facthunter Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 As soon as the price difference gets sufficient with the peak and off peak rates, even batteries will do the job. I heard some "expert" saying it could get to an 8 X differential. That won't happen. Solar power is becoming so cheap, storage is a goer. Get scrap lead and make your own deep cycle batteries with glass compartments. Nev
nomadpete Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Pump storage has been working in S E Queensland for 30 years or so. There is 600Mw available but not enough water in the dam to run all night. However it provides an instantly available source of power that can be used to fill a short term burst of demand. So pump storage is a viable part of the answer. 1
Gnarly Gnu Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Once the turbines cark it after a few years they are far too expensive to remove so the hulk remains rotting away forever. This sort of thing happens, these are very much smaller and not nearly as visible of course. The install contract should include provision for full removal at the end of useful life - but the turbine company would likely disappear at that point.
kasper Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Once the turbines cark it after a few years they are far too expensive to remove so the hulk remains rotting away forever.This sort of thing happens, these are very much smaller and not nearly as visible of course. The install contract should include provision for full removal at the end of useful life - but the turbine company would likely disappear at that point. A little unfair really as its not directly aligned with turbine sites - the planning approval to sight a wind farm in a location means that that location has residual value for reuse for wind generation. The microwave transmitters you link to had line of sight location value that was extinguished with the introduction of fibre and even satelite links years before. Within the power industry reuse of existing sites already occurs - take a look at nuclear power site - they re-use the site of decommission nuclear for the next gen nuclear for exactly the reason that the planning for that use on that site already has the infrastructure and planning. So provided wind power is still an ecomonic solution as part of the overall power solution the original company or someone else is extremely likely to reuse at end of life. 2
fly_tornado Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Once the turbines cark it after a few years they are far too expensive to remove so the hulk remains rotting away forever.This sort of thing happens, these are very much smaller and not nearly as visible of course. The install contract should include provision for full removal at the end of useful life - but the turbine company would likely disappear at that point. 15,000 toxic heaps just in QLD alone. who knows how many in Australia, with the collapse of iron ore going to be a lot of mining debris left rotting in northern WA http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/abandoned-mine-lands-program.htm 2
Marty_d Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Once the turbines cark it after a few years they are far too expensive to remove so the hulk remains rotting away forever.This sort of thing happens, these are very much smaller and not nearly as visible of course. The install contract should include provision for full removal at the end of useful life - but the turbine company would likely disappear at that point. You must be getting desperate if that's the worst you can come up with. Of course, when coal mines stop they're magically transformed into rolling green hills, aren't they. 3 1
Phil Perry Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Strangely enough Marty,. . . we had an opencast coal extraction facility just a couple of clicks up the road from where I live. It was started in 1983 and closed down in 1999. The hole in the ground was 650 feet deep, and over a haf mile wide. I once watched some hoons in trikes flying down into the hole ( four of them. . . ) circling out and flying away. The mining company organised a land fill, and that site is now completely filled and invisible. ( as of around six years ago ) so it can be done, and it's a great place to stick all yer garbage ! ! ! 1
facthunter Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 The last time I looked at England it was not a desert nor did it rely on underground aquifers. Landfills are hard to find but it's also hard to not contaminate groundwater when you use them for garbage disposal.Nev
jetjr Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Australia has poor legislation and return on investment for landfill operators. They have to sign up for 50 yr + management contracts. Its pretty standard overseas to line and cap landfill sites and capture methane for generation in addition to leachate. Also common to pay much more to dump your rubbish there. Here we are just beginning to capture and flare off methane. Not all bad as it reduces carbon load expelled by landfill site by 75%. A problem is the dodgy modelling of expected methane production. Far worse than predicted mostly. Then politics comes in to play.......you know those greenhouse gas emissions targets, well finding out theres way more methane being produced, isnt good for anyone making promises. Kooreela, Saline is used for heat storage and transfer systems. Dams get hot but not much, soil and air steals most of it. The lining is far from cheap and no one has gotten covers, monolayers or synthetic films to work yet on any large dams....reliably. Most dam liners can only handle Av temps to around 40 deg and even then with pretty short lives. 1
Phil Perry Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 The last time I looked at England it was not a desert nor did it rely on underground aquifers. Landfills are hard to find but it's also hard to not contaminate groundwater when you use them for garbage disposal.Nev This is going to be a problem for the future Nev,. . .we have another landfill site about 1 k down the road,. . .this was started around ten years ago by a company called BIFFA. . . . we now have a mountain, around 450 feet high, . . .known to the local community as "Mount Biffa" . . . .this land will be unstable for around 75 years, and cannot br built upon dir to the release of methane gas from rotting garbage., and of course, the basic long term instability of the ground itself. The UK Govermnebt have embraced this culture, and there are many sites of a similar nature being built up all over the country, The "Recycling" scam operated by local councils is just that, and although we all have four different bins in which to sort our unwanted output,. . .it appears according to recent investigations, that it is all being dumped together. So that the separation of iteems for recycling is really being ignored by most UK lical authorities. . .good idea in principle, but not carried out in fact. Some authorities insist on separating rubbish into as many as SIX bins,. . . .now if you live in a town house, or maisonette flat apartment, there is nowhere to store these bins, and this is becoming a bit of a joke. . . . but even still,. . .if you Don't separate your garbage, then you get a hefty fine. . . . . long waiting for the revolution. . . .! ! ! We need a cheap means of blasting all of it into the SUN,. . . .that might fuel it and give us a few more million years before we are buried in 21st century garbage. . . . ! 1
fly_tornado Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Phil, old chap, just to give you an idea of the enormity of the problem in Australia, we ship over a billion tonnes of minerals a year. A year
Phil Perry Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Phil, old chap, just to give you an idea of the enormity of the problem in Australia, we ship over a billion tonnes of minerals a year. A year OK, that's good,. . . . .so if you've got a big hole in Queensland, W.A, or N.T,. . , . . .fill it up with Victoria. . .see, , , problem solved ?? ? ? ? 2
fly_tornado Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 We need your big ideas in Aussie mate, lefties wrecking the place
JG3 Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 we ship over a billion tonnes of minerals a year. A year Oh dear, that might put the earth out of balance and into a wobble.......
fly_tornado Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 or rising ocean levels in the southern hemisphere
jetjr Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Pumping water just to generate hydro is unlikely to work well due to inefficiecncies in pumping and friction loss THEN losses in generation Could easily loose 40-50% in the process 1
winsor68 Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Strangely enough Marty,. . . we had an opencast coal extraction facility just a couple of clicks up the road from where I live. It was started in 1983 and closed down in 1999. The hole in the ground was 650 feet deep, and over a haf mile wide. I once watched some hoons in trikes flying down into the hole ( four of them. . . ) circling out and flying away. The mining company organised a land fill, and that site is now completely filled and invisible. ( as of around six years ago ) so it can be done, and it's a great place to stick all yer garbage ! ! ! That sounds more like a small quarry...The BIG mines leave great areas that have no more in common with the natural order of things for the area they have destroyed then neat orderly rows of pine trees in the plantations on the South Coast.
Old Koreelah Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Pumping water just to generate hydro is unlikely to work well due to inefficiecncies in pumping and friction loss THEN losses in generationCould easily loose 40-50% in the process Yep, and pumping electricity long distances by wire has dominated our way of life for several generations (pun). When big power stations were set up we hardly noticed the transmission losses, but these days we do. Some European cities have set up small co-generation stations right where the power is needed. Waste heat from gas-fired units is used in nearby buildings and transmission losses are minimised. 1
Old Koreelah Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 That sounds more like a small quarry... ...that's not a mine...
coljones Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Pumping water just to generate hydro is unlikely to work well due to inefficiecncies in pumping and friction loss THEN losses in generationCould easily loose 40-50% in the process It is good to consider ways to reduce the inefficiencies but only if it can be done cheaper than a competing solution (considering ALL costs and the externalities). This is a properly engineered solution. we don't always get these. Fx, a properly engineered solution might consider moving Parliament House and the politicians to Parramatta. The political solution insist that we move everything else. Another solution would be to move the politicians over the sandstone curtain to, say, Temora and force them to commute to work each day.
pmccarthy Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 The future of mining is underground mining. No big holes, no big overburden dumps. It will come, but not for iron ore in Australia. Elsewhere, like Kiruna in Sweden, they mine iron ore using underground methods.
Marty_d Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I think the solution to the landfill problem is to cause less of it. May sound naive and simplistic but that's really it in a nutshell. Why does everything we buy have to be wrapped in plastic? Taking out plastic shopping bags is a good start, but why the push back by Coca-Cola and other soft drink manufacturers against refundable deposits on bottles? Works fine in SA. Let's face it a Coke already costs $4, another 20 cents on top ain't going to stop people buying it, but it will encourage them to recycle the bottles - and ensure proper segregation of plastics. It's all about placing the true cost of the disposal of the item back into the price. Gnarly Gnu brought it up with the end-of-life for wind turbines. What about the environmental cost of plastic particles in the fish food chain? (Not to mention that coral has been proven in lab experiments to consume plastic particles, which fills up their guts and prevent them from consuming actual food.) 4
Gnarly Gnu Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Some European cities have set up small co-generation stations right where the power is needed. Yes instead of messing about with recycling they collect all the household waste and incinerate it at high temperature, using that heat to generate electricity. 1
jetjr Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Dead right A key reason why recycling doesnt often work is the added energy investment in something near worthless Often in diesel getting it to somewhere where it can be handled Burning near end use is a good solution. Co gen plnts have to be fairly big to justify cost. Right now cant compete with gas. This will change shortly 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now