Mine Message To Coal Critics.

[disco man]

From the Townsville Bulletin. Story by John McCarthy.

Miners are losing the PR war to the greenies,according to the boss of the world's biggest mining companies. Anglo American boss Mark Cutifani said a move to discredit fossil fuels ignored the fact they were still crucial. The admission follows another major setback for the mining industry after the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in the US this week walked away from fossil fuel investments and joined a push that started only a year ago on US college campuses to attack the industry at its financial core.

"I guess we probably are losing when you look at some of the press. Its unfortunate the facts don't get the airplay they deserve," Mr Cutifani said. Anglo American has a handful of Queensland coal mines and Mr Cutifani said the world could not yet cope without coal. "That's a simple fact. I saw estimates that fossil fuel will still make up about 70% of energy supply in 30 years and that's gas,oil and coal," he said. "People keep going for simple solutions to complex problems . What we have to do is work together to find a broad solution. Not supporting those companies that are best equipped to provide cleaner coal is not the answer".

"In fact,its the worst answer for the developed countries of the world and the greater world population that can't live without energy" The industry also claims the campaign would lead to higher energy prices. "Many communities in the developed world,don't have any option other than coal," he said. "The alternative is to cut down the local forest and burn the timber,which is more destructive in terms of climate change." Mr Cutifani rejected statements by UN head of the framework convention on climate change Christiana Figueres,who said Australia should also take a long-term view before it made any decisions about coal expansions.

Australia's Hesta superannuation fund has abandoned investments in fossil fuels,as have some church funds and smaller credit unions and banks. The big banks are also under pressure to quite fossil fuels.

Some food for thought in that article,there are people on this forum with much more knowledge of 'green energy' than me. What i would like to know can we live without coal? Is green technology ready to power the world right now?

[Redback]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/04/153.jpg OK I'm ready

[Ausfree]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/04/153.jpg OK I'm ready


Yep, I've pulled up a chair also. Just getting the popcorn!!!:p

[ramblingboy42]

the main thing affecting most peoples concept of green....lets stop saying green.....and call it renewable energy , is the initial costings to bring renewable energy systems online.

we have lived with fossil fuel generation for so long that no one remembers what it cost to install the huge power generation systems in the first place.

it was scary.....it will be again.

the footprints will initially be large but as the systems come online and support new systems being introduced the costs will drop.

its going to take some time.

when I grew up in the 60's/70's we had unreliable power supplies...it was the norm and the vast national infrastructure wasn't in place then.

it is now and can be utilised if the existing utilities are prepared to share.

that is also another thing....there will be a big changing of the guard and some of the existing players don't like that.

they have ridden the pigs back for so long they didn't think that they might have to fight for their very existence.

it is going to happen, the Rockerfellers are good example....they can see where things are heading and are taking the right steps to ensure they stay abreast of what will very shortly be the new era of power generation.

investors are already getting the sniff and the dinosaurs who enjoyed life for so many years are gradually going to become extinct.

there really is no cause for panic or personal heart brake , its going to be reasonably gradual or it cannot afford to happen.

[bee utey]

What i would like to know can we live without coal? Is green technology ready to power the world right now?
Not yet but engineers and scientists are busy working on it. One of the big issues is energy storage from intermittent electricity producers. There are plenty of different approaches being tried. A handful of recent articles on the subject:

The battery storage system that could close down coal power : Renew Economy (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-battery-storage-system-that-could-close-down-coal-power-38259)

Molten metal batteries set to store grid power | Chemistry World (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/09/molten-metal-batteries-set-energy-store-grid-power)

ViZn Energy: A New Flow Battery Contender in the Grid-Scale Storage Race : Greentech Media (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ViZn-Energy-A-New-Flow-Battery-Contender-in-the-Grid-Scale-Storage-Race)

https://gigaom.com/2014/09/24/teslas-clean-energy-powered-factory-will-likely-be-plugged-into-the-grid-at-least-for-now/

SCE Unveils Largest Battery Energy Storage Project in North America - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sce-unveils-largest-battery-energy-storage-project-in-north-america-2014-09-24)

[bsperka]

Have a look at this story. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/why-100bn-invested-in-wind-or-solar-will-produce-more-energy-than-oil-18002.
"It estimates that $100 billion invested in either wind energy or solar energy – and deployed as energy for light and commercial vehicles – will produce significantly more energy than that same $100 billion invested in oil."
If there's more money to be made in one investment area than another that's where the money will go to. Greed 101.

[Mick_Marsh]

I say, stop selling oil and coal now and see how we cope!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/09/303.jpg

[Hoges]

No more coal mining? terrific idea:D

then we can also close down the iron ore mines (no coal =no steel ),
No steel mean no more cars, no buildings, etc
No coal means no aluminium production, no nickel production
No more fossil fuel means no more oil
No more oil means no more fossil fuel chain
No fossil fuel chain means: no more plastics, drugs, paints, tyres... etc etc

Bloody great idea... any more where they came from?

If the Greens are so ethically transparent about reducing carbon dioxide output then I suggest they do themselves and everyone else a favour : stop breathing!! :censored:

Just to put it into context: According to a doco on the ABC the other night, China is planning to erect between 20,000 and 50,000 high rise apartment buildings in the next 20 years to cope with the dramatic population shift from country to urban environments... the iron ore and the high quality coking coal to produce the steel has to come from somewhere...

[bee utey]

No more coal mining? terrific idea:D

then we can also close down the iron ore mines (no coal =no steel ),
No steel mean no more cars, no buildings, etc
No coal means no aluminium production, no nickel production
No more fossil fuel means no more oil
No more oil means no more fossil fuel chain
No fossil fuel chain means: no more plastics, drugs, paints, tyres... etc etc

Bloody great idea... any more where they came from

Coal & Steel Statistics - World Coal Association (http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/coal-steel-statistics/)


Steel Production

Global steel production is dependent on coal – around 70% of total global steel production relies directly on inputs of coal. Around 1.2 billion tonnes of coal are used in global steel production, which is around 15% of total coal consumption worldwide.


So aiming towards an 85% reduction in coal use is somehow not possible? Stopping people from burning most of it is a really terrible idea?

Oh and coking coal for steel production is quite different to the crappy stuff exported for power production.



If the Greens are so ethically transparent about reducing carbon dioxide output then I suggest they do themselves and everyone else a favour : stop breathing!! :censored:

That's a completely juvenile comment if I ever saw one.

[disco man]

Not yet but engineers and scientists are busy working on it. One of the big issues is energy storage from intermittent electricity producers. There are plenty of different approaches being tried. A handful of recent articles on the subject:

The battery storage system that could close down coal power : Renew Economy (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-battery-storage-system-that-could-close-down-coal-power-38259)

Molten metal batteries set to store grid power | Chemistry World (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/09/molten-metal-batteries-set-energy-store-grid-power)

ViZn Energy: A New Flow Battery Contender in the Grid-Scale Storage Race : Greentech Media (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ViZn-Energy-A-New-Flow-Battery-Contender-in-the-Grid-Scale-Storage-Race)

https://gigaom.com/2014/09/24/teslas-clean-energy-powered-factory-will-likely-be-plugged-into-the-grid-at-least-for-now/

SCE Unveils Largest Battery Energy Storage Project in North America - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sce-unveils-largest-battery-energy-storage-project-in-north-america-2014-09-24)

Thanks for those links mate, some very clever technology in there. The big problem i see is the need for a lot of mining to build the batteries. Personally i think we are still many years away from a coal free world.

[akelly]

Coal is needed for some things, but not to generate electricity. We use it because it used to be cheap and easy and we didn't know any better.

[bsperka]

We will transition to a low carbon economy. Eg CH4 rather than coal. Or remove the carbon so we have hydrogen to burn cleanly or use in magic fuel cells. Coking coal will still be required, as will thermal coal for some time.

[PAT303]

I want to see all the tree huggers disconnect their houses from the grid and use solar/batteries/love??? etc and see how they go,let them lead by example. Pat

[Mick_Marsh]

I want to see all the tree huggers disconnect their houses from the grid and use solar/batteries/love??? etc and see how they go,let them lead by example. Pat
I was talking to a fellow who did some calculations. He worked out, in order to run on solar disconnected from the grid and maintain the lifestyle, you would need solar panels the area of a house block and a battery room the size of a house.
Imagine how much it would cost to replace those batteries every ten years. The environmental impact of disposal of those hazardous batteries would be nasty too.

[Basil135]

My question in all of this, is what is the "whole of life" cost of all these alternate technologies?

One thing that seems to be often missed, is the actual cost, both financial & environmental, of not only producing, but running on, and eventually disposing of, things like solar panels.

I fully support renewable energy, and love the tech behind it. Take the wind farms off the coast of Scotland as an example. The logistics, engineering and technology required to make it effective is something to be proud of.

[akelly]

I was talking to a fellow who did some calculations. He worked out, in order to run on solar disconnected from the grid and maintain the lifestyle, you would need solar panels the area of a house block and a battery room the size of a house.
Imagine how much it would cost to replace those batteries every ten years. The environmental impact of disposal of those hazardous batteries would be nasty too.

Then he needs to check his working out, because that is pure nonsense.

[Mick_Marsh]

Then he needs to check his working out, because that is pure nonsense.
So, where are your calculations? Please describe your "off grid" living experience.

[akelly]

So, where are your calculations? Please describe your "off grid" living experience.

Tell you what - I'll provide mine when you provide the details of the "fellow" you've been "talking to" and his calcualtions. How does that sound?

Until then - why not google up one of the 10s of thousands of accounts of people living off the grid?

[akelly]

So, where are your calculations? Please describe your "off grid" living experience.

Maybe even check out some of the commercially available systems you can buy right now to go entirely off grid for electricity?

Here's just one: Off-Grid Energy Australia - Stand Alone Power Systems (http://www.offgridenergy.com.au/index.php/stand-alone-power.html)

Plenty of others. Maybe refer this "fellow" to something called the internet where he can do more robust research?

[Mick_Marsh]

Tell you what - I'll provide mine when you provide the details of the "fellow" you've been "talking to" and his calcualtions. How does that sound?

Until then - why not google up one of the 10s of thousands of accounts of people living off the grid?
You know, I have met several people who are living "off grid". They lead an alternate lifestyle. No TV. A few small 12v lights for lighting. Wood stove. Wood heating. Wood boosted solar hot water. One fellow I know has both solar and wind power on his house.
Very nice for a weekend away. A bit like camping.
That's not my kind of lifestyle 24/7/365.

[akelly]

We have a family friend who moved to a rural block. Didn't want to pay the huge fee to get connected to power, so designed his own solar PV system and a battery bank. Is on tank water too so has to run water pumps. He has a full size brick and tile house with 240v power throughout. Runs all the same appliances as we do, living in the suburbs; dishwasher, washing machine, iron, etc....

His solar array takes up most of his roof area. His battery bank is in a medium size garden shed.

He did all this over 20 years ago. Your mate is smoking drugs.

[Mick_Marsh]

Maybe even check out some of the commercially available systems you can buy right now to go entirely off grid for electricity?

Here's just one: Off-Grid Energy Australia - Stand Alone Power Systems (http://www.offgridenergy.com.au/index.php/stand-alone-power.html)

Plenty of others. Maybe refer this "fellow" to something called the internet where he can do more robust research?
I don't deny they exist. As a small part of my work, I design installations incorporating large UPS systems and they do take up a large amount of space.
That link you have posted I have seen before. Their systems are quite large compared to a normal house block.

[Mick_Marsh]

We have a family friend who moved to a rural block. Didn't want to pay the huge fee to get connected to power, so designed his own solar PV system and a battery bank. Is on tank water too so has to run water pumps. He has a full size brick and tile house with 240v power throughout. Runs all the same appliances as we do, living in the suburbs; dishwasher, washing machine, iron, etc....

His solar array takes up most of his roof area. His battery bank is in a medium size garden shed.

He did all this over 20 years ago. Your mate is smoking drugs.
I have 240V power in my car. That means nothing.
Your mate had to move to a rural block to do it. It's a lifestyle choice. Not all of us can move to a rural block.

[akelly]

I have 240V power in my car. That means nothing.
Your mate had to move to a rural block to do it. It's a lifestyle choice. Not all of us can move to a rural block.

No he didn't. No it isn't.

[shining]

So, where are your calculations? Please describe your "off grid" living experience.


I was talking to a fellow who did some calculations. He worked out, in order to run on solar disconnected from the grid and maintain the lifestyle, you would need solar panels the area of a house block and a battery room the size of a house.
Imagine how much it would cost to replace those batteries every ten years. The environmental impact of disposal of those hazardous batteries would be nasty too.

Mick. A point of order. Please furnish your calculations as well.

[isuzurover]

This thread is becoming silly and pathetic as expected...

Where is John (JDNSW). IRC he has been living off grid for 30 years or more???

As has been mentioned - it is possible to generate baseload power without coal. Tasmania does it and so does WA to some extent - mainly because we have less coal and more natural gas than other states.

[Mick_Marsh]

Mick. A point of order. Please furnish your calculations as well.
I didn't do them. Someone else did.
I remember posting up somewhere in another one of these many threads ho many kW of panels I would need to put on my house. It was a fairly large number in terms of what they advertise on the telly.

[shining]

I didn't do them. Someone else did.
I remember posting up somewhere in another one of these many threads ho many kW of panels I would need to put on my house. It was a fairly large number in terms of what they advertise on the telly.

You need to help me here Mick. I only have to provide corroboration if I am the one making an assertion. If someone else makes that assertion to me then its true. Have I got the rules right?

[Slunnie]

This thread is becoming silly and pathetic as expected...

Where is John (JDNSW). IRC he has been living off grid for 30 years or more???

As has been mentioned - it is possible to generate baseload power without coal. Tasmania does it and so does WA to some extent - mainly because we have less coal and more natural gas than other states.
Yep, friends parents have been doing it for years also. Bank of wet cells, solar panels on the roof and wind. It is very doable. Heating is with fire and cooking with gas.

