man made global warming as fact without bothering with the pesky details, and thinks that anything that resembles science is too much like hard work, I found this exchange both informative and entertaining.
Although no doubt I’ll have forgotten everything by tomorrow.
And don’t let anyone tell ya Hutchy’s a pest!
Suspect that Hutch and blower are related and/or in a mysterious competition to see who can deliver the most internet forum opinions. Blower has set the early pace but I tip Hutch to head him down the final straight. Can stu oblige by giving us punters some numbers?
I’ll take a Blowie over a hutch-around any day if the week.
This whole thing about CO2 being a small % (0.04%) of the atmosphere and therefore is nothing to be concerned about is…. highly illogical….. According to the ABS, the mean weight for an adult male in Australia is 86kg. The mean weight of iron in an adult male is just 4g. That’s 0.004%. Doesn’t take much to have iron levels considered too high or too low, each of which can come with significant health implications. So the notion that because something is only a small portion of a larger system it’s potential to effect the system is also small is non-sense.
And finally… the one true test anyone really needs to care about is comparing observed results with previous projections from the IPCC and the likes of CSIRO and NASA 20, 30, and even 40 years ago…. oh? Oh would you look at that Geoffery!? Wouldn’t you know it, they were pretty on the money even back then. Probably just a coincidence though ay...
kind of weird that the concept has to be explained to an adult hey mowgli?
.
Hurricane Ida in New York City!
A view on demographics I just read .
"The rest of the world will soon be Japan. The demographic time bomb has already detonated.
Those expecting sub-Sahara Africa to make up for low birth rates in the developed world may be disappointed to find that African birth rates are dropping sharply and may soon be as low as those in North America and Western Europe.
What about China and India, with their massive populations?
Together, these two countries have a population of about 2.8 billion people out of a total world population of about 7.9 billion people. In other words, China and India have 35% of all the people on the planet. As they go, so goes the world population.
Contrary to popular perception, China’s population is collapsing, and India will not grow as fast as many expect and may soon begin its own steep decline.
This phenomenon is global. Almost all developed economies have birth rates below the replacement level. Those countries with higher birth rates are seeing those rates decline sharply.
There is a global convergence on birth rates less than 2.1 even among countries with higher rates today. What’s driving this mega-trend?
The three biggest drivers are urbanization, education and women’s emancipation. All three have an amplifying effect.
Demographic collapse is inevitable; it’s already baked into existing birth rates and likely trends. Still, it’s not the end of the world. It won’t even be the end of humanity. But it will be the end of an economic paradigm of higher growth, higher consumption and higher output that has prevailed for the past two hundred years.
The new paradigm will consist of fewer people in larger cities – an unprecedented form of urbanization beyond what we know already. Legacy industries such as automobiles will fall by the wayside. Healthcare generally and elder care in particular will boom."
When this happens the Climate will Change
A 'catastrophic' supervolcano eruption that could severely impact Earth's climate and tip it into a 'volcanic winter' is more likely to happen than previously believed, a new study suggests.
Experts at Australia's Curtin University studied Indonesia's Lake Toba, the home of the supervolcano Toba Caldera, and found that supervolcanoes are active and dangerous thousands of years after a super-eruption.
'We must now consider that eruptions can occur even if no liquid magma is found underneath a volcano—the concept of what is "eruptible" needs to be re-evaluated.'
On average, supervolcanoes erupt about once every 17,000 years.
The most recent volcano eruption occurred beneath Lake Taupo in New Zealand around 22,600 years ago, according to the US Geological Survey.
Toba Caldera erupted approximately 74,000 years ago and spewed out at least 1,740 cubic miles (2,800 kilometers) of 'rhyolite magma from a 'warm' reservoir several times that volume,' according to the study.
I will avoid doing any more calculations . I did say ( guess ) that waves are twice as powerful in Vic as those on the Gold Coast which also was criticised ( but did have a few who agreed with me ).
Even though it is not an expertise I will continue to comment on Climate Change . I do not like everything that Blowin says but I do like his sense of humour . I will not get into a competition to do the most posts . I hope to really slow down after an initial burst .
CO2 , unlike lead and carbon monoxide , is not a poison . One teaspoon of snake venom or pure alcohol will kill a human .
Happy to agree that CO2 causes global warming for one day .
With China and India not stopping their growth , and Indonesia , Africa and South America all trying to develop . How will we stop CO2 from increasing .
The developed world has only agreed to stop increasing CO2 levels .
The only way to get CO2 down is to almost stop producing CO2 in the developed world ( who agree that we have to keep CO2 at 350 p/m to mitigate climate change ) .
How do we achieve this ???? Will the populations agree to stop driving , flying , working etc ? Mr Kerry
( the US Climate Czar ) has two homes , six cars , two boats and a jet airplane . When he stops it will make some difference !
People will not agree to dramatically reduce their quality of life . So we have to have an energy source that can be relied on 24/7 . Battery storage on a huge scale will never work as there is not enough nickel , cobalt , palladium , rare earths etc in the world . We have problems getting enough of these minerals just for electronic cars at the moment .
The only CO2 zero energy source that is available now is Nuclear .
If you agree CO2 is a danger to humans because of climate change it is the ONLY alternative .
