Why Australia's power prices are going up?

 
  allan Chief Commissioner

In other news, and don't google this, what oxygen/ CO2 ratio will cause death to a human? That is, pure oxygen mixed with pure CO2.
I've no idea. The bulk (80%) of the air that I expect to breath is nitrogen, which is functionally inert. OK, so at a guess, the ratio would be immaterial.
Oddly, and I was unaware of this, the ratio is about 10% CO2 and 90% O2. In normal atmospheric air, at 15% CO2 death is within a few seconds.
ParkesHub
Carbon dioxide at 10% in air is potentially fatal, but air is 80% nitrogen. Can you give me a link to your source? Something here is not quite right...

Sponsored advertisement

  ParkesHub Chief Commissioner

In other news, and don't google this, what oxygen/ CO2 ratio will cause death to a human? That is, pure oxygen mixed with pure CO2.
I've no idea. The bulk (80%) of the air that I expect to breath is nitrogen, which is functionally inert. OK, so at a guess, the ratio would be immaterial.
Oddly, and I was unaware of this, the ratio is about 10% CO2 and 90% O2. In normal atmospheric air, at 15% CO2 death is within a few seconds.
Carbon dioxide at 10% in air is potentially fatal, but air is 80% nitrogen. Can you give me a link to your source? Something here is not quite right...
allan
CO2 intoxication apparently. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380556/
  allan Chief Commissioner

Yes, that's co2 and air, not co2 and o2.
  ParkesHub Chief Commissioner

Yes, that's co2 and air, not co2 and o2.
allan
Yeah, I'm kinda mixing 2 stories into 1. I'll track down the CO2/O2 stuff.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Apollo 13 movie talks about make CO2 limits for humans. However on Oxygen content in air, dropping below 15% O2 is from what i understand is starting to move towards life threatening/unconscience .  CPR training normally focus making sure you breathin while looking away for this reason.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Apollo 13 movie talks about make CO2 limits for humans. However on Oxygen content in air, dropping below 15% O2 is from what i understand is starting to move towards life threatening/unconscience .  CPR training normally focus making sure you breathin while looking away for this reason.
Breathing is no longer used in CPR situations. Sufficient air is pumped in whilst doing compressions. Also overcomes the CO2 and possible disease problems.
  allan Chief Commissioner

Apollo 13 movie talks about make CO2 limits for humans. However on Oxygen content in air, dropping below 15% O2 is from what i understand is starting to move towards life threatening/unconscience .  CPR training normally focus making sure you breathin while looking away for this reason.
Breathing is no longer used in CPR situations. Sufficient air is pumped in whilst doing compressions. Also overcomes the CO2 and possible disease problems.
nswtrains
This has been mooted for some years, and is accepted practice in some regions overseas. But, I think that in Australia, EAR (expired air resuscitation) remains in the Australian Resuscitation Council guidelines.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!

In the meantime there's teams of scientists trying to make the models fit the reality, reverse engineer the stats to prove they're still right.You've absolutely no idea that's happening. You have to offer proper rebuttal not feckin' BS. Stop insulting me, if you be so kind.Of course they reverse-engineer the models to fit the new data, how else do they keep up their funding grant if they stop putting horror stories out there?
don_dunstan
Yes this is just one huge conspiracy.
That is, the one funded by oil producing nations, wealthy industrialists and other vested interests.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
Now, now; don't be too hard on Don - he's not that well read . . . obviously ignores weather commentaries, scientific studies and other things that don't agree with him. Leave him in his comfort zone.
I'm really looking forward to the coming unmitigated disaster of the Shorten government. Free everythings for everyone; open borders, anyone can come live here and get health and welfare. It'll be great. Utopia.
don_dunstan
Here we go, here we go, here we go...  LaughingLaughingLaughing

These anti-Labor rants don't seem to be working Razz
  allan Chief Commissioner

Now, now; don't be too hard on Don - he's not that well read . . . obviously ignores weather commentaries, scientific studies and other things that don't agree with him. Leave him in his comfort zone.
I'm really looking forward to the coming unmitigated disaster of the Shorten government. Free everythings for everyone; open borders, anyone can come live here and get health and welfare. It'll be great. Utopia.
Here we go, here we go, here we go...  LaughingLaughingLaughing

These anti-Labor rants don't seem to be working Razz
Groundrelay
That's because of the alternative...
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Now, now; don't be too hard on Don - he's not that well read . . . obviously ignores weather commentaries, scientific studies and other things that don't agree with him. Leave him in his comfort zone.
I'm really looking forward to the coming unmitigated disaster of the Shorten government. Free everythings for everyone; open borders, anyone can come live here and get health and welfare. It'll be great. Utopia.
Here we go, here we go, here we go...  LaughingLaughingLaughing

These anti-Labor rants don't seem to be working Razz
Groundrelay
Hey, drags you out of the woodwork to defend them every single time.