[Chucaro]

Yep, friends parents have been doing it for years also. Bank of wet cells, solar panels on the roof and wind. It is very doable. Heating is with fire and cooking with gas.

I guess Slinnie that it is a similar case of people that living and relying in the water from the rain water tank.
I just wonder how many city people would be able to live with the restrictions of only relying in rain water.
Many will say that it is not possible, perhaps the same that say that it is not possible to live off the grid.

[Slunnie]

I guess Slinnie that it is a similar case of people that living and relying in the water from the rain water tank.
I just wonder how many city people would be able to live with the restrictions of only relying in rain water.
Many will say that it is not possible, perhaps the same that say that it is not possible to live off the grid.
Absolutely, thats a very good point.

I live off rainwater, as do all of my neighbours without issue. Even when things are dry, the tanks dont drop from full by much, there is so much excess that flows out as waste. But if a family of 6 has 20min showers, its not going to work unless you increase roof area and storage capacity.

Likewise with power, absolutely it can be done. But if you want to run 50 halogen lights in the roof of every room, 24hr AC cooling/heating etc etc then you're going to need to install the required infrastructure to make it work. If you cant afford that infrastructure then you don't waste power like that - its the same as water. But saying it cant be done... well there are a lot of people doing it.

[Mick_Marsh]

You need to help me here Mick. I only have to provide corroboration if I am the one making an assertion. If someone else makes that assertion to me then its true. Have I got the rules right?
I didn't realise there are rules covering this. Perhaps you could point them out to me.
Generally speaking, if you make a claim, support it with evidence. If there is no supporting evidence, it is unsubstantiated. If there is supporting evidence, we all can see where those claims came from and understand how they were arrived at.
If I ask for supporting evidence for your claims in means I am interested in learning more about your point of view. My point of view is not static. It changes as I understand new developments.
I shall see if I can source the calculations the fellow who works extensively in the electrical field.

Here's a few things to get you going. Have a look at your energy bill. How many kWh do you use in a day. Mine is approaching 20kWh.
Next, you look at the hours of usable sunlight you get per day. Here it is about 3 hours. So, I have to generate and store my 20kWh in just three hours. Because it is not uncommon to have three or four days straight of very over cast days, that means I'll have to generate 80kWh in three hours. Then you add a utilization factor that makes it more. From that you get the area of panels you need.
Then the batteries. You have to size the batteries such that they can operate without a charge for the three or four days. Add to that discharging them to their limits will greatly reduce the service life of the battery so this means more batteries to reduce the drain or replace them more often. They will fail over time so you have to take into account the cost of maintaining and disposing of the batteries as well as the cost of maintaining the solar panels. Yes, they do need maintenance. They aren't install and forget. I have several friends with solar panels who are finding this out.

By all means, if you, the reader of this post, believe I am wrong, put your money where your mouth is. Install an off grid solar system and don't make any changes to your lifestyle. I have put my money where my mouth is and have remained connected to the grid.

[Mick_Marsh]

Likewise with power, absolutely it can be done. But if you want to run 50 halogen lights in the roof of every room, 24hr AC cooling/heating etc etc then you're going to need to install the required infrastructure to make it work. If you cant afford that infrastructure then you don't waste power like that - its the same as water. But saying it cant be done... well there are a lot of people doing it.
Yep. This I agree with.
There are a lot of people making lifestyle choices and living within their power generation capacity.

I assume your friends heating is with a wood fire. Someone else posted on this forum how nasty burning wood is to the environment. Far nastier than burning coal to produce electricity for heating.

[Slunnie]

Yep. This I agree with.
There are a lot of people making lifestyle choices and living within their power generation capacity.

I assume your friends heating is with a wood fire. Someone else posted on this forum how nasty burning wood is to the environment. Far nastier than burning coal to produce electricity for heating.
They sure do burn wood for heating. If you build the house properly you almost don't need heating or cooling though. I hardly use it at all, but theirs isn't a modern home equipped to be efficient in that respect.

Interesting comments about the environment, I'm not really interested in debating it, but I was always under the impression that the opposite was correct based on all of the info that I've seen. Slow combustion heaters now are very efficient, though compared to coal they do have the local soot particles while the timber burns off the resins and comes up to temperature. I always understood the main difference is coal introduces new carbon into the environment, where timber released carbon that has been absorbed from the environment - for those interested enough I guess it depends what story wants to be pushed if it makes any difference.

[Chucaro]

They sure do burn wood for heating. If you build the house properly you almost don't need heating or cooling though. I hardly use it at all.

Exactly, our home is well planned where we live is not tropical.
Our winter electricity bill is under $300 a quarter.
We do not have gas for heating or cooking.

[Slunnie]

Exactly, our home is well planned where we live is not tropical.
Our winter electricity bill is under $300 a quarter.
We do not have gas for heating or cooking.
I live in what is considered cold climate, its probably a relative value though. Power consumption doesn't change much through the year though. Even in cold climate (within reason) the house stays warm by picking up the sun all day, and it traps it by using double glaze and R6 batts, There is no heat sinking etc either. Admittedly, I hate the cold, so I do use an electric blanket at night - I also hate 30kg of quilts and blankets on me too.

[bee utey]

You know, I have met several people who are living "off grid". They lead an alternate lifestyle. No TV. A few small 12v lights for lighting. Wood stove. Wood heating. Wood boosted solar hot water. One fellow I know has both solar and wind power on his house.
Very nice for a weekend away. A bit like camping.
That's not my kind of lifestyle 24/7/365.

You know that a reasonable size 12V LED TV (28" sized like the ones that used to be considered "big") would draw less than 60W, 60W of LED lighting will adequately do most of a house, and mud brick or straw bale construction is pretty well insulated. Fridges and freezers can be loads more efficient now too. A high consumption household is no longer a sign of comfortable living, but of being too lazy to innovate.

A friend of mine built herself a spacious 4 bedroom house in the country (plenty of room for guests) that's off grid using tracker equipped solar with an automatic backup generator. Since solar panels got cheaper she added a few kW worth to the roof and she's often the only household still fully functioning when the rest of the town has little more than candles. Her first set of batteries lasted 8 years, not bad value at all when you consider the alternatives. Water is strictly rain water, heating when it's filthy cold is wood or LPG, there's a large evaporative cooler too.

[disco man]

[QUOTE=Slunnie;2234003]They sure do burn wood for heating. If you build the house properly you almost don't need heating or cooling though. I hardly use it at all, but theirs isn't a modern home equipped to be efficient in that respect.

Before i went mining i had a roofing/insulation business, We did an Eco village comprising 8 houses with input from James cook university. The whole idea was to build these homes comprising gas/solar and the latest air-cell products in the roof and walls. Bearing in mind the walls were of block and render core filled every 1200mm to meet cyclone standards. Also ventilated soffit's with 4 whirly-birds in the roof.

The idea was to have these houses not needing power from the grid. The other parameter that they needed to meet was providing enough energy for a family of five. During the summer months and high humidity days the a/c was needed for long periods plus all the other things in the house operating. And the was no way the solar power was able to provide enough energy to run this house.

JCU tests showed this house if built right on the coast to use sea breezes MIGHT of met its targets. Not knocking solar/gas/wind but it doesn't work everywhere. And very few people could afford this style of home or to live right near the ocean. 100% off the grid is very hard to achieve in the tropics with a large family.

[Mick_Marsh]

You know that a reasonable size 12V LED TV (28" sized like the ones that used to be considered "big") would draw less than 60W
I have a 50" Plasma and home theatre system. I love my movies.
I have experienced 12V 28" Led TV's. I'd rather stay connected to the grid.

[Chucaro]

Few years ago, (our last home in Qld before returned to Tasmania) we bought a block of land in Moore Park Beach (25 Km Nth for Bundy)200 mts from the beach.
We selected the land for orientation, buildings around it and trees.
We designed a house according to the orinentation of the block and climate conditions.
It was based with two living blocks with a breeze way in the middle.
The house was built in a concrete slab usig steel frames and Colorbond cladding.
The insulation was Air cell (high rate)all around, bellow the roof sheeting.
We never used AC or heating, we never have problems with humidity.
The electricity bill was ridiculous low which never justified to install solar panels.
Living in that house off the grid was possible.

[Slunnie]

They sure do burn wood for heating. If you build the house properly you almost don't need heating or cooling though. I hardly use it at all, but theirs isn't a modern home equipped to be efficient in that respect.
Before i went mining i had a roofing/insulation business, We did an Eco village comprising 8 houses with input from James cook university. The whole idea was to build these homes comprising gas/solar and the latest air-cell products in the roof and walls. Bearing in mind the walls were of block and render core filled every 1200mm to meet cyclone standards. Also ventilated soffit's with 4 whirly-birds in the roof.

The idea was to have these houses not needing power from the grid. The other parameter that they needed to meet was providing enough energy for a family of five. During the summer months and high humidity days the a/c was needed for long periods plus all the other things in the house operating. And the was no way the solar power was able to provide enough energy to run this house.

JCU tests showed this house if built right on the coast to use sea breezes MIGHT of met its targets. Not knocking solar/gas/wind but it doesn't work everywhere. And very few people could afford this style of home or to live right near the ocean. 100% off the grid is very hard to achieve in the tropics with a large family.
Thats interesting - a very different perspective and outcome compared to Central West NSW.

[disco man]

Few years ago, (our last home in Qld before returned to Tasmania) we bought a block of land in Moore Park Beach (25 Km Nth for Bundy)200 mts from the beach.
We selected the land for orientation, buildings around it and trees.
We designed a house according to the orinentation of the block and climate conditions.
It was based with two living blocks with a breeze way in the middle.
The house was built in a concrete slab usig steel frames and Colorbond cladding.
The insulation was Air cell (high rate)all around, bellow the roof sheeting.
We never used AC or heating, we never have problems with humidity.
The electricity bill was ridiculous low which never justified to install solar panels.
Living in that house off the grid was possible.

G'day mate, One of the problems faced with these homes was where they were built( very little breeze), and in a built up area. I have never lived in Bundy so i can't comment on the humidity there compared to Townsville. And very few builders up here will clad a home in colorbond as the last round of cyclone testing showed it has no where near the strength of a block wall. But like i said if built right on the coast it might have worked.

[disco man]

Thats interesting - a very different perspective and outcome compared to Central West NSW.

That was in 2005,so maybe solar technology has improved since then. Not saying its impossible but when we did the project it didn't work all the time. But a better way to put it,there was maybe three months out of the year in total the solar system wasn't able to cope. But like i said it was 2005 so with improvements in technology maybe it can be done now.

[JDNSW]

Just to add my two pennyworth. I have lived off grid for twenty years, quite comfortably. But you have to compromise - definitely no airconditioning, house designed for thermal efficiency, heating by wood, hot water is wood boosted solar, rain water (no real problem as long as you do not want a garden full of exotics that cannot stand drought). A number of people from this forum have seen the house.

But the cost of being off grid is only even "sort of" justified by the high cost of connection, and without the $30,000+ connection fee it would have been impossible to even contemplate from an economic point of view.

Since then the cost of solar panels has come down considerably, but the cost of batteries, while down a bit, is still so high that off-grid is completely uneconomic even in a rural area where grid distribution costs are very high.

There are non-economic benefits, of course - like being the only place around still with lights after a major storm, for example, and not getting notice of the latest increase in prices, but these are balanced by having to spend time and money on maintenance, and trying to find the major lump sums needed every decade or so for battery replacement.

Burning wood is environmentally friendly in the sense that you are using a renewable resource rather than returning fossil carbon to the atmosphere. It can produce local air pollution, but this has to be considered in the context of coal fired power that produces considerably more air, dust and noise pollution during mining, transport and conversion to electricity - but for the average householder, this is "somewhere else" so they don't have to worry about it, where they may worry about next door's smoky wood heather!

John

[Chucaro]

Well said John.
I lived for two years in a motorhome (while touring and building our home)
We managed very well with 160 w solar panels and 2 Trojan 215 amps batteries.
We have a gas hot water system, an inverter for charging the LT and camera batteries.
So regarding power it is quite possible to live off the grid if we accommodate our life accordingly to the energy available to use.
It is a shame that using the Aladin lamps now it is far to expensive :D
Also I lived with my parents for few months in a remote ranch in la Patagonia, Argentina in 1953, well before the solar technology was discovered and the power for light was a 24 volt home made win generator.
If I have to live again in the bush I would plan my life style to use the bear minimum electricity and do the maximum kind of activities during day light.
It is possible and millions of people do it with comfort.
I will have a slow combustion stove with provision to heat water and house heating if it is needed.

[Tank]

So burning wood is preferable to burning coal, coal is a non renewable fossil fuel, wood is a non renewable non fossil fuel.
Burning wood is dirtier (Green House Gasses GHG) than all other fuels.
Wood is only renewable if there are more mature trees being grown than being cut down and NOWHERE on this Planet does this happen
Even if ALL of the CO2 was recaptured from burning wood, it would not make any difference. Methane is the worst GHG and it will be Methane that will trigger the point of no return for climate change.
Burning wood to save us having to go through climate change, is like ****ing for Virginity.
Burning wood for heating our homes is dirtier than electricity and over 1400 Australians die each and every year as a direct result of emissions from woodheaters.
Go off grid by all means but don't burn one of the things (Trees, the other is Oceans) that keeps us alive, Regards Frank.

[Slunnie]

So burning wood is preferable to burning coal, coal is a non renewable fossil fuel, wood is a non renewable non fossil fuel.
Burning wood is dirtier (Green House Gasses GHG) than all other fuels.
Wood is only renewable if there are more mature trees being grown than being cut down and NOWHERE on this Planet does this happen
Even if ALL of the CO2 was recaptured from burning wood, it would not make any difference. Methane is the worst GHG and it will be Methane that will trigger the point of no return for climate change.
Burning wood to save us having to go through climate change, is like ****ing for Virginity.
Burning wood for heating our homes is dirtier than electricity and over 1400 Australians die each and every year as a direct result of emissions from woodheaters.
Go off grid by all means but don't burn one of the things (Trees, the other is Oceans) that keeps us alive, Regards Frank.
But we are an extreme right wing Australia. There is is money in wood and we don't believe in climate change anymore.