If anyone can offer a realistic alternative that can be available in 10 years I would love to hear it . As so many on this site have strong views I hope this can be debated .
Hutchy 19 wrote:How do we achieve this ???? Will the populations agree to stop driving , flying , working etc ? Mr Kerry
( the US Climate Czar ) has two homes , six cars , two boats and a jet airplane . When he stops it will make some difference !People will not agree to dramatically reduce their quality of life . So we have to have an energy source that can be relied on 24/7 . Battery storage on a huge scale will never work as there is not enough nickel , cobalt , palladium , rare earths etc in the world . We have problems getting enough of these minerals just for electronic cars at the moment .
The only CO2 zero energy source that is available now is Nuclear .
If you agree CO2 is a danger to humans because of climate change it is the ONLY alternative .
If anyone can offer a realistic alternative that can be available in 10 years I would love to hear it . As so many on this site have strong views I hope this can be debated .
Have to agree on some of this.
Although Hydro is also very reliable Tasmania is pretty much reliant on Hydro as are other countries, but yeah you need water and lots of it, so it has limitations it can't be done in most areas..
But yeah if the world was serious about the issue we would also be building Nuclear power stations to work alongside and compliment renewables, i posted this the other day but here it is again.
As you can see even the UN is saying similar things (article from 11th Aug 2021)
"Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE"
The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday."
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572
But yeah i know the economics aren't as great for Nuclear, but still if governments were serious they would subsidise them and long term they would be shut down when everything catches up.
The Irony is the Green lobby opposed both hydro and nuclear in the 70-90s, imagine if we had more hydro and had couple nuclear plants like most developed countries we would be in a much much better position.
Don't get me wrong renewables are great, basically energy for free, but they also have huge challenges that will in most parts take time to overcome and will take time to build up.
As it is per captia Australia leads the world in the uptake of solar with 644 watts per person.( Germany, comes in second with 589 watts)
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/12/17/australia-no-1-in-the-w...
or
https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/australia-leads-the-world-on-solar-per-...
We also rank 4th per captia for wind generated energy.
But despite this renewables still only makes up a small part of our energy supply. (and the worlds energy supply)
I also have to agree batteries are not the be all and end all answer as some think, the demand for electric car batteries and home batteries will eat up a lot of mineral supply and lithium and cobalt are very expensive, there is other batteries in development though that use more common minerals.
Pumped hydro though is a realistic strorage system, it still relies on water though which isn't alway in great supply, salt water can be used but is not ideal.
Green hydrogen is also a realistic storage option, but you need large excess amounts of renewable energy first.
I think the most realistic option to support renewables in the short term to fill the gap is actually natural gas, through the use of peaking plants, unlike coal these can fired up quickly when needed and they are also easily converted to run on hydrogen so the infrastructure is not a waste.
If you check this site (live energy watch of all states) after dark you will already see how much we rely on gas when the sun goes down and you can watch how quickly any battery storage vanishes.
When I first heard Greta Thunberg talk about Climate Change I had contempt for her and the people that would get a teenager to be their spokesperson . As I know the saying "contempt before investigation " I looked at her being interviewed .
She was asked if she had the power would she make everyone follow her views . Immediately she said no . She believed in democracy which she thought was more important .
In a heart blink I really rated this young women and will always listen to her views with respect .
Today I have been thinking about why I have a different view than the majority . I believe in democracy and am willing to go along with the majority even though I don't agree . .
When I look at the majority they do not do what they say . They drive their cars and live in big
houses .Their conventions are in exotic overseas locations . John Kerry as I said earlier has , like Al Gore , a huge CO2 footprint . Obama bought a huge mansion on the water at Martha's vineyard .
They agree to a Paris Accord that WILL never achieve their goal to stop CO2 increasing . A good holiday though .
The Greenies will never consider hydro or nuclear energy .
Humans will not accept a dramatically poorer quality of life .
The people on Swellnet who think I am crazy will not stop driving to the beach or flying to waves interstate or overseas . They will not even offer suggestions on how we can reduce CO2 without decimating our way of life . Happy to have a noble view but will not consider what it means or do what it takes . Your quiet response is deafening !
As an optimist I think it is easier to not believe that CO2 is a problem as I KNOW that the people who believe it is will not do the hard yards .
Who is the crazy one ?
South Australia is having a good night tonight must be a bit of wind about, some nights it can be 90%+ gas
https://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/reneweconomy/
Evening @info, you mention gas, seem to remember you’re a big fan of gas .... your favourite perhaps
Hutchy 19 wrote:When I first heard Greta Thunberg talk about Climate Change I had contempt for her and the people that would get a teenager to be their spokesperson . As I know the saying "contempt before investigation " I looked at her being interviewed .
She was asked if she had the power would she make everyone follow her views . Immediately she said no . She believed in democracy which she thought was more important .
In a heart blink I really rated this young women and will always listen to her views with respect .
Today I have been thinking about why I have a different view than the majority . I believe in democracy and am willing to go along with the majority even though I don't agree . .
When I look at the majority they do not do what they say . They drive their cars and live in big
houses .Their conventions are in exotic overseas locations . John Kerry as I said earlier has , like Al Gore , a huge CO2 footprint . Obama bought a huge mansion on the water at Martha's vineyard .They agree to a Paris Accord that WILL never achieve their goal to stop CO2 increasing . A good holiday though .
The Greenies will never consider hydro or nuclear energy .
Humans will not accept a dramatically poorer quality of life .
The people on Swellnet who think I am crazy will not stop driving to the beach or flying to waves interstate or overseas . They will not even offer suggestions on how we can reduce CO2 without decimating our way of life . Happy to have a noble view but will not consider what it means or do what it takes . Your quiet response is deafening !
As an optimist I think it is easier to not believe that CO2 is a problem as I KNOW that the people who believe it is will not do the hard yards .
Who is the crazy one ?
Still you, you will be remembered as an ideological fool who ignored experts simply because you do not like what they have to say.
FWIW, I'm not against nuclear energy. I've been of the opinion for a few years now that we've faffed things too long that we shouldn't be knee-jerkingly opposed to at least considering this being part of the mix.
I'm against large scale hydro power due to the immense ecological and cultural impacts it can have. The way we use water in this country in particular is fucken atrocious. I refuse to buy rice grown in Vic/NSW...
indo-dreaming wrote:Although Hydro is also very reliable Tasmania is pretty much reliant on Hydro as are other countries, but yeah you need water and lots of it, so it has limitations it can't be done in most areas..
Yes, unless you have excess energy and a desalination plant. Then you can produce fresh water for farmland, the environment and dams for storage.
indo-dreaming wrote:But yeah if the world was serious about the issue we would also be building Nuclear power stations to work alongside and compliment renewables, i posted this the other day but here it is again.
As you can see even the UN is saying similar things (article from 11th Aug 2021)
"Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE"
The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday."
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572
But yeah i know the economics aren't as great for Nuclear, but still if governments were serious they would subsidise them and long term they would be shut down when everything catches up.
The Irony is the Green lobby opposed both hydro and nuclear in the 70-90s, imagine if we had more hydro and had couple nuclear plants like most developed countries we would be in a much much better position.
Agreed, but we’re about 40-50 years too late for nuclear. Renewables are already cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear, so it doesn’t make economic sense to be considering nuclear now. Why spend more money than you need to?
Of course there are some countries where nuclear makes sense, say Japan, where they don’t really have sufficient space to install large scale solar & their offshore wind prospects are tricky. But here in aus the nuclear ship has already sailed.
The star of the south wind farm is 2000MW with an estimated cost of $9 bill. The typical cost of nuclear is about double that.
That alone will eat up over 50% of brown coals share of Victorian energy production. Then consider there is another 3000MW of solar forecast to come online over the next 10 years.
indo-dreaming wrote:Don't get me wrong renewables are great, basically energy for free, but they also have huge challenges that will in most parts take time to overcome and will take time to build up.
Yes, but it’s not really renewables that are the difficult part. It is the transition. And the same issues would need to be overcome if using nuclear.
Fortunately, because renewables are so cheap they are still more economically viable than running a coal plant, let alone building one.
indo-dreaming wrote:As it is per captia Australia leads the world in the uptake of solar with 644 watts per person.( Germany, comes in second with 589 watts)
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/12/17/australia-no-1-in-the-w...
or
https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/australia-leads-the-world-on-solar-per-...
We also rank 4th per captia for wind generated energy.
But despite this renewables still only makes up a small part of our energy supply. (and the worlds energy supply)
Still true but won’t be that way for much longer. If a country has just built a coal fired power station they will keep using it until it doesn’t make economic or political sense to do so.
It’s already more expensive to import and burn coal than it is to build solar PV (with export coal at $220 a ton PV is approx.. 60-70% cheaper than the coal itself). So the driver is there for countries like India and china to stop importing coal. Which is why aus’s coal exports will be dead in a couple of year’s time, unless our fed gov starts paying countries to take it off our hands.
indo-dreaming wrote:I also have to agree batteries are not the be all and end all answer as some think, the demand for electric car batteries and home batteries will eat up a lot of mineral supply and lithium and cobalt are very expensive, there is other batteries in development though that use more common minerals.
Yes, but battery tech is growing rapidly and we’re only just at the beginning. The new Tesla tech removes the requirement for cobalt and reduces the cost considerably.
Sure, we may not have enough lithium for the entire worlds needs but a battery doesn’t have to be made out of lithium. A battery can be made out of almost anything. Just needs the tech to improve efficiencies. And at the moment lithium is plentiful; so we’ve got plenty of time to cross that bridge when we get to it.
Regardless, Australia will do well out of this change. We have a shed load of lithium, rare earths and other such minerals being used to drive these changes.
The unfortunate thing is that we had a chance to jump on the band wagon 10 years ago and develop a refining industry and potentially revive Australian manufacturing but the fed gov. didn’t want to take the gamble and turned to the culture wars to kill it.
We are now trying to jump into something that the rest of the world wants a piece of too, and china has a strangle hold on.
indo-dreaming wrote:Pumped hydro though is a realistic strorage system, it still relies on water though which isn't alway in great supply, salt water can be used but is not ideal.
Green hydrogen is also a realistic storage option, but you need large excess amounts of renewable energy first.