Personally I'm looking forward to Shorten's management of the post housing-bust economy. Free money, more free money... even more free money. Welfare for everyone (jobs are so passe).
  ParkesHub Chief Commissioner

Now, now; don't be too hard on Don - he's not that well read . . . obviously ignores weather commentaries, scientific studies and other things that don't agree with him. Leave him in his comfort zone.
I'm really looking forward to the coming unmitigated disaster of the Shorten government. Free everythings for everyone; open borders, anyone can come live here and get health and welfare. It'll be great. Utopia.
Here we go, here we go, here we go...  LaughingLaughingLaughing

These anti-Labor rants don't seem to be working Razz
Groundrelay
You had to start, didn't you? Ignore the troll, shortcircuit.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
You had to start, didn't you? Ignore the troll, shortcircuit.
ParkesHub
He can't possibly leave it alone, he loves stirring.

Meanwhile back to the climate change hoax. I think this has already been mentioned previously on this board by Aaron but it's interesting to note that the warming of the oceans isn't as catastrophic as first thought. From Judith Sloan's blog:

The study published by the journal Nature on Oct. 31 by researchers at Princeton University and UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography claimed the oceans were warming at a rate 60 percent higher than previously thought.

However, a mathematical error discovered by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis after he perused the study’s first page has led the journal to retract its key finding. The study has a much larger margin of error, making their findings of a 60 percent increase in ocean warming less precise, and actually between 10 percent and 70 percent.

The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error “too big now to really weigh in” on ocean temperatures.

When first published, the study led to “alarming” warnings in mainstream media outlets, claiming the “world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years.”

Why is it that every time these climate change studies are found to be wrong they just shrug their shoulders - does this sound like something taxpayers should be throwing billions at when the 'science' changes all the time?
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Why is it that every time these climate change studies are found to be wrong they just shrug their shoulders - does this sound like something taxpayers should be throwing billions at when the 'science' changes all the time?
don_dunstan
Only a man with no understanding of science could make a comment like that. Science is continually changing. Science formulates theories to explain observable evidence and, as more evidence is adduced, the theory must change. That's the difference between science and dogmatism.
One famous example:- years ago it was noted that some substances, when burnt in air, gained weight. The original theory was that the substance had lost something known as phlogiston which had no weight, but possessed "levity" or lightness. Later, Lavoisier did experiments and was able to demonstrate oxidation which formed a compound from the elements of phosphorous and oxygen, hence the gain in weight. The new evidence caused the theory to change exactly as it should.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
One for the Climate Change Parrots

From WWF

5. "Wind farms and solar are expensive and inefficient. Nuclear, coal and oil are the only realistic way to provide for our energy needs."

It's a commonly-held belief that renewable energy is expensive, but solar power has been the cheapest form of energy generation (per unit of energy generated) for a long time, onshore wind costs about the same as gas, and offshore wind is now cheaper than nuclear and close to challenging gas too. The costs of renewables have fallen faster than anyone (including our optimistic climate team!) could have predicted.  

There are many misconceptions surrounding this issue; a recent survey found that many people think nuclear power is a cheap source of energy, when in fact it's the most expensive of the currently available forms. Onshore wind is actually the UK’s cheapest power source.

Pairing renewable energy with improved technology is actually proving to be very good for your bank account! Technology like double glazing and loft insulation may not sound glamorous, but it reduces our bills and helps save the planet at the same time.

WWF's vision is that we will use 100% renewable energy to provide our energy needs within a generation.




See how the WWF even conveniently ignores or deliberately hides the fact that the Solar and Wind are NOT despatchable power and therefore yes when the wind is blowing its indeed cheaper, but when its not you need to fall back onto a usually much much more expensive Plan B.

Yes geographic averaging and mixing solar and wind helps make both more reliable, but as we see on the actual data from the East Coast Australian Grid, its no where near enough nor perfect. Hydro in Australia is limited to not much more than we have now and the pumped hydro solutions including Snowy 2.0 make very expensive backup power but do not add 1kW to the total output, actually consume. If they were so cost effective they would exist now!

Such publications by the likes of the WWF deliberately deceive those who don't understand RE technology or its limitations and in particular how they apply to Australia.

Its very interesting to note that after studying the NZ grid, they still continue to run their coal/gas power stations and have not been rolling out wind and PV at the same rate as Australia, yet NZ has a much larger % of its grid hydro and hence more suitable to expansion of wind and PV than Australia, nor do they have grand plans to do so, despite their Green focused govt. The NZ govt has also not announced plans to expand the electrified rail network outside Auckland and Wellington, rather just suspend the previously announced closure. I'm sure with time they will, however likely they are looking very very closely at Australia and going a very different direction.
  allan Chief Commissioner

One for the Climate Change Parrots

From WWF

5. "Wind farms and solar are expensive and inefficient. Nuclear, coal and oil are the only realistic way to provide for our energy needs."