[Chucaro]

There is not need to chop trees, there is a lot of wood in the forest floor that can be collected and at the same time keep the bush clean to prevent or minimize bush fires. :)

[Mick_Marsh]

There is not need to chop trees, there is a lot of wood in the forest floor that can be collected and at the same time keep the bush clean to prevent or minimize bush fires. :)
And what of all the forest critters that live in those dead trees and branches?

Think about it. Is there enough wood to heat all the homes in suburbia? And what of the many office buildings in the city? Can you imagine all the wood trucks clogging the city streets delivering wood to heat the office workers? Can you imagine the smoke haze in the city from all those fires burning wood in the middle of winter?

Coal is a big picture item. To understand it, we have to look at the big picture holistically.

[Slunnie]

Coal is a big picture item. To understand it, we have to look at the big picture holistically.
Thats about the reality of it in Aus as we are today.

It would be good for the Govt to be looking at methods other than coal and investing into these into the future. There are big ticket energy producing infrastructure items that don't produce greenhouse/carbon emissions which the country should be supporting.

[JDNSW]

I am afraid that is a load of rubbish about wood. Certainly in this area at least, all the wood that is burned for heating is wood that is already on the ground. And what happens to that wood if it is not burned usefully? As happened here seven years ago, twenty thousand hectares of it was converted to carbon dioxide over a period of about a month, leaving in many areas bare earth, not even blackened, so complete was the combustion, with underground roots burning for many weeks later.

This conversion would have far exceeded the amount of firewood from the area burned over the past fifty years. Already, after seven years, the regrowth of trees is well on the way to replacing the trees lost in the fire, although at a guess the amount of stored carbon that had been represented by the trees will take perhaps a century to replace all the fallen timber and ground litter that burnt in this fire.

And over much of NSW at least, the amount of ground covered more or less permanently with woody growth has been increasing for the last twenty years - although as I have just pointed out, much of this will be lost in future fires. In the Australian context, growing wood only permanently removes carbon from the atmosphere in the relatively small areas that are always too wet to burn. Hence it is inaccurate to consider wood as a non-renewable fuel, although it can be such if it is the product of land clearing.

The only readily available alternatives of coal generated electric power, natural gas or oil are all clearly non-renewable. And the health aspects of wood heating are not all that well supported, even in urban situations, and are virtually non-existent in isolated environments.

John

[Slunnie]

Would it be fair to say that timber which does break down releases these gasses anyway?

[bee utey]

Would it be fair to say that timber which does break down releases these gasses anyway?
Wood that breaks down naturally from rotting or termites produces CO2 as well as methane which is a big short term climate forcer. So the (climate wise) best solution is to burn the wood in well designed combustion stoves to reduce the air pollution associated with home heating.

[Mick_Marsh]

It would be good for the Govt to be looking at methods other than coal and investing into these into the future.
If the government still managed the power assets that are owned by the public, I would agree with you.
But!
The government sold off our assets to private industry with the mantra "Private industry does it better".
It's now time for private industry to show us how they do it better by investing in real solutions and technologies.

Yes, they are doing that. The pilot plant near Inniminka was a great example. It told us that hot rock power generation was great in that area but the infrastructure to get that power to the areas it is required is very coslty to put in place. Other areas closer to Melbournes supply grid were canvassed but unfortunately the rocks there were not hot enough.

Unfortunately, private industry are not yet showing us they can do it better and we should not expect the government to use our money to bail them out.

[Eevo]

i dont believe that renewable energy can provide enough power at a reasonable cost reliably on a large scale.

if it could, we would be using it already.

[Slunnie]

i dont believe that renewable energy can provide enough power at a reasonable cost reliably on a large scale.

if it could, we would be using it already.
The status quo has not remained. Large scale solar at least has begun although some large scale setups have been withdrawn with the change in government.

Large-scale solar builds in Australia | Australian Renewable Energy Agency (http://arena.gov.au/media/large-scale-solar-builds-in-australia/)

[PAT303]

Maybe someone in the know could work out how many solar panels and batteries we would need,with an accepted level above for redundancy to power the train system in Perth as well as the lights,sewage,water,security systems,internet,roads etc etc etc and see how much it takes to power one city,just the base amount for the city to operate.The system must be as reliable as the gas/coil grid. Pat

[Mick_Marsh]

Maybe someone in the know could work out how many solar panels and batteries we would need,with an accepted level above for redundancy to power the train system in Perth as well as the lights,sewage,water,security systems,internet,roads etc etc etc and see how much it takes to power one city,just the base amount for the city to operate.The system must be as reliable as the gas/coil grid. Pat
Just a quick calc here.

Oh, look what the answer is, lots.

I've got to say, the project I would be interested in is geothermal from under the coal beds. You wouldn't have to modify the existing infrastructure much. I would like to see a company build a pilot plant to ascertain whether it's viable or not.

[chuck]

The trouble with the Greenies is they want to ban everything they see as bad before there is a viable alternative.

They are always the naysayers & the noisy minority.

They travel to their meeting and protests in old inefficient cars that belch out pollution.

The live in inner suburban housing that consumes more energy.

They don't want us to visit the bush in our 4x4's.

Yes we do need to be more efficient.
Yes we do need to invest in alternative energy.

[Homestar]

Tell you what - I'll provide mine when you provide the details of the "fellow" you've been "talking to" and his calcualtions. How does that sound?

Until then - why not google up one of the 10s of thousands of accounts of people living off the grid?

I know who Mick is talking about and without going into all the details, just stop to think for a minute.

A 5KW solar system can provide up to around 25KWH per day in ideal conditions. As low as 3 or 4 during a rainy winters day. What's your average power consumption for an average family? Remember that we're talking about an average family that likes to have their cheap Chinese AC's running all day and all night on a hot day, and want to run a couple of loads of washing through the dryer each day in Winter. According to Government research that's around 20KWH per day for a family of 4. Higher in some places, lower in others. Go and check out the average for your area - https://www.energymadeeasy.gov.au/energy-efficiency/what-is-average-electricity-usage

So, in Summer with 5KW, you may just have enough to get by assuming your battery system can store half that and it can store all unused energy produced during the day, but in Winter, your going to need around 40KW of panels to get by, and a battery system that can hold at least 20KWH of power. That leaves nothing up your sleeve for any issues, or losses and assuming you can drain your batteries completely each night, so multiply that by at least 1.5. So a 60KW array and 30KWH battery bank may keep your average family going all year around.

So an average 200 watt panel is around 1.25 square meters. You need 300 panels for the above system, so 375 square meters - the size of a small suburban block of land. Oh, and there goes $70K on the panels before you buy your batteries and find a charger that can handle the requirements of this system.

In 10 years, your up for new batteries, so after the cost of installation and allowing for new batteries, what 'average' family would or could afford to go off the grid?

I'm not saying that some can't go off grid - but it's a lifestyle choice as your power consumption has to drop by magnitudes to be able to do it.

[Homestar]

We have a family friend who moved to a rural block. Didn't want to pay the huge fee to get connected to power, so designed his own solar PV system and a battery bank. Is on tank water too so has to run water pumps. He has a full size brick and tile house with 240v power throughout. Runs all the same appliances as we do, living in the suburbs; dishwasher, washing machine, iron, etc....

His solar array takes up most of his roof area. His battery bank is in a medium size garden shed.

He did all this over 20 years ago. Your mate is smoking drugs.

What does he use as far as heating/cooling/hot water? It sounds like a great setup, and I'm not saying it can't be done - just that is impractical for most and fanciful to think the majority of the population would change their lifestyle to fit into this sort of environment.

And, in case you think I'm a doubter about solar - I'm not. If I had the money or won tatts, I'd go right now and do exactly what your mates done, but I understand the limitations of the technology - particularly the storage which is going to be the killer until we make a quantum leap in battery tech.

[Rurover]

Right, I've decided to buy into the argument, because I think it's important to explode a few myths!

First to the argument about whether or not a household can comfortably live off the grid. Well, I’ve visited several houses in my region (the South East of SA , which has a cool to cold climate similar to SW Victoria and Melbourne) where families are happily enjoying all the mod cons with no grid connection. They have modest solar panel installations and in one case a supplementary small wind turbine.
They DO have solar hot water (often supplemented in winter by wood heated hot water), and they DO have energy efficient well designed houses, which naturally stay cool in summer and warm in winter.

Most of us live in shockingly inefficient houses with average insulation at best, poor sealing, completely wrong orientation (why oh WHY does the house have to face the bloody street??), lack of correctly designed eave overhang, dark coloured , heat trapping roofs etc etc. It’s all about being “trendy” rather than energy efficient!
The cost of solar panels is now so low that it’s cheaper per MW to build a solar PV power station than to build a new collar or even gas fired power station. Generally large scale wind and large scale solar thermal power stations are also cheaper to build than new coal fired power in particular. And of course the running costs of solar PV in particular, once built is negligible.
China (the world’s biggest market for thermal coal) now has a policy of phasing out coal for power generation in favour of renewables. They have a massive program to install thousands of megawatts of renewables over the next few decades. Already they have imposed restrictions on the quality of coal they’re prepared to buy and this alone will have a significant impact on Australian exports. Partly due to the chronic air pollution problems they have to address, but also due to concerns about climate change. Chinese leaders have also announced they soon introduce a price on carbon (unlike Australia which has just dropped its carbon price!). They’ve even announced the price range they expect the market will have to pay.

Next year (2015) for the first time in many years, China will start a downward trend of thermal coal consumption. This trend will be long term.

India (another huge user of coal ) is also committed to developing massive renewable energy projects rather than using coal or gas. The reasons... It is now and will increasingly be cheaper to install than coal or gas fired power and it's ideally suited to small rural communities, where the need for power is as yet unmet in many cases.

I think with these two huge customers for Australian coal looking to reduce their consumption significantly you can kiss goodbye (thankfully) to the huge Galilee Basin projects...they just won’t be able to make money in a world where there’s over-supply of the stuff and reducing demand.
The fact that many investors, banks, private equity funds and pension funds are announcing a pull-back from fossil fuel investments backs this assessment. They see these trends, and they are very wary of the future for coal and gas (and even petroleum in some cases).

Getting back to the issue of renewable power generation. A number of countries (including Germany) are committed to and are planning for a switch to 100% renewable power by around 2050. With smart grid technology (which can among other things switch non-critical loads off momentarily to save peaking power demand) and with a mix of renewables and use of storage technology (molten salt to store heat overnight, pumped hydro to store potential energy, and of course a diversity of battery technologies...including Electric Vehicles connected to the grid), this goal is quite achievable.
Admittedly, right now, the cost of batteries is too high to make it worthwhile economically most for households or event small communities to pull the plug on the grid.
But there are some exciting trends in the battery market that could mirror what happened to solar panel prices, including Elon Musk (Tesla Electric Vehicles) and his Chinese competitors planning to build massive “super factories” to produce cheaper batteries for EV’s and power systems.

It’s worth noting that the big power players in Australia and overseas are generally dead scared of these trends. They can see their cosy money making model being eroded by these new renewable technologies. The new power paradigm is based on “distributed energy generation” (ie much more local and not needing a massive grid and huge centralised power stations), very much based on renewable energy technology, requiring a completely new billing and buying system based on customers who bother buy and sell power to their local grid and get paid or billed at variable rates depending on the supply/demand situation at the time.

Worth noting that many pundits DO see a role for small scale nuclear power in this new model. Modular semi transportable nuclear power units (some as small as a 25 MW) are being developed by a number of companies worldwide which can be quickly set up and plugged into a grid with little ongoing maintenance and failsafe technology which by design defaults to a “shut down” situation if there’s any problem.

Finally to the use of wood for heating and power generation. MANY communities in Europe use very efficient wood and waste fired boilers to generate significant power (bio-energy). These co-generation units also produce “waste” heat which is circulated to heat municipal and often commercial and domestic buildings. As the timber/sawdust/woodchips they use comes from commercially grown renewable forests and plantations, they are NOT increasing the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. (OK, some CO2 will be generated in transporting the stuff to the boilers).
They also often burn industrial, municipal and agricultural waste.
These computer controlled modern units generate no smoke, and little or no particulate matter and are easy to maintain. We have a small one in my town (Mount Gambier) heating the water in the local swimming pool (using wood chips from local pine plantations) and it’s been a huge success. There are also plans to build at least one large scale commercial wood fired co-generation unit at a large sawmill in a nearby town. This will feed a significant amount of power into the grid.

The overall message is, the old models for generating power are on the way out. Just as digital technology replaced film based photographs, so renewable technology will largely replace old coal and gas fired power generators. It’s a new ballgame which MOST of the world is embracing. It’s sad (and tragic and ultimately economically stupid) that Australia is actively resisting this change in order to protect the interests of our powerful coal and gas mining sector and of the major “Gentailers” such as AGL, Energy Australia etc.

Like King Canute, Tony Abbott and the "Luddite Party" (Sorry, political content :angel:) is trying to hold back the tide, but it’s a futile effort. Given our huge natural resources of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy we (Australia) OUGHT to be leading the charge. W do have world class researchers, businesses and institutions developing a lot of the technology that’s involved in this transformation, but they’re being sidelined in favour of the coal, gas and big energy lobby.

In terms of jobs created, renewable energy has much more upside than coal and gas. Then you can add in the health savings, reduced carbon emissions etc and it’s really a no-brainer!
Bottom line.... The more coal (and gas) we leave in the ground, the better. In fact one day our children and grand-children may actually thank us for leaving SOME resources for future generations, rather than frantically digging them up and extracting them as fast as we can!