Yeah, green hydrogen will be an option once we’ve got our renewable grid sorted but even then, green hydrogen is not the most efficient means of energy storage.
indo-dreaming wrote:I think the most realistic option to support renewables in the short term to fill the gap is actually natural gas, through the use of peaking plants, unlike coal these can fired up quickly when needed and they are also easily converted to run on hydrogen so the infrastructure is not a waste.
Yup, for sure, but gas is still expensive and although I’m sure it will still have a place moving forward it will be ever diminishing as more renewables come online.
indo-dreaming wrote:If you check this site (live energy watch of all states) after dark you will already see how much we rely on gas when the sun goes down and you can watch how quickly any battery storage vanishes.
First point, the overnight gas usage can be significant % of total power generated but there’s not much elec usage overnight anyway, so it won’t be long until wind takes this segment.
Second point, that isn’t battery storage being discharged to the grid because the battery’s empty. It’s battery storage being taken off the grid because it doesn’t make economic sense to sell battery power at off peak prices.
Basically, when wholesale power prices reach a high point, a battery will sell into the grid, when the power cost is low they will charge. Batteries make economic sense using this method which is why they are being installed in many places around the world as commercial ventures.
The fact is, renewables are now cheaper than building new coal or nuclear, that is true even without a carbon tax in place, so expect to see massive changes in this area regardless of the environmental reasons behind it.
JQ -"you will be remembered as an ideological fool who ignored experts simply because you do not like what they have to say."
You may be right that I am a fool . You are wrong that I ignore experts . I believe experts but not the ones you believe regarding the demonization of CO2 .
I believed the Federal and State magistrates ( my experts ) that said Australia NEVER had a policy to remove Aboriginal children or genocide based on race .
It has been nearly 15 years since Rudd said at the National Climate Summit that Global warming ( climate change ) was " The great moral challenge of our generation " .
My experts could be wrong ( most experts as I have repeatedly said are ) . I believe in democracy .
I said in a previous post that I am willing to go along with the majority view and asked how can we realistically achieve the goals to reduce CO2 .
There were only two responses and they agreed nuclear energy should be considered .
The world had two other moral challenges in the 20C . In both hundreds of thousands of Australians were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice .
When you kids or grand kids ask you in 20 years ,when the effects of climate change are as bad as you predict , what sacrifices did you make and what did you say that should have been done , what will you say ?
From the response to my question I will say the answer will be NOTHING .
Really good post Carpetman, you clearly know your stuff.
Great post Carpetman.
Meanwhile (believe it or not)...
Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, 24-hour news channel to champion net zero emissions
"From October 17, the company will run a two-week campaign that will advocate for a carbon net zero target to be reached by 2050, which is expected to focus heavily on jobs in a decarbonised economy, particularly blue-collar industries such as mining, resources and agriculture. The campaign, according to multiple sources familiar with the plans who spoke anonymously because they are confidential, said it will be fronted by news.com.au columnist and former Studio 10 host, Joe Hildebrand.
Several sources said Sky News will support the cause that will feature across the metropolitan tabloid mastheads. The Hildebrand-led campaign will not appear in the national masthead, The Australian, they said, but the newspaper will continue to temper its editorial stance on the issue."
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/rupert-murdoch-newspapers-24-h...
Pops wrote:Really good post Carpetman, you clearly know your stuff.
x2
A good post carpetman .
Australia needs to build back a great manufacturing sector . The "just in time " theory relying on imports has been proved to fail . To do this manufacturing needs cheap and reliable energy . As a smart nation we can do it .
Hydro is not a good option in Oz due to the countries flatness ( especially where there is high rainfall ) .
It is also not reliable as proved when Tassy had to import generators and install a cable across Bass Straight during a drought .
"Agreed, but we’re about 40-50 years too late for nuclear. Renewables are already cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear, so it doesn’t make economic sense to be considering nuclear now. Why spend more money than you need to?"
Current renewables are not reliable when the sun doesn't shine and there is no wind . If you include the cost of needing a back up the costs are higher than Clean Gas ( which creates CO2 ) . If they were cheaper China would not be installing so many Clean Gas stations .
Desal plants are expensive and need high energy 100% of the time to run . If you dry out their membranes the cost of replacing them is huge . A much better idea to have dams is selective areas where their damage is outweighed by the positives eg Mitchell River .
"Yes, but battery tech is growing rapidly and we’re only just at the beginning. "
You are right but don't we need a solution now . It will take 20plus years of development before there are batteries big enough to store the energy needs of industry and people at PEAK times . All the current high tech batteries being used need cobalt , nickel , palladium which are very hard to find , expensive and are finite . There is a lot of lithium on the planet but available lithium to use now is already in short supply ( see recent rising prices ) for use in just electro cars . To develop the huge supplies for huge peak load batteries is 20 years plus in the future .
You have dented my hopes for Hydrogen energy .
Unfortunately I do not see any hope in the alternative to nuclear energy to provide the huge peak loads the Australia needs to avoid closing business , driving cars , warming and cooling homes and flying planes . I do not believe the population will agree ( vote ) to stop doing these things .
If we need to wait 20 plus years will it be too late ? If Australia can't do it with all the advantages we have how can the rest of the world do it ?