It's a commonly-held belief that renewable energy is expensive, but solar power has been the cheapest form of energy generation (per unit of energy generated) for a long time, onshore wind costs about the same as gas, and offshore wind is now cheaper than nuclear and close to challenging gas too. The costs of renewables have fallen faster than anyone (including our optimistic climate team!) could have predicted.  

There are many misconceptions surrounding this issue; a recent survey found that many people think nuclear power is a cheap source of energy, when in fact it's the most expensive of the currently available forms. Onshore wind is actually the UK’s cheapest power source.

Pairing renewable energy with improved technology is actually proving to be very good for your bank account! Technology like double glazing and loft insulation may not sound glamorous, but it reduces our bills and helps save the planet at the same time.

WWF's vision is that we will use 100% renewable energy to provide our energy needs within a generation.




See how the WWF even conveniently ignores or deliberately hides the fact that the Solar and Wind are NOT despatchable power and therefore yes when the wind is blowing its indeed cheaper, but when its not you need to fall back onto a usually much much more expensive Plan B.

Yes geographic averaging and mixing solar and wind helps make both more reliable, but as we see on the actual data from the East Coast Australian Grid, its no where near enough nor perfect. Hydro in Australia is limited to not much more than we have now and the pumped hydro solutions including Snowy 2.0 make very expensive backup power but do not add 1kW to the total output, actually consume. If they were so cost effective they would exist now!

Such publications by the likes of the WWF deliberately deceive those who don't understand RE technology or its limitations and in particular how they apply to Australia.

Its very interesting to note that after studying the NZ grid, they still continue to run their coal/gas power stations and have not been rolling out wind and PV at the same rate as Australia, yet NZ has a much larger % of its grid hydro and hence more suitable to expansion of wind and PV than Australia, nor do they have grand plans to do so, despite their Green focused govt. The NZ govt has also not announced plans to expand the electrified rail network outside Auckland and Wellington, rather just suspend the previously announced closure. I'm sure with time they will, however likely they are looking very very closely at Australia and going a very different direction.
RTT_Rules
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-updat...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-aemo-study-says-wind-solar...

It does seem that AEMO is in broad agreement with WWF...
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-updat...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-aemo-study-says-wind-solar...

It does seem that AEMO is in broad agreement with WWF...
allan
That just means they're equally corrupted by the same bad science. WWF is the least reliable source for anything to do with 'climate science' - they're hopelessly compromised by vested interests and sell their opinions to highest bidder as detailed here. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they were being paid off by the people making a fortune from the 'transition to renewables' such as Alex Turnbull and his family, who seems to be one of the main beneficiaries of our transition to unreliable power sources.

Are you shocked to find that the Turnbull family is making a motza from the application of junk science to the Australian economy? I'm not.

And the headline that renewables are cheaper is absolute rubbish, at no point do the CSIRO or the AMEO mention the fact that unreliables a subsidised to hilt by the poor unfortunate consumers who are captive to the grid; therefore it's not a proper economic evaluation of the costs and benefits to the Australian people - they just want us to have it whether we want it or not.
  9034 Train Controller

Meanwhile at the AEMO   website  prices current as at Dec 26 1820


Price QLD NSW SA VIC TAS
Energy $85.03 $98.60 $150.89 $128.58 $57.47


Wonder what they did in SA and VIC to make there prices more expensive that the rest?
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

A change.org petition and a conspiracy theory Wordpress blog.

And yet you chide rational people for a supposed lack of empirical peer-reviewed evidence.

People who are willing to bet the future of the planet on a “gut feeling” and ill-defined suspicion should not have ever become as prominent as they are. Perhaps it is another manifestation of the desperate need of modern extremists to be “oppressed” by something or someone.

Since I suspect the self-proclaimed experts on this thread will pooh-Pooh any journal articles or other professional publications I care to supply as being “biased”, “corrupt”, or otherwise unsuitable, I’ll just offer this from the BHP website:

BHP accepts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate change science, which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable.


At some point every conspiracy theory runs up againt the difficulties of motive and practicality.

The motive for the alleged fabrication of the “carbon fairy myth” is elusive at best. You must ask yourself why a company with much to face in the transition to a carbon-neutral economy feels compelled to publicly support the reasoning behind it. Similar statements may be found on the websites of virtually every important mining company globally.