[Chucaro]

IMO the argument that it is not possible to live of the grid and have a comfortable life style it is similar argument put by those earning $5000 a week or more and have the life style according to that income and say that it is impossible to live with a salary of $1000 a week.
In the same manner that we can not live a lifestyle which it is beyond our financial capabilities we cannot keep living a life style that it is non sustainable by the environment.
Soon or later something have to give. :(
The only difference is that if we ignoring our finances very quickly we are going to face with our neglect, in the other hand if we ignoring the damage to the environment we are not going to notice it much but the next generations will be in trouble.
The right attitude does not have nothing to do with the greens, tree hugers,etc, it is a matter of responsibility, caring and not being selfish

[Tank]

Wood that breaks down naturally can take up to a thousand years, allowing regrowth and enriching the soil, burning it releases it immediately and as we are the third biggest tree clearing nation on earth there is no way wood can be classed as renewable, we are using it faster than we can produce it.
The best wood stoves emit 1 to 2 g. of particulate matter (PM)/kg./24 hour period of wood burnt, which is more than a car emits in 1 year.
So lets hear about this woodheater which you say is good for the environment.
Read this, esp JDNSW
, Regards Frank.



State's top doctor says we should consider banning wood fire heaters – 5 July 2014

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/states-top-doctor-says-we-should-consider-banning-wood-fire-heaters-20140705-zsx92.html#ixzz36leKnDsw (wlmailhtml:{0E55BC53-D98B-4177-869A-6304B33F059E}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/states-top-doctor-says-we-should-consider-banning-wood-fire-heaters-20140705-zsx92.html#ixzz36leKnDsw)





The NSW government is considering banning wood fire heaters following a call from the state's top doctor.


NSW Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant says the heaters are so detrimental to the health she supported banning and phasing out the heaters in built-up urban areas as an option to control wood smoke.


NSW Health has advocated the government give councils greater regulatory powers to impose controls in their area, taking into account topography, population density, socio-economic status and the availability of alternative heating options.


On Friday night, Environment Minister Rob Stokes said he would consider all options to reduce the impact of wood smoke emissions.


Dr Chant said the use of wood burning heaters inside homes should be avoided.


“Not only do wood-burning heaters pollute outdoor air, they also worsen indoor air quality," she said.


“Long-term exposure to particulate pollution, especially finer particles known as PM2.5, can cause heart and lung disease while brief exposures can aggravate asthma and worsen pre-existing heart and lung conditions.


“I understand that in remote areas that wood heaters may be the only good source of heating. However, in areas where there is access to a broad range of heating options, it is important that we look at the contribution that wood smoke makes to air quality, not just locally but the regional air shed.”


As smoke sat across the Sydney basin this week, the brown haze produced a number of brilliant sunsets but also cast a far deadlier pall, medical experts say.


The Environment Protection Authority estimates wood fire heaters are responsible for an average 75 per cent of Sydney’s fine particle pollution during July, and this figure is much higher on certain winter days.


The cost to health of wood smoke emissions across urban, regional and rural areas was estimated to be $8.1 billion over the next 20 years.


Without greater regulatory controls, the emissions are forecast to grow by at least 20 per cent in Sydney over the next 15 years.


The rise in popularity of the heaters has prompted health groups such as the Asthma Foundation to claim last week that wood smoke emissions in winter now pose a bigger immediate health danger in built up urban areas than cars or cigarettes.


Standards Australia is reviewing new technical standards for wood fire heaters for this country and New Zealand. However, critics say the new settings for emissions - a maximum 2.5 grams for every kilo of wood burnt - are 20 years behind best practice countries and will do little to stop the increase in fine particle pollution.


Mr Stokes said he recognised that smoke from wood heaters does have health impacts, adding he had asked the EPA to investigate how best to empower councils to protect local communities from problem wood smoke.


Asked whether responsibility for Sydney's air pollution problems should rest with 38 individual councils, the environment minister said he would consider all options to fix the problems.


He said was working with the environment ministers of other states and the government to develop a National Clean Air Agreement to improve the management of particle pollution, including from wood heaters.


An Australian Home Heating Association spokeswoman questioned the findings that wood fire heaters were the main source of the fine particle pollution in winter.


“Open brick fireplaces, diesel vehicles, road and rail transport, coal-fired power generations, hazard reduction burns and bushfires all contribute to sources of PM2.5 – are these considered when discussing the source of poor air quality,” the spokeswoman said.


“We recognise wood heaters contribute to the overall air quality in built-up areas. (But) the air quality data only measures the fine particulate in the air. It has no way of measuring the source.”



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/states-top-doctor-says-we-should-consider-banning-wood-fire-heaters-20140705-zsx92.html#ixzz36le8IkXK (wlmailhtml:{0E55BC53-D98B-4177-869A-6304B33F059E}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/states-top-doctor-says-we-should-consider-banning-wood-fire-heaters-20140705-zsx92.html#ixzz36le8IkXK)

[Tank]

This ridiculous statement by the people that make big dollars selling woodheaters shows how ignorant and how low they will stoop to fool the public.
Quote from AHHA:
We recognise wood heaters contribute to the overall air quality in built-up areas. (But) the air quality data only measures the fine particulate in the air. It has no way of measuring the source.”

Of course they can measure to determine the source, the PM collected at monitoring stations is Carbon Dated to determine whether PM is from Fossil fuels (Millions of years old) or woodheater emissions, i.e. Wood which is Recent up to 200 years only.
Sydney has only 13%> of households that use woodheaters yet they contribute to 60%> of weekday air pollution and up to 87%> on weekends for up to 6 months of the year.
My town of Moruya pop. around 3500 has over 60% of households that use woodheaters for up to 6 months/year.
John (JDNSW) declares the woodheater problem to be rubbish, he lives in the middle of nowhere with his nearest neighbour miles away, yet he makes out he's an expert on the problems of woodheaters in built up areas of towns and cities, he doesn't offer any proof, he just says it and it is so.
John if you want to experience what it is like living with neighbours all around using woodheaters continually, then remove your inside flue and breathe in all that good "Rubbish" you seem to know ALL about.
The Senate committee that heard submissions recently from such rubbish sources as Australian Lung Foundation, Asthma Foundation, AMA, EPA, CSIRO are considering ways to tax wooheater polluters with Fees and Taxes and Permits, hit the nerve pocket, as Advertising "NO BURN NIGHTS, community Education and Council buy-back woodheater schemes have not worked, In Perth WA a spokesperson said after an extensive 2 year education program of media and pamphlets said when results showed a minus 2% improvement that "you can't educate idiots".
So it seems it is going to get expensive to pollute with your woodheaters, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

Right, I've decided to buy into the argument, because I think it's important to explode a few myths!

First to the argument about whether or not a household can comfortably live off the grid. Well, I’ve visited several houses in my region (the South East of SA , which has a cool to cold climate similar to SW Victoria and Melbourne) where families are happily enjoying all the mod cons with no grid connection. They have modest solar panel installations and in one case a supplementary small wind turbine.
They DO have solar hot water (often supplemented in winter by wood heated hot water), and they DO have energy efficient well designed houses, which naturally stay cool in summer and warm in winter.

Most of us live in shockingly inefficient houses with average insulation at best, poor sealing, completely wrong orientation (why oh WHY does the house have to face the bloody street??), lack of correctly designed eave overhang, dark coloured , heat trapping roofs etc etc. It’s all about being “trendy” rather than energy efficient!
The cost of solar panels is now so low that it’s cheaper per MW to build a solar PV power station than to build a new collar or even gas fired power station. Generally large scale wind and large scale solar thermal power stations are also cheaper to build than new coal fired power in particular. And of course the running costs of solar PV in particular, once built is negligible.
China (the world’s biggest market for thermal coal) now has a policy of phasing out coal for power generation in favour of renewables. They have a massive program to install thousands of megawatts of renewables over the next few decades. Already they have imposed restrictions on the quality of coal they’re prepared to buy and this alone will have a significant impact on Australian exports. Partly due to the chronic air pollution problems they have to address, but also due to concerns about climate change. Chinese leaders have also announced they soon introduce a price on carbon (unlike Australia which has just dropped its carbon price!). They’ve even announced the price range they expect the market will have to pay.

Next year (2015) for the first time in many years, China will start a downward trend of thermal coal consumption. This trend will be long term.

India (another huge user of coal ) is also committed to developing massive renewable energy projects rather than using coal or gas. The reasons... It is now and will increasingly be cheaper to install than coal or gas fired power and it's ideally suited to small rural communities, where the need for power is as yet unmet in many cases.

I think with these two huge customers for Australian coal looking to reduce their consumption significantly you can kiss goodbye (thankfully) to the huge Galilee Basin projects...they just won’t be able to make money in a world where there’s over-supply of the stuff and reducing demand.
The fact that many investors, banks, private equity funds and pension funds are announcing a pull-back from fossil fuel investments backs this assessment. They see these trends, and they are very wary of the future for coal and gas (and even petroleum in some cases).

Getting back to the issue of renewable power generation. A number of countries (including Germany) are committed to and are planning for a switch to 100% renewable power by around 2050. With smart grid technology (which can among other things switch non-critical loads off momentarily to save peaking power demand) and with a mix of renewables and use of storage technology (molten salt to store heat overnight, pumped hydro to store potential energy, and of course a diversity of battery technologies...including Electric Vehicles connected to the grid), this goal is quite achievable.
Admittedly, right now, the cost of batteries is too high to make it worthwhile economically most for households or event small communities to pull the plug on the grid.
But there are some exciting trends in the battery market that could mirror what happened to solar panel prices, including Elon Musk (Tesla Electric Vehicles) and his Chinese competitors planning to build massive “super factories” to produce cheaper batteries for EV’s and power systems.

It’s worth noting that the big power players in Australia and overseas are generally dead scared of these trends. They can see their cosy money making model being eroded by these new renewable technologies. The new power paradigm is based on “distributed energy generation” (ie much more local and not needing a massive grid and huge centralised power stations), very much based on renewable energy technology, requiring a completely new billing and buying system based on customers who bother buy and sell power to their local grid and get paid or billed at variable rates depending on the supply/demand situation at the time.

Worth noting that many pundits DO see a role for small scale nuclear power in this new model. Modular semi transportable nuclear power units (some as small as a 25 MW) are being developed by a number of companies worldwide which can be quickly set up and plugged into a grid with little ongoing maintenance and failsafe technology which by design defaults to a “shut down” situation if there’s any problem.

Finally to the use of wood for heating and power generation. MANY communities in Europe use very efficient wood and waste fired boilers to generate significant power (bio-energy). These co-generation units also produce “waste” heat which is circulated to heat municipal and often commercial and domestic buildings. As the timber/sawdust/woodchips they use comes from commercially grown renewable forests and plantations, they are NOT increasing the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. (OK, some CO2 will be generated in transporting the stuff to the boilers).
They also often burn industrial, municipal and agricultural waste.
These computer controlled modern units generate no smoke, and little or no particulate matter and are easy to maintain. We have a small one in my town (Mount Gambier) heating the water in the local swimming pool (using wood chips from local pine plantations) and it’s been a huge success. There are also plans to build at least one large scale commercial wood fired co-generation unit at a large sawmill in a nearby town. This will feed a significant amount of power into the grid.

The overall message is, the old models for generating power are on the way out. Just as digital technology replaced film based photographs, so renewable technology will largely replace old coal and gas fired power generators. It’s a new ballgame which MOST of the world is embracing. It’s sad (and tragic and ultimately economically stupid) that Australia is actively resisting this change in order to protect the interests of our powerful coal and gas mining sector and of the major “Gentailers” such as AGL, Energy Australia etc.

Like King Canute, Tony Abbott and the "Luddite Party" (Sorry, political content :angel:) is trying to hold back the tide, but it’s a futile effort. Given our huge natural resources of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy we (Australia) OUGHT to be leading the charge. W do have world class researchers, businesses and institutions developing a lot of the technology that’s involved in this transformation, but they’re being sidelined in favour of the coal, gas and big energy lobby.

In terms of jobs created, renewable energy has much more upside than coal and gas. Then you can add in the health savings, reduced carbon emissions etc and it’s really a no-brainer!
Bottom line.... The more coal (and gas) we leave in the ground, the better. In fact one day our children and grand-children may actually thank us for leaving SOME resources for future generations, rather than frantically digging them up and extracting them as fast as we can!
What a lot of people are forgetting is that burning wood emits more than CO2, which IF from a renewable resource is OK.
But the CO2 is only part of the emissions, Nitrous Oxides, Methane, 23 times a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, CO, Dioxins, Lead, Mercury, Formaldahyde, Creosote, Baps (20 times the amount in the same volume of tobacco smoke) and the major Carcinogen, PAH's, POPs and a whole withches brew of carcinogenic compounds.
Now it would be marvellous if people really knew what was coming out of their chimneys and flowing into their neighbours house and on cold air inversion nights where up to 40% of what goes up the chimney can be drawn back into the house by the flue or backdraft.
CO2 is the only Green House Gas (GHG) when anyone talks about wood heater emissions, that is because there is a protocol for measuring CO2 against trees removed and trees replaced.
The big science mobs look at CO2 being GHG neutral, BUT ONLY IF THE FUEL IS CERTIFIED FROM A RENEWABLE RESOURCE.
There are NO protocols for measuring the OTHER GHG's that don't get a mention when it comes to discussions about wood burning as environmentally friendly, another hoax perpertrated on the Aussie public.
So the bloodsucking bastards that sell woodheaters claiming they are environmentally friendly are guilty of fraud, they know for instance that the wood heaters they sell will spend around 18 hours a day smouldering so as they can be kept alight overnight and during the day when at work. This despite the AHHA says you shouldn't smoulder overnight in their blurb, but in your ear when buying they say light up at the first sign of cold weather and you won't have to relight because the machine will smoulder for up to 18 hours a day.
One woodheater smoulding for 18 hours over a 24 hour burn period will emit more Particulate Matter (PM 2.5<) than a car will in it's entire lifetime.
Regards Frank.