From what I can gather lithium is desirable for batteries where weight is an issue. ie it is a light metal. Where weight is not a consideration, ie for grid storage, then there are plenty of other metals that can be used. Iron for example. The development and implementation of these new generation batteries for grid storage will be transformational for renewable energy.
When considering Australia with all its empty land and high sunshine hours, it seems like insanity to continue burning coal. The economics and the technologies are just about there to take coal out of the picture. The next twenty years are going to be exciting.
Here's another thing that interests me: In parts of Australia which have hot days and cool nights, or in buildings which are only occupied during the day (offices for example) -doesn't it make sense to use solar power to run the air conditioning?
Good point re weight issue of batteries Spud . Not sure if industrial scale batteries are constrained by lithium then . If I get some time I will try and can check what went into the battery that Tesla gave /was going to give SA .
Tesla says it has developed two new chemistries that appear to be cobalt-free. That starts with a new “high-nickel” cathode chemistry, which relies on “novel coatings and dopants” to replace the stabilizing presence of cobalt. Although the presentation did not go into specifics, Baglino referred to this as a “100-percent nickel” formulation at one point. This has the highest energy density of the bunch but also costs the most and is intended to be used for the Cybertruck and Tesla Semi, where the extra energy density is most needed.
A little cheaper is a new nickel-manganese cathode in something like a two-thirds/one-third mix, according to Musk. The implication was that this is also cobalt-free, but this wasn’t explicitly stated. This chemistry drops the price considerably in trade for a bit of energy density. NMC cathodes in an 8:1:1 ratio already exist, so dumping the remaining cobalt is presumably less of a leap than the “high-nickel” chemistry that also dumps the manganese (apparently?), but we don’t know how they’re making this one work, either.
(And just for the record, all mining has an environmental impact, and nickel is no exception.)
Tesla’s third chemistry is a known quantity: lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP). This is the cheapest and least energy-dense of the group. To support Tesla’s operations in China, it lined up a new battery supply agreement with CATL, a manufacturer of LFP cells. Earlier this year, it got government approval to produce Model 3s in China using that chemistry.
Especially considering all the other improvements, Tesla looks to be comfortable relying on this chemistry where battery pack volume isn’t quite so constrained. That includes the grid-scale Powerpack battery storage installations. But the future $25,000 vehicle was also placed in this category on the presentation slide, hinting that this cheaper chemistry could help enable a lower-range vehicle to drop to that pricepoint.
Spuddups wrote:Here's another thing that interests me: In parts of Australia which have hot days and cool nights, or in buildings which are only occupied during the day (offices for example) -doesn't it make sense to use solar power to run the air conditioning?
It does, and it's fairly common.
Hutchy, a great podcast for you, only 40 minutes.. Also Blowin, goes into the modelling and how conservative the IPCC report was in regards to what we know process wise and with high certainty.
Also goes through the certainties/uncertainties for some of the modelling.
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/fivethirtyeight-politics/id1077418...
Hutchy 19 wrote:Tesla says it has developed two new chemistries that appear to be cobalt-free. That starts with a new “high-nickel” cathode chemistry, which relies on “novel coatings and dopants” to replace the stabilizing presence of cobalt. Although the presentation did not go into specifics, Baglino referred to this as a “100-percent nickel” formulation at one point. This has the highest energy density of the bunch but also costs the most and is intended to be used for the Cybertruck and Tesla Semi, where the extra energy density is most needed.
A little cheaper is a new nickel-manganese cathode in something like a two-thirds/one-third mix, according to Musk. The implication was that this is also cobalt-free, but this wasn’t explicitly stated. This chemistry drops the price considerably in trade for a bit of energy density. NMC cathodes in an 8:1:1 ratio already exist, so dumping the remaining cobalt is presumably less of a leap than the “high-nickel” chemistry that also dumps the manganese (apparently?), but we don’t know how they’re making this one work, either.
(And just for the record, all mining has an environmental impact, and nickel is no exception.)
Tesla’s third chemistry is a known quantity: lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP). This is the cheapest and least energy-dense of the group. To support Tesla’s operations in China, it lined up a new battery supply agreement with CATL, a manufacturer of LFP cells. Earlier this year, it got government approval to produce Model 3s in China using that chemistry.
Especially considering all the other improvements, Tesla looks to be comfortable relying on this chemistry where battery pack volume isn’t quite so constrained. That includes the grid-scale Powerpack battery storage installations. But the future $25,000 vehicle was also placed in this category on the presentation slide, hinting that this cheaper chemistry could help enable a lower-range vehicle to drop to that pricepoint.
They certainly are on the forefront of battery technology, that's for sure. There is plenty going elsewhere in regards to battery research though. Go to Youtube and check out Iron air batteries. This guy's channel is pretty good if you're interested in renewable energy...
@ Carpetman
God i tried to do the seperate quote thing to reply to your points but it did my head.
Firstly let's just forget about Nuclear, it's probably the best energy source as so consistent even people like Dick Smith & Bill gates are big fans (guys i both admire), but agree the economics don't stack up, there is a good Youtube video ive posted somewhere before maybe even in this thread that explains it all in depth.
I just wanted to post the recent article on the UN again saying it should be included in countries energy mixes as such a surprise for them to come out and say this.
Not having nuclear already built does put us at a big disadvantage though as we dont have as much carbon free energy as a base to build on like many countries do, in a sense many of these countries have heads starts and dont have to worry as much about storage solutions, they can build them up over time and if need be one day shut down nuclear.
And Coal lets just agree coal is not the future for Australias energy, but it is still going to be in our energy mix for a while as we build up renewables and storage (well more storage, actually renewables we will hit 100% faster than people think)
But the idea that some have that we can just shut down our coal power plants ASAP is not realistic, it will be a gradual shut down with the older plants going offline ideally as they reach there decommission dates, as we move forward it will probably speed up and plants will start being shut down before decommission dates though.
You can see the scheduled closure dates here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stations_in_Austr...
As for coal exports, sorry cant agree with that China no longer buys coal from us as had a hissy fit, Japan our biggest buyer use will decrease, but India is a big buyer, other buyers are South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan etc, India and some of these other countries have very fast energy growing demands, even with a high take up rates of renewables, the increased energy demand takes a lot of it away, so demand will slow but only slowly
Its actually similar in Australia our energy demand increases by about 2% to 3% per year from i guess immigration (sorry VL) and just increased energy demands, if it didn't our renewables percentage would look much better. (its actually not that bad, its storage thats the issue)
Also the storage thing is still an issue for these countries and will be for quite some time, its either coal or gas that fills that gap until other options happen and they already have the coal power stations so will use them while they do
There will be decreases in demand but it will be a slow decline, these companies like Adani aren't silly, they know much better than us. (BTW if i hadn't mentioned it already Adani are now the worlds biggest single provider of solar energy, so they aren't naive, or one track minded)
Also a decent percentage of coal exported is coking coal for things like steel production, yeah sure alternatives are now starting to happen, but change wont happen overnight.
Gas: its getting real demonised but realistically it's going to play a decent part in supporting renewables in Australian and many other countries, its basically provides a safety net, and if you look at predicted demand from memory its expect to rise to about 2035 and then decline from then.
Green hydrogen= Everyone is going to have their own views from what they have read etc, but to me it has a huge future because its something you can store and move around export etc and apart from grid energy, its so much more realistic for many areas of heavy industry like shipping and aviation.
Pumped hydro= I think its a certainty will play a big part, there is a website somewhere that shows all the possible sites in Australia, there is a lot.
But you need to keep those water supplies full enough to use, i guess they could be topped up with desal water, but as Hutchy points out isn't cheap.
It's also not like batteries that cant loose charge or have a life span like batteries..
Hydro= I think is more realistic for areas that receive very high rainfall or water supplied from melting snow etc, and people always see to oppose as need dams.
Batteries= Im sure will play a part, but people area always "Batteries batteries" everyone seems to be banking on batteries, its always the answer you hear to the challenges of renewables and storage yeah sure they will play a part and get better and cheaper, but have a look around the world, barely any countries have much battery storage, its not looking great.
And it feels like maybe companies/governments dont really want to invest in something that in a few years could be way cheap and way better.
BTW. In regard to your comments point 1 and point 2, about batteries and off peak, off peak is between 10:00pm and 7:00am, on the energy watch thing you can see how much battery storage there is and watch it being used, generally once its dark what they have goes very quickly.
I cant remember the exact times but the biggest demand for energy is from pretty much 6:00pm to 9:00pm, when everyone comes home from work (google the duck curve to see energy use) sadly solar doesn't align very well with the high demand period.
Also this area of energy demand is likely to increase with electric cars, people coming home and plugging in to recharge over night, so adds to energy use at that time.
Yeah sure some people will be able to charge their car at work but really most won't, it will be come home and plug in (my friend has a tesla) and they do this, actually i was around there the other morning and although im a fan of electric cars, i learnt the downside of elric cars forgetting to recharge overnight, so need to wait a little while to ensure had enough charge.
Another point energy price structure off peak etc i bet will change in the future (well ive heard it talked about on radio) off peak made sense with traditional power plants but doesn't make sense with renewables, you don't actually want to encourage people to use energy at night, like put on hot water system or dishwasher, with renewables, you want to encourage them to use energy during the day when heaps of solar, the future off peak rates are more likely to be 10:00 to 3:00am when solar is at its peak.
Wind: yeah agree increase in wind energy will help with the down fall of solar, but it's still not something that can be relied on.
Anyway that was a month full, i generally try to avoid talking or debating anything political tinged with mates, so be nice with any reply :D and hope the lockdown isn't stressing you out too much, and we will do that surf mission when its ends. Cheers.
Thank you carpetman and also Spuddups (for the excellent link).
The drive to renewables is inexorable. The market has decided...
BTW. i forgot one big advantage of Hydrogen over batteries and even pumped hydro.
Batteries and pumped hydro are very limited in how much energy you can store, pumped hydro limited by how much water contained that produces a certain amount of total energy
Batteries how much batteries you have limits amount of energy stored, if you want more you need to buy more batteries.
While hydrogen you are only limited by how much you can contain which isn't as big deal, it's harder to contain than gas, but still similar you could easily contain days to even weeks worth.
Thats a real big advantage.
Reading the turnaround in Hutchy and Indo's comments has given me some faith that subsequent generations may have a less inhospitable climate to deal with. Thank you.
Indo, I agree that Nuclear in its current form is off the table. However it looks like the Chinese may have finally cracked the Thorium Salt Reactor problem. These things could be game changers. Worth looking into if you have a spare ten mins or so.
Green Hydrogen is certainly an exciting prospect for a country like Australia. There's even talk of it using the existing gas reticulation system and possibly directly replacing natural gas.
Don't write off grid battery storage just yet though. You are correct in saying that with current technology this is not a great solution, but as I mentioned before the tech is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. It seems to me to be just a matter of time before someone really cracks it.
arcadia wrote:Reading the turnaround in Hutchy and Indo's comments has given me some faith that subsequent generations may have a less inhospitable climate to deal with. Thank you.
Turn around? Really?
Im actually pro renewables im also pro electric cars, and i accept man made climate change.
But i just dont think a lot of people/public have a very realistic view of things, on how we will transition to 100% renewables 24/7 or even at what stage we are at. (or things like coal and gas exports)
There is an attitude among people media and political parties that Australia is doing nothing, which simply isn't true, even if you go read all the green energy website articles the predictions are by 2030 we will have 100% green energy during the day(i think some have even said 2025?), even at times now on a good day we can hit 50% (we have nothing to worry about in this area as i agree with carpet man, it is driven by economics, its like a snowball rolling down the hill)
The issue is during the night, yeah sure in time much of this will be overcome by building up wind, but you still need a variety of storage solutions and even back up energy sources.
Im just not buying everyones answer of batteries, as no country has much battery storage in the USA i recall reading 95% of storage is currently pumped hydro, yeah sure batteries will play a part, but i dont think they are the number one answer, and i think gas will be the stop gate measure for some time to get us by if we want to get rid of coal. (most people dont accept this)
I also think people just like easy solutions and expect it all to be done by the government, when IMHO there should be much more focus on everyone playing a part in just reducing their own energy consumption, in their home and vehicles.
Personally ive designed my home around min energy use, it doesn't matter what day it is darkest wet day in winter, there is no room in my house you need to turn a light on until the sun goes down, ive gone top of the range in insulation (stuff used in mountain range areas etc) and off course all double glazed windows, i can turn my split system on for an hour and heat a room that is 13 x 5.5 and not need to turn it on again for hours mostly just at night, same deal in summer i have excellent ventilation so only need to put A/C on at the peak of the hottest summer days.
Yeah sure ive done this because im a tight arse, but my energy use is still super low so im still playing my part.
I dont have solar yet, but only because im knocking down the older part of my house and rebuilding so im not ready yet, but the orientation of the new area and roofline is all around the solar panels that will cover the roof.
Meanwhile I go to other peoples house and they have heaters going all day lights going all day my neighbour leave the outside lights on all night and all day those old school ones that use heaps of energy, personal i dont get it.
Sorry for bad grammar etc ive gotta go so no time to edit ten times. :D
Spuddups wrote:Indo, I agree that Nuclear in its current form is off the table. However it looks like the Chinese may have finally cracked the Thorium Salt Reactor problem. These things could be game changers. Worth looking into if you have a spare ten mins or so.
I did see something on that, will check it out.
indo-dreaming wrote:BTW. i forgot one big advantage of Hydrogen over batteries and even pumped hydro.
Batteries and pumped hydro are very limited in how much energy you can store, pumped hydro limited by how much water contained that produces a certain amount of total energy.
I’m hoping we go big on green hydrogen, even then locally create steel from green hydrogen and export a finished product rather than shipping iron ore.
But on pumped hydro being very limited, you have the wrong end of the stick there Indo. Pumped hydro could store months and years of energy if we even give it a half-hearted go at it. It is less limited by how much water you have then you are suggesting. It’s not like the water gets used once and then it is spent. The simple idea is that it is then pumped back up the hill when you have an excess of renewable energy, which we should be able to get to in a canter. I think Greens policy is to get to 700% renewable, that is we become an energy exporting superpower. It’s not as dumb as it sounds, and pumped hydro would negate the need for batteries.
However batteries have big advantages over every other source of power and they will still be useful in managing the grid. Batteries response times to drops in the grid (coal burner turbine goes bung) is measured in milliseconds. We’ll need batteries to soak up over-production from renewables and for immediate response times while fast gas is gearing up to produce grid level power.
But eventually we won’t need gas, unless it’s green hydrogen.
Craig - I listened to the podcast . VERY interesting .
Before I give my views on it a few comments .
I have always believed that the climate changes ! I believe that mother earth is beautiful and we should not do too much damage . I think she thinks humans are great , very smart and is happy for us to use her resources to live . She knows we make mistakes but also knows we learn from them .
I like solar energy . I hate wind energy . Wind mills are ugly , kill way too many apex birds and are costly to build and maintain . I hate the idea of putting a water tank on my home . Why should we consider having hundreds of thousands in a city when we can have one dam . Such a waste of resources ! In a country home off the water grid they are essential . I hate desal plants .
What I didn't learn from the podcast .
That increasing CO2 is not causing more cyclones . I new the recent IPCC said so and the BOM site has shown this for years . CO2 has not proved to cause more rain ,drought ,winds , floods , hail or humidity .
I did learn a lot .
Very impressed at how complex the climate models are . They do do their best to measure and monitor a complex system . They have been back tested . They are very different to models used to predict weather and are much more accurate .
The only change they predict with confidence is increasing heat -TXX . Heat waves will be hotter , longer and more frequent . When and where they cannot predict .
They have improved greatly over the last 20 years . They incorporate model uncertainty , natural variability and do not look at scenario uncertainty ( what humans will do in the future ).
They can't predict large impacts as compounding impacts are not understood .
They believe that "tipping points " ( eg changes to important ocean currents ) have a low likelihood in the next 50 or so years .
They think there will be no change to outcomes in the next 30 years even if we get to Net Zero CO2 emissions ( I will need to look up what this means ) .
Changes get more extreme in 100 , 200 ,300 years .
I am not worried about CO2 emissions in 100 years . I look at what humans have achieved in the last 100 and if we continue with the exponential development we will have a new form of CO2 zero energy that will be cheap and reliable .
Glad to see that at least one person on this site is doing their bit to limit CO2 . Good work Indo !
@batfink
Yeah id probably be editing that post now if i could, i shouldn't have said that, i was picturing the smaller pumped hydro set ups you see in diagrams, but i guess you are only limited by dam size you could do very large ones.
Im skeptical on the future of energy exporting as a long term thing, it just doesn't make sense in the very long run, seeing any country can produce energy, its not like other resources like minerals that only certain countries have or is about quality or access too.
I dont understand why a country would buy something they too can produce especially when their energy prices are cheaper. (thinking Asia)
Places like Singapore are different as they have such limited land to use.
I agree with most pop your post though.
Singapore is a different can of fish though
A slight correction . I don't hate all desal plants . A company called Fluence have very good technology that enables desal plants to be used in important applications . It cleans polluted water and is used on islands that don't have a good source of water .
I hate watching our desal plant sucking up sea water 40 km from the Mitchell River when it regularly floods sending fresh water into the sea.
I think battery development for use in electric cars or small scale applications is good . Making them for large scale industrial , peak load storage will prove to be a complete waste of time and money . When they are ready they will not be needed .
Spuddups wrote:Indo, I agree that Nuclear in its current form is off the table. However it looks like the Chinese may have finally cracked the Thorium Salt Reactor problem. These things could be game changers. Worth looking into if you have a spare ten mins or so.
Green Hydrogen is certainly an exciting prospect for a country like Australia. There's even talk of it using the existing gas reticulation system and possibly directly replacing natural gas.Don't write off grid battery storage just yet though. You are correct in saying that with current technology this is not a great solution, but as I mentioned before the tech is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. It seems to me to be just a matter of time before someone really cracks it.
if that is the case then its exciting. I am of the opinion that we cant realistically reduce our emission targets fast enough without such nuclear technology being a part of the solution. the political will is still not there. introducing gen 4 reactors - small, safe, efficient that can utilise nuclear waste can help bring to the table the dinosaurs and miscreants who have so effectively hampered our action on renewable energy and climate change mitigation.
maybe if we got our shit together 20 years ago on renewables it would not have been necessary - but they Fkd it for us.
Bonza-" can help bring to the table the dinosaurs and miscreants who have so effectively hampered our action on renewable energy and climate change mitigation." they Fkd it for us."
As one of the dinosaurs ( I am sure you were thinking of me ) I am amazed you give us so much credit !
You are wrong again .
It was the greenies who made it politically unpalatable to use nuclear energy . The French have the cheapest and most reliable energy prices in Europe due to their balls to make a correct decision .
Us dinosaurs have not stopped the development of renewables . With all the money they have been given to do the necessary R&D they are STILL 20 years plus from being able to provide PEAK load and cheap energy .
Good that you consider nuclear as the ONLY option to achieve CO2 reduction without turning all the lights off ! You are right .
Too many items above to address them all.
Each country has their own particular circumstances but as I've said nuclear is cost prohibitive in Australia. No company is going to build it if it doesn't pay off.
Regardless, it's not required. Renewables currently supply around 50% of the required national market demand through the day. That is not a good day, that is an average day.
Check IDs link... https://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/reneweconomy/ right now we're doing over 50%
At night wind supplies approx. 20%.
With the amount of renewable projects forecast to come on board we should be at 100% renewable by 2030 in the electricity grid (thats before a nuclear plant can be design and constructed as well). Gas will play a roll for sure, and well into the future beyond 2030, but only to support the renewables, so I don't think referring to gas as a "transition fuel" is not the right terminology. The transition is already well underway.
Also, re comments on wind power. Offshore farms require wind speed as low as 10-15km/h. They are so good these days that they can effectively be referred to as providing base load.
Power generation is managed by commercial companies, not the fed gov, and they're choosing to do it via renewables because its cheaper. Which is exactly why Adani is a big solar producer - because it makes economical sense. And why France's percentage of nuclear is getting smaller each year.
The point of this rambling is that the tech is so good these days the transition will happen regardless of the fed governments position.
Hydrogen probably deserves another thread in itself.
.