The practicality of fabricating this myth is similarly difficult to explain. The single most credible argument that NASA did indeed land on the moon is that no one involved in the production of the fake - none of thousands - has ever leaked or blown the whistle. The idea that an even larger workforce is dedicated to enriching Al Gore by manipulating the world economy is even more preposterous.

The risk is not worth taking.
  michaelgm Deputy Commissioner

Meanwhile at the AEMO   website  prices current as at Dec 26 1820


Price QLD NSW SA VIC TAS
Energy $85.03 $98.60 $150.89 $128.58 $57.47


Wonder what they did in SA and VIC to make there prices more expensive that the rest?
9034
smeg me, TAS is priced attarctively, hey Clyde.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
A change.org petition and a conspiracy theory Wordpress blog.

And yet you chide rational people for a supposed lack of empirical peer-reviewed evidence.
potatoinmymouth
Is it untrue about Alex Turnbull's relationship to Australia's wind industry? Is it untrue that the Turnbull family trust benefits greatly from the transition to renewable energy?

Follow the money.
The risk is not worth taking.
potatoinmyoriface
I have the opposite view, there's nothing meaningful we can do about the outcome anyway so why are we being compelled to de-industrialise and become "carbon-fairy free" (which is impossible by the way). You might be happy paying 42 cents per kw/h for our transition to magical unicorn la la world but I'm going to keep complaining about it ad infinitum.
  ParkesHub Chief Commissioner

A change.org petition and a conspiracy theory Wordpress blog.

And yet you chide rational people for a supposed lack of empirical peer-reviewed evidence.

People who are willing to bet the future of the planet on a “gut feeling” and ill-defined suspicion should not have ever become as prominent as they are. Perhaps it is another manifestation of the desperate need of modern extremists to be “oppressed” by something or someone.

Since I suspect the self-proclaimed experts on this thread will pooh-Pooh any journal articles or other professional publications I care to supply as being “biased”, “corrupt”, or otherwise unsuitable, I’ll just offer this from the BHP website:

BHP accepts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate change science, which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable.


At some point every conspiracy theory runs up againt the difficulties of motive and practicality.

The motive for the alleged fabrication of the “carbon fairy myth” is elusive at best. You must ask yourself why a company with much to face in the transition to a carbon-neutral economy feels compelled to publicly support the reasoning behind it. Similar statements may be found on the websites of virtually every important mining company globally.

The practicality of fabricating this myth is similarly difficult to explain. The single most credible argument that NASA did indeed land on the moon is that no one involved in the production of the fake - none of thousands - has ever leaked or blown the whistle. The idea that an even larger workforce is dedicated to enriching Al Gore by manipulating the world economy is even more preposterous.

The risk is not worth taking.
potatoinmymouth
Mate, stop trolling the charlatan. He lies.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Carbon fairy iz bad...
Mate, stop trolling the charlatan. He lies.
ParkesHub
What exactly are my sins, Father ParkesHub?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-updat...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-aemo-study-says-wind-solar...

It does seem that AEMO is in broad agreement with WWF...
allan
Allan,
Next time you try to prove a point, at least pre-read your links before hand. Your link references providing between 2h and 6h backup reserve reliant on existing thermal to do the rest.

I assume you are trying to imply full replacement of coal and gas with wind and PV, if not then I'm confused and I've never said wind and solar cannot be part of the mix, just need top apply some common sense to how much otherwise we go down the path of SA, but without the east coast back up.

For record I'll say it AGAIN, PV solar does a very good job and dealing with most of the daily peak as demand is typically proportional to PV output, however dealing with evening peak is still a work in progress outside relying on hydro, open gas and spinning reserve. Wind is hopeless and less aligned with demand and best used to support hydro.


Also rather than use studies, lets look at real life.

The Hassayan Coal fired power station currently under construction in the UAE planned to use Ozzie coal, 45% efficiency and have state of the art NOX and SOX removal has a contracted wholesale price of US$45/MWh / $A60/MWh. That's 24/7/365/25 baseload. existing gas and expanding solar will provide the swing demand. So for me, that's the real price of coal, not some bureaucrat's twisted vision.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Meanwhile at the AEMO   website  prices current as at Dec 26 1820


Price QLD NSW SA VIC TAS
Energy $85.03 $98.60 $150.89 $128.58 $57.47


Wonder what they did in SA and VIC to make there prices more expensive that the rest?
smeg me, TAS is priced attarctively, hey Clyde.
michaelgm
Tasmania is proof that small markets like Tassie with limited intertie capacity into the grid should not be in the National Energy market.

Meanwhile in SA right now, power price is pushing close to $185/Mwh,

2100 MW of total demand
1100 MW of thermal generation
300 MW of wind
27 MW from the battery

700 MW (red line) imported.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: