Victorian (Australia) Electricity supply meltdown.

[beanflying]

Was back in the Arc (1985?) my Dad as a Secondary teacher ran a program running a Solar powered car N-S across Australia (pre World Solar Challenge) on 12% Panels and at the time they were leading edge and don't ask what they cost even at a heavy discount from Solarex for 8sq.m

The last few years have made them truly capable of being in the mix against all comers. Just got to sort out a storage mechanism that works for the $ now.

[wasyoungonce]

No doubt some of us visiting this thread wanted to see late-19th-century electricity disasters...

This did happen in South Australia, caused by wind and old infrastructure.  Of course this fail cause widespread blackout and was blamed on "renewable's" by The LNP...other bold faced lies.  Meh ....why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

http://www.kublermdk.com/2016/10/21/sa-power-outage-blackstart-in-relatively-plain-english/

[wasyoungonce]

Just went back over my Basic AstroPhysics (Duke, Ronen Plesser, I can link a video but its 15Mb, I'd need a place to put it up) notes on Earths temperature model (been a long time I looked at them).  Pretty much the planet temperature it is dependent upon how far the planet formed from the sun (as an accreted DISC), but, earth is hotter than it should be.  The answer is the Bode Albido and Green House effect.  The Bode Albido is the avg reflectivity of the planet (according to various measured wavelengths) and the green house effect is due to the atmosphere trapping energy.  Without greenhouse effect the planet would be frozen.

Earth's atmosphere is essentially invisible to most incoming energy thus it hits the ground and is absorbed/Reflected and re-radiated back to the atmosphere in a differing IR wavelength.  In the atmosphere this energy is now absorbed/reflected or escape (our to space) , back to the ground.  Again energy does the same again absorbed/reflected or re-radiated.  Each turn with diminishing order of energy (entropy).  Of course this is a basic model oceans, current, seasons etc all play a part.  Suffice our basic calc's did come surprisingly close to the avg earths temp.

But the key point is a small change in Bode Albido (like melting ice) and or Green house absorption ratio, of as small as 1% will change (increase) Earths temperature by around 3 Degrees C.  The balance is precarious and a low delta figure can cause massive changes indeed.

So...what to do.  If you think the jury and evidence is still in question but were unsure then you would be negligent in not taking changes to what we are doing even if you were unsure.  To err on the side of doing something is the logical thing to do.

[beanflying]

According to the Stats on the day in question rooftop solar was supplying 9.5% of the grid power. Not to bad for a growing chunk of the mix.

Much of that was hydro power, but rooftop solar also met as much as 9.5 per cent of the state’s demand and wind about 5 per cent.

As per my original post in this thread the winds were very light where the turbines are located that day.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But the key point is a small change in Bode Albido (like melting ice) and or Green house absorption ratio, of as small as 1% will change (increase) Earths temperature by around 3 Degrees C.

1) There's been 3..15x more CO2 ppm in the atmosphere in the past and nothing even remotely similar to that model prediction has ever happened.
2) There's ~ 33% more CO2 now than a century ago and T has not increased 3*33= +99˚C.

=> It seems the importance of the CO2 has been greatly exaggerated.

We receive from the sun ~ 3.14*6371e3*6371e3*1e3*24*365= 1.12e9 TWh/year.
World energy consumption is ~ 170e3 TWh/year, more than half of which is thrown as heat into the atmosphere.
Each of us is a ~ 100W heater (2000 kcal/day) and we're 7 billion, that's 7e9*100*24*365/1e12= 6132 TWh/year of heat that goes to the atmosphere :-)
We've turned many millions of km² of energy-absorbing green fields and forest into concrete and tarmac, that's not good for Albedo.

[wasyoungonce]

2) There's ~ 33% more CO2 now than a century ago and T has not increased 3*33= +99˚C.
 => It seems the importance of the CO2 has been greatly exaggerated.

No 33% more CO2 does not equate a a 99˚C temp change.  A small change in Albedo ratio will cause massive earth temperature  changes

The effect of CO2 is well known and studied

We receive from the sun ~ 3.14*6371e3*6371e3*1e3*24*365= 1.12e9 TWh/year.
World energy consumption is ~ 170e3 TWh/year, more than half of which is thrown as heat into the atmosphere.
Each of us is a ~ 100W heater (2000 kcal/day) and we're 7 billion, that's 7e9*100*24*365/1e12= 6132 TWh/year of heat that goes to the atmosphere :-)
We've turned many millions of km² of energy-absorbing green fields and forest into concrete and tarmac, that's not good for Albedo.

Your equating all energy released as warming effect...its not the case it has to be in the IR range.   Reflection/Absorption or re-radiated energy in this IR upon a molecule or object is always of a lower order due to entropic nature.  The energy quality is lower thus energy from use human is not absorbed by the atmosphere like you state.  Its a differing beast.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Your lobby isn't funny, you're sucking tax payers' millions by the thousands to make models that don't work and propose solutions that neither.

[wasyoungonce]

Your lobby isn't funny, you're sucking tax payers' millions by the thousands to make models that don't work and propose solutions that neither.

This is the crux of it, facts and discussion vs an anti-facts pulpit banging. This is the crux of it all in a nutshell laid bare for all to see. 

[Marco]

The effect of CO2 is well known and studied

Climate simulations are hacky and fragile and for the running real world experiment we have no control, how is this well studied? It's the best we can do, but in any normal area of research it would be seen as very poor evidence. Only the precautional principle can bolster the evidence, not its quality.

[apis]

There has been over 80 years of research all over the world, and the only explanation of why it's getting warmer (that agrees with measurements) is that we are releasing more and more greehouse gases. A relatively small amount of CO² have a large effect because there are positive feedback systems. For example a small increase in temperature leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere which in turn increases the temperature even further (because water vapour is also a greenhouse gas). Even small warming effects gets amplified by strong positive feedbacks.

This is a complicated subject at it can't be fully explained in a forum post, but data and research and comprehensive synthesis reports are available for free on the internet for those who are honestly interested.

The most comprehensive introduction to the physical science basis is freely available here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

For those who are to lazy/busy to read that:

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

This is the crux of it, facts vs an almost religious based anti-facts.  This is the crux of it all laid bare for all to see.

Yours are non facts I would say, as in

a small change in Bode Albido (like melting ice) and or Green house absorption ratio, of as small as 1% will change (increase) Earths temperature by around 3 Degrees C

You also have said

The effect of CO2 is well known and studied

Yes it is, a behaviour very well known by real scientists in a lab, but not at all by the global AGW lobby pseudo ones that have been failing year after year for decades to model its effect in the complex system that's the atmosphere where it's only a trace gas.

[beanflying]

More on topic than 

[wasyoungonce]

Climate simulations are hacky and fragile and for the running real world experiment we have no control, how is this well studied? It's the best we can do, but in any normal area of research it would be seen as very poor evidence. Only the precautional principle can bolster the evidence, not its quality.

Absoluately climate modeling and change modeling is more than a small calculation.  But to date modeling has given the best and closest data to what is happening.   Nothing else explains it.

It would be remiss not to err on the side of caution.  Changing our way will not hurt the planet it may realign some industry and thise most effected buy this possibility of this are the ones anti climate change.  Yet they offer no solution except rejection.

If we are unsure but know there is change then we should act.  Not doing do is illogical

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Your equating all energy released as warming effect...its not the case it has to be in the IR range.

So what is heat? Because I'm saying heat released...

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Absoluately climate modeling and change modeling is more than a small calculation.  But to date modeling has given the best and closest data to what is happening.   Nothing else explains it.

It would be remiss not to err on the side of caution.  Changing our way will not hurt the planet it may realign some industry and thise most effected buy this possibility of this are the ones anti climate change.  Yet they offer no solution except rejection.

If we are unsure but know there is change then we should act.  Not doing do is illogical

You're just repeating like a parrot Elon Musk's words. Word by word, exactly. LOL. Come on, use your own brain please.

[wasyoungonce]

More on topic than 

Ahh yes hot on eastern seaboard atm.  Our dogs are feelin it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[...] We have panels producing 340watts they are over a metre so yeah 300 watts p/m is about right. [...]

Do you have a url where I can see those 300 W/m² PVs? Please? Thanks!

'over a meter' yeah that's the problem.

Lets take LG's 360W 20.8% efficient panel (best on their site).
https://www.lg.com/us/business/solar-panel/all-products/lg-LG360Q1C-A5
1700 x 1016 x 40 mm
1.7m x ~1m = 1.7m²
360W/1.7m = 211W per m²

20.8% efficiency measured in DC in a lab at 20˚C... that translates to barely 10..12% at real use temps under the sun and after conversion to AC. Am I right?

[wasyoungonce]

So what is heat? Because I'm saying heat released...

No you said half was heat and I dispute this and also dispute your incident energy figures.  I will run the figures tomorrow but incident energy I believe is way more than we consume.

I wouldn’t have a clue what Musk has said thus are not quoting him. I’m actually using the discussion words between my father  (a chemical engineer) and a climate scientist friends he had. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I’m actually using the discussion words between my father  (a chemical engineer) and a climate scientist friends he had.

Climate scientist is a good job to have nowadays. And rest assured all his papers will be published, if the conclusions go in the right direction. It's in the Nature® of the lobby.

[apis]

So scientists and peer reviewed scientific journals are lobbyists now?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Those that twist the numbers to "hide the decline", yes.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hide+the+decline

[nick_d]

As a climate skeptic, I have nothing against renewables, however I believe they have to make their own business case without subsidies.

The priority for me is simply that I can buy the things I need to live, at a reasonable price, without subsidising things I don't believe in.

Since it is 100% possible to generate the electricity and 100% possible and profitable to do it cheaper than now, I believe Government should simply get out of the way and let private investment tackle it. Generation and distribution infrastructure should be sold off, and space made available in our streets so that private companies may double or triple the distribution infrastructure if they feel the profit motive warrants it.

I noted a number of comments about the privatization of SEC and so on. While I believe in privatization in principle, what we call "privatization" in Victoria is not really that. What has happened here in case of all utilities, including the new NBN, and public transport and (to some extent) freeways... is essentially that the Government and its partners build the system, then various contractors are brought in to collect the money.

If Government GENUINELY sold off the infrastructure it would be a huge benefit to us. Firstly, large amounts of Government debt could be paid off, saving an interest burden on ourselves and future generations (although, this assumes we can curb Government's insatiable desire to borrow more money). Secondly, genuine competition would cause the providers to invest in the infrastructure, which they do not at the moment, because there is no genuine competition. Competition in Internet and ADSL, for example, was recently killed off by the NBN, and has never existed in water, gas, electricity, public transport, etc. Competition in mobile phone exists, but due to spectrum auctions most money goes to the Government, so it is effectively a Government monopoly with providers such as Vodafone acting as Government partners to collect the money.

Nick

[apis]

Those that twist the numbers to "hide the decline", yes.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hide+the+decline

When I followed your link I found this:

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Those that twist the numbers to "hide the decline", yes.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hide+the+decline

When I followed your link I found this:

This one explains it much better:

[station240]

As a climate skeptic, I have nothing against renewables, however I believe they have to make their own business case without subsidies.

Since it is 100% possible to generate the electricity and 100% possible and profitable to do it cheaper than now, I believe Government should simply get out of the way and let private investment tackle it.

Big corporations don't believe in investment, proof exists in the form of almost no solar power stations they have built.
Besides which, doing nothing is free, and they are legally obligated to give as much money as possible to their shareholders.

Those 200,000 homes/businesses in Victoria that lost power due to the failure of 3 Latrobe Valley based coal fire generators, with the exact same faults (boiler tube leak).
Now the power distribution company should not have to pay compensation, not their fault.
However, there is nothing that allows the power generators to be fined, which is wrong.
Energy Australia and AGL who own these ancient power stations, should be the ones paying for everything, eg $100 per household + anything that has to be replaced (spoiled food).
It's $20M+, would have been cheaper to maintain their boilers properly.

Generation and distribution infrastructure should be sold off, and space made available in our streets so that private companies may double or triple the distribution infrastructure if they feel the profit motive warrants it.

If Government GENUINELY sold off the infrastructure it would be a huge benefit to us. Firstly, large amounts of Government debt could be paid off, saving an interest burden on ourselves and future generations.

BULLSHIT!
All you're doing is trading one problem (debt), for another (less income).
Government owns power company, electricity is priced reasonably, government are happy with whatever income it brings in. (result less taxes).
Corporation owns power company, demands 30% profit regardless, everyone including the government pays more for their electricity, all income from power goes to corporate instead of government. (result more taxes, more expensive power).

You seriously want to pay more taxes, and more for electricity ?!?.
Yeah it doesn't make sense to privatize vital infrastructure, unless you're running a post USSR fire sale of assets in exchange for bribes.