[Mick_Marsh]

IMO the argument that it is not possible to live of the grid and have a comfortable life style it is similar argument put by those earning $5000 a week or more and have the life style according to that income and say that it is impossible to live with a salary of $1000 a week.
In the same manner that we can not live a lifestyle which it is beyond our financial capabilities we cannot keep living a life style that it is non sustainable by the environment.
Soon or later something have to give. :(
The only difference is that if we ignoring our finances very quickly we are going to face with our neglect, in the other hand if we ignoring the damage to the environment we are not going to notice it much but the next generations will be in trouble.
The right attitude does not have nothing to do with the greens, tree hugers,etc, it is a matter of responsibility, caring and not being selfish
The thing is, for the majority of people, when given the choice of cheap power or green power, the significant majority of the population will choose cheap power.

[Mick_Marsh]

First to the argument about whether or not a household can comfortably live off the grid. Well, I?€™ve visited several houses in my region (the South East of SA , which has a cool to cold climate similar to SW Victoria and Melbourne) where families are happily enjoying all the mod cons with no grid connection. They have modest solar panel installations and in one case a supplementary small wind turbine.
They DO have solar hot water (often supplemented in winter by wood heated hot water), and they DO have energy efficient well designed houses, which naturally stay cool in summer and warm in winter.
There is no argument there. You've missed the point. The argument is whether or not they can live off the grid and maintain their existing 20kWh/day lifestyle lifestyle at the same price or cheaper than grid connection using only solar panels within the existing roof line of a dwelling and using a room the size of a small garden shed for batteries. The pro solar pundits are saying it can be done but are unprepared to offer evidence as to how.


Most of us live in shockingly inefficient houses with average insulation at best, poor sealing, completely wrong orientation (why oh WHY does the house have to face the bloody street??), lack of correctly designed eave overhang, dark coloured , heat trapping roofs etc etc. It?€™s all about being ?€œtrendy?€? rather than energy efficient!
I think it is unrealistic to expect almost every house owner to bulldoze their existing dwelling and erect an energy efficient one. Somehow I suspect it may be cheaper to remain connected to the grid.

The cost of solar panels is now so low that it?€™s cheaper per MW to build a solar PV power station than to build a new collar or even gas fired power station. Generally large scale wind and large scale solar thermal power stations are also cheaper to build than new coal fired power in particular. And of course the running costs of solar PV in particular, once built is negligible.
Then why isn't private industry building them? Yes, they are building small installations and pilot plants but they have nothing to rival the capacity and stability of the big mud burners out in the Latrobe Valley.

China (the world?€™s biggest market for thermal coal) now has a policy of phasing out coal for power generation in favour of renewables. They have a massive program to install thousands of megawatts of renewables over the next few decades. Already they have imposed restrictions on the quality of coal they?€™re prepared to buy and this alone will have a significant impact on Australian exports. Partly due to the chronic air pollution problems they have to address, but also due to concerns about climate change. Chinese leaders have also announced they soon introduce a price on carbon (unlike Australia which has just dropped its carbon price!). They?€™ve even announced the price range they expect the market will have to pay.
Don't get me started on that. There is a different thread that deals with this subject.
My opinion, emissions trading, good, carbon pricing, bad. Also, all the world should do it, not just us. Moving along........


Next year (2015) for the first time in many years, China will start a downward trend of thermal coal consumption. This trend will be long term.

India (another huge user of coal ) is also committed to developing massive renewable energy projects rather than using coal or gas. The reasons... It is now and will increasingly be cheaper to install than coal or gas fired power and it's ideally suited to small rural communities, where the need for power is as yet unmet in many cases.

I think with these two huge customers for Australian coal looking to reduce their consumption significantly you can kiss goodbye (thankfully) to the huge Galilee Basin projects...they just won?€™t be able to make money in a world where there?€™s over-supply of the stuff and reducing demand.
The fact that many investors, banks, private equity funds and pension funds are announcing a pull-back from fossil fuel investments backs this assessment. They see these trends, and they are very wary of the future for coal and gas (and even petroleum in some cases).

Getting back to the issue of renewable power generation. A number of countries (including Germany) are committed to and are planning for a switch to 100% renewable power by around 2050.
Best responded by someone else.

Hmm Germany eh?
The country that just recommissioned 5 coal fired plants and had to buy electricity from Austria in Winter.
Germany forced to buy Austrian electricity - The Local (http://www.thelocal.de/20120105/39933)
Regards Philip A

With smart grid technology (which can among other things switch non-critical loads off momentarily to save peaking power demand) and with a mix of renewables and use of storage technology (molten salt to store heat overnight, pumped hydro to store potential energy, and of course a diversity of battery technologies...including Electric Vehicles connected to the grid), this goal is quite achievable.
Admittedly, right now, the cost of batteries is too high to make it worthwhile economically most for households or event small communities to pull the plug on the grid.
But there are some exciting trends in the battery market that could mirror what happened to solar panel prices, including Elon Musk (Tesla Electric Vehicles) and his Chinese competitors planning to build massive ?€œsuper factories?€? to produce cheaper batteries for EV?€™s and power systems.

It?€™s worth noting that the big power players in Australia and overseas are generally dead scared of these trends. They can see their cosy money making model being eroded by these new renewable technologies. The new power paradigm is based on ?€œdistributed energy generation?€? (ie much more local and not needing a massive grid and huge centralised power stations), very much based on renewable energy technology, requiring a completely new billing and buying system based on customers who bother buy and sell power to their local grid and get paid or billed at variable rates depending on the supply/demand situation at the time.

Worth noting that many pundits DO see a role for small scale nuclear power in this new model. Modular semi transportable nuclear power units (some as small as a 25 MW) are being developed by a number of companies worldwide which can be quickly set up and plugged into a grid with little ongoing maintenance and failsafe technology which by design defaults to a ?€œshut down?€? situation if there?€™s any problem.

Finally to the use of wood for heating and power generation. MANY communities in Europe use very efficient wood and waste fired boilers to generate significant power (bio-energy). These co-generation units also produce ?€œwaste?€? heat which is circulated to heat municipal and often commercial and domestic buildings. As the timber/sawdust/woodchips they use comes from commercially grown renewable forests and plantations, they are NOT increasing the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. (OK, some CO2 will be generated in transporting the stuff to the boilers).
They also often burn industrial, municipal and agricultural waste.
These computer controlled modern units generate no smoke, and little or no particulate matter and are easy to maintain. We have a small one in my town (Mount Gambier) heating the water in the local swimming pool (using wood chips from local pine plantations) and it?€™s been a huge success.
Yep. But they don't replace the grid, they're supplemental and will never power The Mount independent of the grid, even with the local wind turbines.
There are also plans to build at least one large scale commercial wood fired co-generation unit at a large sawmill in a nearby town. This will feed a significant amount of power into the grid.
While the growing of trees absorbs CO2 the trimming, felling, chipping, transporting and burning releases more CO2 than was absorbed. The other source of biomass is waste products from places like timber mills. The burning still releases CO2. So while it is a renewable energy it is not carbon neutral.
Interestingly, there is a Cogen plant powering an industrial installation in a small town near you. They are independent of the grid. Their Cogen plant is fueled by gas, not wood chips. Again, not carbon neutral

The overall message is, the old models for generating power are on the way out. Just as digital technology replaced film based photographs, so renewable technology will largely replace old coal and gas fired power generators. It?€™s a new ballgame which MOST of the world is embracing. It?€™s sad (and tragic and ultimately economically stupid) that Australia is actively resisting this change in order to protect the interests of our powerful coal and gas mining sector and of the major ?€œGentailers?€? such as AGL, Energy Australia etc.

Like King Canute, Tony Abbott and the "Luddite Party" (Sorry, political content :angel:) is trying to hold back the tide, but it?€™s a futile effort. Given our huge natural resources of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy we (Australia) OUGHT to be leading the charge. W do have world class researchers, businesses and institutions developing a lot of the technology that?€™s involved in this transformation, but they?€™re being sidelined in favour of the coal, gas and big energy lobby.

In terms of jobs created, renewable energy has much more upside than coal and gas. Then you can add in the health savings, reduced carbon emissions etc and it?€™s really a no-brainer!
Bottom line.... The more coal (and gas) we leave in the ground, the better. In fact one day our children and grand-children may actually thank us for leaving SOME resources for future generations, rather than frantically digging them up and extracting them as fast as we can!
I am not against renewables and carbon neutral. It's just that they are still a loooooong way from replacing out existing coal based infrastructure an it is just a drop in the ocean of supplying our energy needs.

[JDNSW]

I am reminded in this discussion that when I was at school sixty years ago, coal was regarded as a dying industry - trains were going to oil, electricity was going nuclear, and within the next few years coal mining would be a thing of the past. As probably most are aware, coal use has continued to grow ever since.

I strongly suspect that in fifty years time it will still be around.

The driver for this is, of course, unchecked population growth, which has seen the end of cheap oil and gas despite exploration success unthought of then, added to irrational fear of nuclear power.

Frank, none of your data addresses the simple fact that in the majority of NSW at least, most of the wood that is "saved" from being burnt for heating is burnt anyway in major fires which recur at intervals of 50-100 years. Nor the fact that draconian clearing rules in NSW have resulted in large areas of the state becoming overgrown with woody weeds, far outweighing any clearing that actually has taken place. This is the state (although not alone) that has made protecting your house from bushfires a criminal offence, something a lot of Blue Mountains and Warrumbungles residents are currently unhappy about (joining thousands of Victorians in their feeling!).

And while large numbers of wood burning heaters are a problem in at least some urban areas, to suggest a ban on them throughout the state is (again) unfairly penalising those who do not live in towns and cities. Perhaps an explanation as to how my kitchen fire affects my nearest neighbour five kilometres away could be supplied? In my case the only feasible alternative would be a fossil fuel - which not only would be more expensive, but far less carbon neutral. To change to electric heating and cooking would require a capital investment running into many tens of thousands of dollars for panels, batteries and other infrastructure, with battery replacement costs of thousands of dollars a year.

John

[London Boy]

No more coal mining? terrific idea:D

then we can also close down the iron ore mines (no coal =no steel ),
Just drawing the obvious distinction between metallurgical coal and energy coal. They are chemically different, come from different mines, and are used for different purposes.

So yes, shutting down met coal mines would be a problem, shutting down energy coal mines would be an opportunity.

[Beery]

Carnegie Wave Energy (http://www.carnegiewave.com/)

I believe this is going to be a game changer in base load renewables. Ive been following their progress for a number of years and think they have a brilliant technology.

If any of the 'armchair experts' out there haven't heard of this company and don't have a good understanding of the technology, then you have just proven yourselves to be such. Perth/WA residents especially!

Tom

[Homestar]

Carnegie Wave Energy (http://www.carnegiewave.com/)

I believe this is going to be a game changer in base load renewables. Ive been following their progress for a number of years and think they have a brilliant technology.

If any of the 'armchair experts' out there haven't heard of this company and don't have a good understanding of the technology, then you have just proven yourselves to be such. Perth/WA residents especially!

Tom

That's pretty cool. I must admit I hasn't heard about this. Seen other wave energy projects that have had limited success. The zero visual impact and having everything under the surface is a very different approach. Hope they have a lot of success with it. :)

[Beery]

The zero visual impact and having everything under the surface is a very different approach. :)

Exactly! Being under the surface also makes it largely unaffected by storms / high seas.
The thing I love about it (well there are many things, really) is that they have used 'off the shelf' techniques/equipment that were developed by the offshore oil & gas industry!

Also produces desal water in the process.

The simplest things are often the best...i.e. a piston pump attached to a buoy. That sums up the whole idea!

[Homestar]

Yeah, no fancy new technology - all proven systems and designs. :)

Looking at their website, I couldn't find an output rating for the CETO 5 units. The earlier CETO 3 shows 80KW - not too shabby all things considered. Assuming the CETO 5 will produce more that that per unit and it looks like 3 on this site.

[Beery]

"CETO 6 Project, Western Australia


The CETO 6 Project will be an up to 3MW grid connected wave energy array located at Garden Island, Western Australia to be demonstrated in 2016. The Project site will be located off Garden Island, in deeper water, west of the current Perth Project site and beyond Five Fathom Bank. This site offers a higher energy site with the potential for further commercial expansion.
It will be the first demonstration of Carnegie’s next commercial generation of the CETO technology. The CETO 6 unit for the Project will have a targeted 1MW (1000kW) power capacity, some four times the current CETO 5 generation being used in the Perth Project. The increased capacity, combined with superior efficiency, delivers significantly reduced capital costs and, when deployed at large commercial scale, is cost competitive in a range of markets globally. The CETO 6 design builds on a decade of experience gained in previous generations including the design and manufacture of the current CETO 5 units."






Going on this, it looks like the CETO 5 is 250kW unit. The CETO 6 at 1MW each will be huge!

[Tank]

I am reminded in this discussion that when I was at school sixty years ago, coal was regarded as a dying industry - trains were going to oil, electricity was going nuclear, and within the next few years coal mining would be a thing of the past. As probably most are aware, coal use has continued to grow ever since.

I strongly suspect that in fifty years time it will still be around.

The driver for this is, of course, unchecked population growth, which has seen the end of cheap oil and gas despite exploration success unthought of then, added to irrational fear of nuclear power.

Frank, none of your data addresses the simple fact that in the majority of NSW at least, most of the wood that is "saved" from being burnt for heating is burnt anyway in major fires which recur at intervals of 50-100 years. Nor the fact that draconian clearing rules in NSW have resulted in large areas of the state becoming overgrown with woody weeds, far outweighing any clearing that actually has taken place. This is the state (although not alone) that has made protecting your house from bushfires a criminal offence, something a lot of Blue Mountains and Warrumbungles residents are currently unhappy about (joining thousands of Victorians in their feeling!).

And while large numbers of wood burning heaters are a problem in at least some urban areas, to suggest a ban on them throughout the state is (again) unfairly penalising those who do not live in towns and cities. Perhaps an explanation as to how my kitchen fire affects my nearest neighbour five kilometres away could be supplied? In my case the only feasible alternative would be a fossil fuel - which not only would be more expensive, but far less carbon neutral. To change to electric heating and cooking would require a capital investment running into many tens of thousands of dollars for panels, batteries and other infrastructure, with battery replacement costs of thousands of dollars a year.

John
John you didn't read a word, did you? Regards Frank.

[Tank]

John, no one has suggested that a remote woodheater is going to cause a problem, Domestic Wood Heaters (DWH) in the suburbs and towns are the problem.
You live on top of a hill in the middle of the bush, your DWH affects no one but yourself.
Try living in a town where 60+% of houses have DWH, I have 3 within 20 metres of my home, they each use a minimum of 7 tonnes of unseasoned wood/year illegally cut down in their backyards, or they go and steal it from State Forests and NP's.
None of this illegally attained wood ever shows up in the statistics, only the wood bought from wood sellers, that is known to be 6 million tonnes/year, the total amount including the stolen timber amounts to 12 million tonnes/year. The greenies are whinging about the measly 3 million tonnes that go to woodchipping.
As ever you are wrong about the pollution from DWH's being confined to some areas only, every town you drive through in Winter has the stench of DWH spewing their pollution for all to breathe in. I have seen the local football clubs have to call off training because of the **** coming from DWH's, sometimes it is so thick you can't see the goal posts.
In Sydney you can smell it as soon as you approach the suburbs, if you can smell woodsmoke it is causing you harm, same as tobacco smoke, only 20x more potent.
Your point about bushfires is not valid as the composition of DWH emissions and a fire in the open with as much oxygen to burn as it needs. DWH's are also called Slow Combustion heaters, starve the fire of oxygen and it will smoulder for hours, these heaters are designed to prolong the burn.
EPA certification and AS4013 state that DWH in Australia should not emit more Particulate Matter than 4g/Kg of wood burnt.
Dr. John Todd who conducts the AS4013 (PM) Lab Tests uses kiln dried timber, 2% moisture content (a good seasoned piece of hardwood will have around 20% moisture content, on a good day) with 6 inch nails all around to keep the wood suspended to allow max. air flow and tested with the flue wide open.
Dr. Todd says this test is only attainable in Lab. tests and emissions of PM in real world home use situation would be in the order of 100 times the lab results.
The Nat. Heritage Advisory Council did a snap audit of DWH emissions and found that over 60% of DWH available to the public did not comply and had been modified to allow smouldering for up to 18 hours/day.
DWH produce more GHG's than all other forms of Domestic heating, the CO2 released is not recovered by trees, because we cut down more than we replace and there is no accounting for all of the other GHG's released from DWH's, let alone the toxic Carcinogens released at the same time.
Show me any other household appliance that the government issues public media warnings not to use tonight because of the cold air inversions that prevail during Winter. Or an appliance that they are offering to buy back from you if you install a cleaner alternative. What other household appliance has the Australian Senate ever held an inquiry into because of the number of Australians that are adversely affected or die.
DWH have already been banned by some councils, others stipulate if you sell the house you must remove the DWH and whole suburbs are banning them through their councils.
If you intend going off grid like John (who doesn't have a choice) then if you live in a town or city think again, because the resurgence of DWH is at an end, they won't ban wood heaters but they will regulate and TAX them out of existence, It's happening with cigarettes and will do the same to DWH, can't come soon enough, Regards Frank,

[ramblingboy42]

Yeah, no fancy new technology - all proven systems and designs. :)

Looking at their website, I couldn't find an output rating for the CETO 5 units. The earlier CETO 3 shows 80KW - not too shabby all things considered. Assuming the CETO 5 will produce more that that per unit and it looks like 3 on this site.

there is vitally no new fancy technology in renewable energy.

most of the systems have been around forever in small scale.

the difference now is developers , investors and manufacturers have now stepped up to the plate , realising the validity and operational capability of renewable energy systems.....oh and a margin of profitability as well.

what has happened in favour of renewable energy systems is technology to produce the base requirements at realistic costings is now falling into place.

this occurred long ago when Nicola Tesla presented alternating current and high voltage transmission to a disbelieving population and investors and manufacturers who were gearing up for massive developments in DC power generation systems.

it sent many people and companies into bankruptcy who would not accept the new technology......sound familiar?

it wasn't long after that Nicola disappeared and supposedly committed suicide , leaving his operational research lab and factory.....I have my doubts about that , but that's another story.

[Rurover]

There is no argument there. You've missed the point. The argument is whether or not they can live off the grid and maintain their existing 20kWh/day lifestyle lifestyle at the same price or cheaper than grid connection using only solar panels within the existing roof line of a dwelling and using a room the size of a small garden shed for batteries. The pro solar pundits are saying it can be done but are unprepared to offer evidence as to how.

Mick, the five or so local off-grid homes I am thinking about do not have massive solar PV or solar Hot Water installations, (no larger than the North facing part of their roof) and do not have large sheds to house their batteries. You can now purchase good capacity off the shelf Lithium Iron Phosphate battery modules that ar about eh same size as a domestic fridge. See a few examples here... Articles about batteries, energy storage systems, and energy management systems for residential & commercial solar panel arrays, plus other renewable energy systems. (http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/category/solar-panel-products/batteries-energy-storage-systems/)
The issue is still the cost, and for most grid connected users, the cost of battery back-up is still not economical (though as I mentioned, it IS falling).


I think it is unrealistic to expect almost every hose owner to bulldoze their existing dwelling and erect an energy efficient one. Somehow I suspect it may be cheaper to remain connected to the grid.

True, we're stuck with our existing housing stock for the next 30 years or more, many of which are very poorly designed and face the wrong way. I'm frustrated by the fact that I live in a 25 year old house that was not designed to be energy efficient, though I have retro-fitted some features that help it somewhat. But it's still a relatively energy inefficient dwelling. What really frustrates me is that the big majority of NEW houses are designed and built with almost no thought of sustainable design principles

Then why isn't private industry building them? Yes, they are building small installations and pilot plants but they have nothing to rival the capacity and stability of the big mud burners out in the Latrobe Valley.

Well, they are, especially overseas. Visit Germany sometime or even "basket case" Greece and you'll see many medium scale and some large scale solar installations. There are some huge installations being built in California and there's a big solar project being installed near Nyngan NSW as we speak (by AGL in fact!). See here...AGL - Nyngan Solar Plant (http://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/renewable-energy/nyngan-solar-plant). And Canberra has just commissioned a commercial scale solar farm to help it meet its goal of 90% renewable energy by 2050 I think... Home (http://actsolarfarm.com/)

Don't get me started on that. There is a different thread that deals with this subject.
My opinion, emissions trading, good, carbon pricing, bad. Also, all the world should do it, not just us. Moving along........

Yep, agree with you. The old carbon price was a dog's breakfast , but Labor WAS planing to replace it with an emissions trading scheme if they got re-elected. And yes, many countries and states including China ARE introducing ETS or are already using ETS.


Best responded by someone else.


Yep. But they don't replace the grid, they're supplemental and will never power The Mount independent of the grid, even with the local wind turbines.
While the growing of trees absorbs CO2 the trimming, felling, chipping, transporting and burning releases more CO2 than was absorbed. The other source of biomass is waste products from places like timber mills. The burning still releases CO2. So while it is a renewable energy it is not carbon neutral.
Interestingly, there is a Cogen plant powering an industrial installation in a small town near you. They are independent of the grid. Their Cogen plant is fueled by gas, not wood chips. Again, not carbon neutral.

Agreed, that biomass power will never be the only answer to powering the grid.It's only part of the sustainable power solution. Mount Gambier and in fact the whole South East region is in theory already 100% sustainable as we have two very large wind farms just West of Millicent delivering power to the national grid. On average they produce more power than is used in the region.... yes, it IS intermittent and we certainly rely on other sources of power at times of low wind.

I am not against renewables and carbon neutral. It's just that they are still a loooooong way from replacing out existing coal based infrastructure an it is just a drop in the ocean of supplying our energy needs.

Well, depends on how long is looooog! Let's talk again in 2030 (if we're still alive!) and compare notes. I'm pretty confident that by then, (only 15 years away) renewable energy will be THE major source of electric power worldwide (not sure how much nuclear power might be in the mix). and that coal will be well and truly a small player. I could be wrong (just ask my wife).
But I hope they save some coal for steam locomotives, because I just love steam trains (There's a huge incongruity for you to ponder on!)


Alan

[shining]

I didn't realise there are rules covering this. Perhaps you could point them out to me.
Generally speaking, if you make a claim, support it with evidence. If there is no supporting evidence, it is unsubstantiated. If there is supporting evidence, we all can see where those claims came from and understand how they were arrived at.
If I ask for supporting evidence for your claims in means I am interested in learning more about your point of view. My point of view is not static. It changes as I understand new developments.
.

Thanks Mick. Just got back from a weekend away.
You made a claim and and didn't support it with any evidence. Someone else similarly made a claim and your post is response was dismissive because the second claim wasn't supported by evidence. I was trying to determine if all forumites should play by the same rules, or if the rules were different for those holding a viewpoint contrary to you.

I am sure that 100 years ago many people were convinced of the power of the horse and how it would never be replaced by the underpowered, unreliable, expensive internal combustion engine.

Given your sensible stance on having a flexible point of view I am sure that you will one day be convinced of the the viability of off-grid power.

BTW. My daily usage is higher than yours so I will be staying connected for some time yet.
We have a national grid because we worked out that the older small generators producing 100V-500V could not be transmitted long distances due to losses. Everytime the voltage is doubled to losses are quartered. Neat hey? That's why we shoot energy around the country at 660,000V these days and now have only a few massive generators.

So historically we had many small local generators and we have almost come full circle and are reducing reliance on the national grid and returning back to small local generators albeit much smaller, more efficient, cleaner generators.

[Chucaro]

Because Australia it is the only natural gas producer that do not allocate 15 to 18% of the production for the domestic market ( not affected by the world market prices) the gas will increase between 300 to 400% with in the next 18 months. ( not my claim, it comes from the experts)
This will cost the closure of more manufacturers and will put extraordinary pressure in the home family budget.
I guess that more people are going to look into living of the grid and having a more simple life :)

[chuck]

It would be a very brave politician that would ban open fires or combustion heaters.

BTW not all of us get our wood illegally & I resent the implication.

Australia will become a much poorer place if we have to pay tax on firewood.

[Chucaro]

It would be a very brave politician that would ban open fires or combustion heaters.

BTW not all of us get our wood illegally & I resent the implication.

Australia will become a much poorer place if we have to pay tax on firewood.

Not only that, it will another step towards creating only two classes :(

[Homestar]

It would be a very brave politician that would ban open fires or combustion heaters.

BTW not all of us get our wood illegally & I resent the implication.

Australia will become a much poorer place if we have to pay tax on firewood.

It's alrerady happen overseas. Was camping with an American a few weeks ago who lives in LA - Great guy by the way - very pleasant evening. He installed a wood burning heater a few years back, and the following year they introduced legislation to ban them from operation during high smog days - which is almost every cold day as people light their fires. Enforcement is very rigid and swift - if smoke is seen coming out your chimney on a banned day, then you get a large fine in the mail.

[Tank]

It would be a very brave politician that would ban open fires or combustion heaters.

BTW not all of us get our wood illegally & I resent the implication.

Australia will become a much poorer place if we have to pay tax on firewood.
First up I don't care if you resent the Facts, you may not steal it, but where do you get yours from?
When a massive survey of Domestic Wood Heater (DWH) owners was done, more than 80% said they had a DWH because the fuel (wood) cost them NOTHING, they wouldn't elaborate on where or how they got their wood fuel.
The greatest majority go to their local State Forest office and purchase a permit to gather firewood from the forest floor for a couple of dollars, cutting down of trees, dead or alive is not allowed. So these thieving bastards sneak out into the State Forest in Spring or Summer and cut down a dozen or so trees. With their permit and the onset of the cooler weather, they go forth with their permit and cut up the previously illegally cut down trees from 6 months before. State Forests knows about it, the police know about it but no one does anything about it.
Most of the legal firewood in the S.E. of Australia/ACT comes from S.A. so the cost of transport to the climate and your pocket.
In NSW alone medical costs directly attributable to DWH PM emissions over the next 20 years will be over 8 Billion dollars, so you are already paying TAX on firewood.
Politicians may not ban outright DWH's but the same as tobacco products they will regulate and tax DWH's out of existence and rightly so what right do you have to pollute the air we all have to breathe because you like the ambience of a DWH. Don't bull**** that it is cheaper than other forms of heating, cost of fuel wood which will beyond most peoples budget, cost of installation, and if you installed it yourself and don't have local councils approval, then your home and contents insurance is null and void, the cost of council inspection and cleaning the flue soon to be introduced as part of the ridding ourselves of the worst polluting item since the steam train.
There is already legislation for council to order removal of DWH's if they are causing problems to neighbours, also you can sue a neighbour for allowing Smoke, Ashes or Dust to enter your property, for damages and a Court Order to have the DWH removed if the offence continues. That's the trouble with most DWH owners they either don't know where the smoke goes (usually straight into the neighbours yard and house) or they don't care, I think it is they don't give a **** and the sooner the hip pocket nerve gets tickled the better, Regards Frank.

[Chucaro]

.................................................. .................. That's the trouble with most DWH owners they either don't know where the smoke goes (usually straight into the neighbours yard and house) or they don't care, I think it is they don't give a **** and the sooner the hip pocket nerve gets tickled the better, Regards Frank.

Frank, I agree with your concerns but there is not much thaat we cn do against human nature and selfishness :(
Regarding pollution it is well proven that consumerism is going hand on hand with pollution and climate change and here in Australia the majority of people do not give a dam about the damage that they cause because their life style.
Using latest figures available, in 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%:

Those concerned are named Greens or tree hugers :(

So if you want to hit the back pocket of the poor people that cannot afford electricity or gas when you are to hit the pocket on those that just consume in non essential goods just because they have the money, they worked for it and it is their right to expend the money as they wish to do it so?

[JDNSW]

Frank, obviously you have a problem where you live with wood heating, but I have read all you have posted, and have yet to see where you explain why I, for example, should be taxed for a heater that has zero impact on anyone else, or where you explain why the burning of a small proportion of the local forest wood emits more CO2 than burning 100% of it every few decades in a bush fire.

Like many, perhaps a majority, of Australians, you seem to think that whtever is needed for those in urban situations must be imposed on everyone else. We already have enough of this - for example a tax on my trailer that amounts to an average of about $0.50/km - presumably the idea being that if I only do a small distance each year I should rent a trailer when I need it - hardly either efficient or practical when you live 60km from town. And this is just one example - another typical one is the supposed mandatory septic tank inspection - never done in the last twenty years, presumably too far from the council office (over 100km - probably double with proposed council amalgamations.) or the firearm storage inspection, same story!

John

[chuck]

Frank

To reply to your RANT.

Not that I have to explain it to you but I got my wood from 3 sources this year:
1. Permit from DSE (two tandem trailer loads)
2. Purchased 1.5 tonne
3. To trailer loads from private property with the owners permission as the trees were dead and a risk to people & livestock.

My combustion stove was professionally installed & my open fireplace was built when the house was!!!

You have no right to tell me how I may heat my house.

All the best & hope your attitude improves.

Cheers

[Tank]

Frank, obviously you have a problem where you live with wood heating, but I have read all you have posted, and have yet to see where you explain why I, for example, should be taxed for a heater that has zero impact on anyone else, or where you explain why the burning of a small proportion of the local forest wood emits more CO2 than burning 100% of it every few decades in a bush fire.

Like many, perhaps a majority, of Australians, you seem to think that whtever is needed for those in urban situations must be imposed on everyone else. We already have enough of this - for example a tax on my trailer that amounts to an average of about $0.50/km - presumably the idea being that if I only do a small distance each year I should rent a trailer when I need it - hardly either efficient or practical when you live 60km from town. And this is just one example - another typical one is the supposed mandatory septic tank inspection - never done in the last twenty years, presumably too far from the council office (over 100km - probably double with proposed council amalgamations.) or the firearm storage inspection, same story!

John
John, just had my septic tank inspected, for the bargain price of $118.00, had to have mine pumped out 5 years ago at a cost of $180, am right for another 5 years now. BTW this septic system was operating perfectly for 20 years prior to it being inspected and pumped out.
John as you should know by now that when the majority of people abuse some right or priveledge the minority have to pay along with the rest. But John I believe that DWH's will only be targeted in urban residential areas, your DWH is only damaging your health, no one elses.
Estimated health costs in residential areas for each DWH is around $3000.00/year, but that is falsely based on the AS4013 standard of 4g of PM 2.5</KG of wood burnt which according to Dr. John Todd who does the lab. tests for the industry, i.e. AHHA the real world figures would be closer to 100X that amount.
Imagine if a car only had to meet emission standards in the factory lab. tests and not in general use.
My problem John is you making broad statements that all this is bull**** published by CSIRO, EPA, et al, you refuse to believe that there is a problem at all, which could be very quickly resolved if you lived where I do, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

Frank

To reply to your RANT.

Not that I have to explain it to you but I got my wood from 3 sources this year:
1. Permit from DSE (two tandem trailer loads)
2. Purchased 1.5 tonne
3. To trailer loads from private property with the owners permission as the trees were dead and a risk to people & livestock.

My combustion stove was professionally installed & my open fireplace was built when the house was!!!

You have no right to tell me how I may heat my house.

All the best & hope your attitude improves.

Cheers
Chuck, you have no right to pollute your neighbours air, fortunately the Government agrees and you will pay for it.
My attitude to people who burn tonnes of wood and don't give a **** about where the **** goes, or who it affects is that they deserve everything that's coming, you know like Karma.. What do your neighbours think of the crap they have to breathe in. Remember this when you next pollute your air, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS WHEN YOU CAN'T BREATHE.
I hope you have no elderly people with respiratory or heart disease or small children or pregnant women living in your very warm house as about 40% of what goes up the chimney will be drawn back into the house with outside air to fuel your fire.
This will happen on those nights in winter where there is no wind and a cold air inversion. You know those nights when Don't Light Tonight warnings are broadcast on the telly. By the tonnage of wood you burn I imagine you let your DWH smoulder overnight, have you ever checked where that toxic smog is going after it leaves your chimney, if you noticed it was going into your neighbours house would you enquire whether it was bothering them?
I see you live in Melbourne, Australias' 3rd most air polluted city in with the majority of PM pollution being from DWH, the city of Launceston is the worst, though a concerted effort from the local council has bought back a 1/3 of the DWH with a corresponding drop in the Death Rate attributable to DWH.
But no, Chuck, no ones going to tell you you can't heat your house with wood, or that you can't pollute the air you have to breathe, because you are above us mere mortals, you believe that you can pollute and not pay for it, got news for you, Regards Frank. BTW Google up TAPM the CSIRO's map that shows where your woodsmoke ends up in Winter, may surprise you.

[chuck]

Never had a complaint in 25 years.

We do not get ads on TV telling us not to light tonight.

Where is the government agreement you speak of.

I notice you are no longer accusing me of illegally harvesting firewood.

[chuck]

Frank

Straight off EPA Vic Website

2013 Victorian air monitoring results

Q and A on the 2013 Victorian air monitoring results

There was generally good air quality in the Port Phillip (Melbourne and Geelong area) and Latrobe Valley regions in 2013, although some areas experienced poorer air quality due to local sources (for example, Brooklyn).

This assessment was based on air monitoring data measured by EPA’s air monitoring network that is designed to represent the general air quality in the regions. Major impacts on air quality during the year were associated with particles from local dust, urban emissions, bushfire and planned burning smoke, and ozone resulting from photochemical smog and bushfire smoke.

Particles as PM10 was the pollutant most frequently measured above the Ambient Air Quality National Environment Protection Measure (AAQ NEPM) air quality standard during 2013. The goal of not exceeding the air quality objective for PM10 particles on more than five days at one monitoring site was met at all general air quality stations in Melbourne. More than five exceedances occurred at Geelong South and Morwell East in the Latrobe Valley.

Ozone was the only other pollutant measured above the AAQ NEPM air quality standard during 2013. The one-hour ozone standard was not exceeded, but the four-hour ozone standard was exceeded at Alphington, Box Hill, Dandenong and Melton on 8 March, Mooroolbark on 7 January and Traralgon on 21 January. The exceedances in Melbourne were due to photochemical smog, while the exceedance in Traralgon was due to bushfire smoke.

Unlike the general air quality in Melbourne, the local air quality in Brooklyn was regularly impacted by PM10 particles due to dust emissions from the local industrial estate. We used targeted short-term air monitoring in Brooklyn to assess local impacts. This recorded PM10 levels above the air quality standard on 28 days during the year.

The local air quality in Francis Street, Yarraville, was also affected by particles, with a roadside monitoring station measuring PM10 levels above the air quality standard on seven days.

A regional site at Morwell East in the Latrobe Valley measured PM10 levels above the air quality standard on six days. These were due to smoke from bushfires and planned burns.

[Tank]

Frank

Straight off EPA Vic Website

2013 Victorian air monitoring results

Q and A on the 2013 Victorian air monitoring results

There was generally good air quality in the Port Phillip (Melbourne and Geelong area) and Latrobe Valley regions in 2013, although some areas experienced poorer air quality due to local sources (for example, Brooklyn).

This assessment was based on air monitoring data measured by EPA’s air monitoring network that is designed to represent the general air quality in the regions. Major impacts on air quality during the year were associated with particles from local dust, urban emissions, bushfire and planned burning smoke, and ozone resulting from photochemical smog and bushfire smoke.

Particles as PM10 was the pollutant most frequently measured above the Ambient Air Quality National Environment Protection Measure (AAQ NEPM) air quality standard during 2013. The goal of not exceeding the air quality objective for PM10 particles on more than five days at one monitoring site was met at all general air quality stations in Melbourne. More than five exceedances occurred at Geelong South and Morwell East in the Latrobe Valley.

Ozone was the only other pollutant measured above the AAQ NEPM air quality standard during 2013. The one-hour ozone standard was not exceeded, but the four-hour ozone standard was exceeded at Alphington, Box Hill, Dandenong and Melton on 8 March, Mooroolbark on 7 January and Traralgon on 21 January. The exceedances in Melbourne were due to photochemical smog, while the exceedance in Traralgon was due to bushfire smoke.

Unlike the general air quality in Melbourne, the local air quality in Brooklyn was regularly impacted by PM10 particles due to dust emissions from the local industrial estate. We used targeted short-term air monitoring in Brooklyn to assess local impacts. This recorded PM10 levels above the air quality standard on 28 days during the year.

The local air quality in Francis Street, Yarraville, was also affected by particles, with a roadside monitoring station measuring PM10 levels above the air quality standard on seven days.

A regional site at Morwell East in the Latrobe Valley measured PM10 levels above the air quality standard on six days. These were due to smoke from bushfires and planned burns.
Chuck, Vic EPA measures PM10 and NOT PM2.5 like everyone else, Vic is 10 years behind the times, that blue and white smoke coming out of your chimney is 99% PM 2.5<. The difference between PM10 and PM2.5 is like a grain od sand (PM2.5) compared to a beach ball (PM10)
PM10 can be filtered out by the bodies defences, nose, mucus, etc., PM2.5 cannot and will penetrate to the smallest area of your lungs and be absorbed into the blood steam.
So Vic. EPA only measures PM 10 because if they measured PM2.5 they would have exceedences on most days in winter.
But it seems vested interests (polluting industries and the AHHA have lots of money to give to your State Gov).
They don't give a **** about the health of Vics. unlike other States and countries, PM10 is not relevant when PM2.5 which is what causes the health problems and is the greatest majority of the pollution emitted from DWH. Why measure PM10 when PM2.5 is the killer.
Could you imagine the results if Vic. EPA measured the PM2.5 in the Latrobe Valley, I worked at Yallourn Power station and everyone was crook within days of arriving, 2 of our crew were Asthmatics and had to leave, because of, as the Doctor called it "Yallournitis".
The UN WHO has declared that PM2.5 air pollution from burning wood has now become the world's largest killer, taken over from Malaria, over 3 million in India alone every year, 1400 in Australia.
But Chuck, you are saying **** all this evidence showing your DWH is the worst pollution machine ever invented and the fact that you are ignorant of the effects, you are saying YOU know better than published scientific facts, **** them all, I'm right Jack attitude, you can bury your head in the sand and say "Nobody tells ME what to do".
Trouble with your head in the sand is your Arse is exposed and you will be eventually be bit on it.
Here's a simple test Chuck, get a clean cloth and gently wipe the ceiling above your DWH and your open fireplace and see how much fine soot you wipe off, then imagine that carcinogenic soot in your lungs, Regards Frank.

[boa]

One of the largest fine particular pollutants is diesel engines I can't see them banning the old ones yet. The newer ones have a particular burn off phase. Lots of things are not good for us. But some seem to have a bee up there arse on only one.

[Chucaro]

If for financial reasons I have to move to the bush (again)to live of the grid I will get a slow combustion stove for cooking and have the hot water as well.
I would have solar and wind power as well but only the bare minimum because IMO the design of the building is the most important part.
Yes, I am concerned with pollution and the environment but I like to see the government allocate 20% or more of the gas production for domestic use at an affordable price, if there is penalties for slow combustion stoves I would like to see the same penalties to the AC units.
I would not give a dam of those that would complain about the smoke from my slow combustion stove if them have vehicles that do not complain with the new emission laws, also from those that consume in non essential goods and services that produce pollution or produced pollution when they were made.
The efforts to stop pollution have to come from every individual and not just punishing the people with limited financial resources.

[chuck]

Frank

I am not saying anything except that I am heating my house in a manner that is still legal.

I checked the EPA website to see if my DWH is OK & that I am using it correctly.

Thank you for stimulating my interest.

You are obviously passionate about it.

I did note that in the research on the EPA website particulates from cars particularly diesel are worse than particulates from DWH.

The 1300 people you allege died from DWH particulates where is that reported & over what time frame.

In addition Victoria's power comes from brown coal so while I am using my DWH to heat my house I am using less brown coal.

[isuzurover]

Hi Frank,
If you are so concerned about air quality you should not be driving a Euro 0/1 diesel.

[Chucaro]

Hi Frank,
If you are so concerned about air quality you should not be driving a Euro 0/1 diesel.

That it is exactly what I was saying but have not response from him.
Perhaps the reason why people drive old vehicles which pollute the air it is because they do not have the money to get a new one.
The same case apply to those that need to use a wood heater to warm up the place or a slow combustion stove to cook and have hot water.

[Tank]

How can you compare diesel pollution to DWH pollution, In Sydney alone (our biggest and most populated city) 13% of private households have DWH.
Yet during the colder weather in Sydney DWH contribute 60% of all airborne PM pollution, cars, trucks, trains, boats and planes contribute less than 40% (some of this PM pollution is dust).
One new car will produce less pollution in one years driving (supposedly to work and back) than a DWH complying to AS4013 PM pollution emissions will in one 24 hour burn period. As stated previously more than 60% of DWH don't comply (even though they have certification, (See NHAC snap audit on DWH sold in Aust.)
So IF your heater complies and you use kiln dried wood you will be probably emitting>10g PM/kg of wood burned, but the usual punter who could be emitting >100g/kg/wood burnt also allows his DWH to smoulder overnight so it could be anywhere. Anyway the comparisons between Fossil fuels and wood fuels is based on the AS4013 of 4g/kg of wood burnt, which is unrealistic, so the comparisons are on the VERY low side of being correct.
A DWH setup to smoulder (firebox loaded to the hilt and air damper closed right up) will emit more Carcinogenic PM2.5> in one 24 hour period than a new car will emit in it's entire lifetime, diesels are a bit worse than cars but compared to a smouldering DWH they are spotless.
For those that keep asking for sources of Info and where I got them from, I have been collecting data for over 15 years now and I believe if you have any interest in the facts you will find them for yourselves.
It is 27 degrees Celsius here right now on the lovely South Coast and the Bitch that lives next door has her DWH smouldering away, I went over before and complained about the smoke from her DWH coming onto my property and into my house, which I have now had to close up and put my Air-con on, she said it might get cold tonight. I said well if that happens you only have to light it up again, she said too much trouble, so I took some videos and told her I would be commencing District Court action against her, like I did to the other neighbour that had 2 DWH. Cost the other neighbour $10K in legal fees and before it got to court they removed their DWH's. I will post up a starting point for anyone genuinely interested in learning how their DWH affect your neighbours, but only if I'm asked, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

One of the largest fine particular pollutants is diesel engines I can't see them banning the old ones yet. The newer ones have a particular burn off phase. Lots of things are not good for us. But some seem to have a bee up there arse on only one.
If you had taken the trouble to read the other posts I showed EPA figures for PM air pollution in Sydney that 60% of all particulate air pollution is from recent sources (Carbon Dating) meaning from wood with 99% of that coming from DWH's.
All other sources of PM was from Fossil fuels, you Know Petrol, Diesel, gas, etc. during the working week, on weekends when there are less trucks and cars on the road (recent) PM from DWH climbs to 87%.
So the CSIRO/DAR, EPA, NHMRC, NEPC all say you are wrong, The LARGEST Source of PM pollution is from DWH, now lets see your source for your wrong statement, please do some research before you put your foot in it, Regards Frank.

[Homestar]

I think everyone needs to take a few deep breaths. In.... Out.... In.... Out....

Better?:)

There is obviously a lot of passion surrounding this current topic, and I just want to make sure everyone keeps to the topic, and doesn't make it personal.

Carry on...:)

[Tombie]

Perhaps we can all sit around the fire and discuss...

[Homestar]

Perhaps we can all sit around the fire and discuss...

:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

[Chucaro]

Perhaps we can all sit around the fire and discuss...

I will bring some green Huon Pine to burn, the smoke have nice aroma :D

[disco man]

Don't want to sound ignorant,but i probably will. Why are so many places down south using wood for heating instead of gas,the reason i ask as gas is fairly cheap up here. But in saying that we have no need for heating in Far North Queensland,maybe that controls the pricing?

[bee utey]

Don't want to sound ignorant,but i probably will. Why are so many places down south using wood for heating instead of gas,the reason i ask as gas is fairly cheap up here. But in saying that we have no need for heating in Far North Queensland,maybe that controls the pricing?
One possible reason is the lack of natural gas mains in most rural areas. Bottled gas is hideously expensive to heat with compared to when I first used it in the 80's. Now I only have bottled gas for the cooking as the boss demands it, heating is either reverse cycle or wood depending on the amount of heat required. And our wood is 90% stringy bark sourced off our own block and seasoned for 2 years minimum. It burns very cleanly.

[isuzurover]

Don't want to sound ignorant,but i probably will. Why are so many places down south using wood for heating instead of gas,the reason i ask as gas is fairly cheap up here. But in saying that we have no need for heating in Far North Queensland,maybe that controls the pricing?

I don't know what it costs up there, but gas prices have risen sharply in the past few years in WA. I think costs of using gas heating are now on par with reverse cycle AC heating (certainly when you factor in the purchase of gas heaters).

Plus many have unflued gas heaters, which are no good for indoor air quality...

[Chucaro]

In Hobart:
Natural gas costs 11.5 cents per kWh,
Electricity for a hard wired permanent heating system (Tariff 42) costs 16.167 cents / kWh
Electricity for any "plug in" heater cost tariff (Tariff 31) – 26.807 cents / kWh.
Wood heaters are in practice about 60% efficient, but that still gives you 2700 kWh of heat per tonne and that costs just 3.7 cents / kWh.
Good quality AC costs about 4.00 to 5.00 cents per kWh .

Info about certified wood heaters (http://www.homeheat.com.au/certified.php)

[Homestar]

Don't want to sound ignorant,but i probably will. Why are so many places down south using wood for heating instead of gas,the reason i ask as gas is fairly cheap up here. But in saying that we have no need for heating in Far North Queensland,maybe that controls the pricing?

Natural gas is quite cheap, but only available in the city and major regional centres. Bottled gas is rediculously expensive and would be cost prohibitive to heat a house with - even if you had to buy all your wood, it would be close to being cheaper that bottled gas. If/when I move back to the country then it will be a wood burning heater as it's the only way to go if you don't mind a bit of work.

I don't see many wood heaters being used around where I live - but nearly everyone I know that lives out of town a ways has one and uses it to some extent each year.

[vnx205]

If/when I move back to the country then it will be a wood burning heater as it's the only way to go if you don't mind a bit of work..

There is an old saying that wood warms you three times: once when you cut it, again when you split it and a third time when you burn it.

So does that mean you should divide the cost of wood heating by three to work out the real cost. :p:p:p

[disco man]

In Hobart:
Natural gas costs 11.5 cents per kWh,
Electricity for a hard wired permanent heating system (Tariff 42) costs 16.167 cents / kWh
Electricity for any "plug in" heater cost tariff (Tariff 31) – 26.807 cents / kWh.
Wood heaters are in practice about 60% efficient, but that still gives you 2700 kWh of heat per tonne and that costs just 3.7 cents / kWh.
Good quality AC costs about 4.00 to 5.00 cents per kWh .

Info about certified wood heaters (http://www.homeheat.com.au/certified.php)

With Australia having good reserves of Gas, for cost wise how would you build a new house? and does even the latest and most eco-friendly reverse a/c not get a look in? Or is wood still the best way to go. There has been some very good info posted from both sides in regards to use or not use wood so far.

[Chucaro]

With Australia having good reserves of Gas, for cost wise how would you build a new house? and does even the latest and most eco-friendly reverse a/c not get a look in? Or is wood still the best way to go. There has been some very good info posted from both sides in regards to use or not use wood so far.

Among some other points I would do the following:

1) I would select a block of land with good orientation and topographic characteristics and climate factors.

2) I would design a house according to the land and trees on it that cannot be removed or will be used as wind barrier.

2) The house will be designed for passive heating and good ventilation using the wind data in the region.

3) I would use the best insulation materials available

4) If the passive heating design allows it I would use it to preheat the water.

5) If it is in a remote area where wood it is available I would use a high efficient slow combustion stove in combination with ducting distribution system to heat the place and at the same time use it for cooking.

[disco man]

Among some other points I would do the following:

1) I would select a block of land with good orientation and topographic characteristics and climate factors.

2) I would design a house according to the land and trees on it that cannot be removed or will be used as wind barrier.

2) The house will be designed for passive heating and good ventilation using the wind data in the region.

3) I would use the best insulation materials available

4) If the passive heating design allows it I would use it to preheat the water.

5) If it is in a remote area where wood it is available I would use a high efficient slow combustion stove in combination with ducting distribution system to heat the place and at the same time use it for cooking.

That sounds like a very smart blue-print for a house, i have heard some places down south have heated slabs,what would be best for that application? and is it really needed? the reason i ask is, is that an area where a house could be more thermally efficient. And do reckon your design would save a new-home buyer money in construction and in the long run. Sorry to bombard you with questions,you can tell me to go away at any stage:)

[Chucaro]

Consumers are being slugged with rising electricity bills boosted by big network costs and confusing fees from energy retailers, according to a new report.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-01/network-costs-and-confusing-fees-add-to-power-bill-pain/5780174)

For how long poor peoples can live on the grid is just a guess :(

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/10/1563.jpg

[isuzurover]

There is an old saying that wood warms you three times: once when you cut it, again when you split it and a third time when you burn it.

So does that mean you should divide the cost of wood heating by three to work out the real cost. :p:p:p

Plus there is this:
Chopping boosts testosterone more than sport › News in Science (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/08/22/3830928.htm)

[Mick_Marsh]

With Australia having good reserves of Gas, for cost wise how would you build a new house? and does even the latest and most eco-friendly reverse a/c not get a look in? Or is wood still the best way to go. There has been some very good info posted from both sides in regards to use or not use wood so far.
Some people have been known to build their homes around something with a lot of thermal mass such as a boulder or concrete water tank. This maintains a stable temperature throughout the year.
Personally I'd use hydronic using a combination of gas and solar to heat the water.

I have gas heating at home. Where I am today, the gas pipe stops just 10km short. Most of the homes in the area have either split systems, bottled gas or wood fired heating.
Yes, on a cold night the air quality is rather poor.

Note: gas is usually expressed in Mj.
For those who have gas accounts in Mj, 1kWh = 3.6 Mj

[Mick_Marsh]

Consumers are being slugged with rising electricity bills boosted by big network costs and confusing fees from energy retailers, according to a new report. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-01/network-costs-and-confusing-fees-add-to-power-bill-pain/5780174)

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-01/network-costs-and-confusing-fees-add-to-power-bill-pain/5780174)

For how long poor peoples can live on the grid is just a guess :(

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/10/1563.jpg
Poor people can't afford the $3,000 per year maintenance costs of the batteries let alone the maintenance costs of the panels.
It is interesting to see the annual bill in Tasmania has dropped. I wonder why?
What data is this graph based on?

[vnx205]

Some people have been known to build their homes around something with a lot of thermal mass such as a boulder or concrete water tank. This maintains a stable temperature throughout the year.

When I lived on 52 acres just out of Yass (similar climate to Canberra), I built a house from compressed earth blocks. It was a modest 3 bedroom house and the walls weighed 50 tonnes and the slab about another 28 tonnes. Even the internal walls were compressed earth blocks.

That gave me quite a bit of thermal mass. In Yass that was good because it was not unusual to have a 20 degree difference between day and night. I was even told by one of the town's doctors that on the day he first arrived in Yass in the 1940s, it reached 100F and that night there was a frost.

The house performed really well with quite small variations between day and night. Other characteristics of the design helped the winter sun warm the house.

That house would be quite inappropriate here in Tuross and would be exactly the opposite of what would be ideal in Darwin. It is important to match the house to the climate.

Just to be clear, the walls were compressed earth blocks, not mud bricks. Making mud bricks occupies every weekend for a year and unless the clay content is exactly right, they crack, curl and shrink. My earth blocks were made in just over a day. The clay content was not critical and they didn't crack, curl or shrink.

[Chucaro]

That sounds like a very smart blue-print for a house, i have heard some places down south have heated slabs,what would be best for that application? and is it really needed? the reason i ask is, is that an area where a house could be more thermally efficient. And do reckon your design would save a new-home buyer money in construction and in the long run. Sorry to bombard you with questions,you can tell me to go away at any stage:)

Mate you can ask me what ever you what, I am happy to help with what I know and at the same time learn from others.
This thread becomes very constructive and perhaps the mods can move it to the "Alternate Energies"section if they think that is a good source of information. just a thought.

HERE (http://www.homepower.com/articles/home-efficiency/design-construction/designing-passive-solar-slab)you have a good link to get some info that for me will be far to long to type and with my spanglish will be of little use for the readers

If you are considering in the near future to design and built your own place then courses in universities can be handy.

Design for Energy Efficiency - BENV1072 (http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/courses/2014/BENV1072.html)

Learning for the future Renewable energy courses guide
(http://www.renew.org.au/pdf/courses_guide_2012.pdf)

[Chucaro]

For those interested in wood heating this is a very good reference:

Wood-Smoke handbook: Woodheaters, firewood and operator practice (http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/wood-smoke-handbook-woodheaters-firewood-and-operator-practice)

[Tank]

Disco man, there is so much crap and false info around about Domestic Wood Heaters (DWH) all spread by the AHHA which Chucaro has kindly supplied for us to peruse.
The AHHA was recently criticised by the (Federal) Senate inquiry about deceiving them and acting in an underhand way to delay the Australian Standards committee in setting lower emission Standards for PM pollution from DWH sold in Australia.
This same AHHA was caught out by the National Heritage Advisory Council (NHAC) when a snap audit tested AHHA woodheaters, the woodheaters were found to have been illegally modified by AHHA members so that the air flue could be shut right down so as the DWH would smoulder overnight (or during the day while at work their big selling point).
The DWH's tested to comply with AS4013 and EPA certification were not the same as offered for testing in AS4013/EPA Lab tests, over 60% of those tested were found to be illegal.
Emissions of PM2.5 were found to be hundreds of times higher that the AS 4013.
Anything the AHHA claims can be proved to be false and misleading, for instance: they (AHHA) say that you should not let your wood heater smoulder overnight, but then their members illegally modify DWH so as they will smoulder overnight.
Then they say wood is a renewable resource, it isn't anywhere on the planet, Australia is the worlds third largest land clearer, to be renewable you have to be planting more trees than you are removing, which is not happening. they also say that DWH are Green House Gas (GHG) NEUTRAL, well if more trees than those harvested were replaced 30 years back (and not now) then maybe most of the CO2 would be taken up by the previously planted trees, BUT because CO2 is NOT the only GHG emitted from DWH then reclaiming the CO2 only is not going to help Climate Change.
The reason only CO2 is quoted is because they ( the scientific types) have a protocol for measuring CO2 and not the other GHG's.
The main and most potent GHG is Methane, 23 times more potent a GHG than Co2, then there is Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide etc., along with the toxic Carcinogens BAP's (main Carcinogen in Tobacco products, X20 more potent), PAH's, POP's and a whole witches brew of deadly chemicals. One of which is Dioxin, this poison is known as a POP, or Persistent Organic Pollutant, this Dioxin is produced in the combustion of wood, it settles on the ground and in the waterways, is absorbed by animals and fish and passed onto the top of the food chain, which is you and I.
So DWH have been proven to be harmful to life and the atmosphere, they do not use renewable fuel, they contribute to PM air pollution and are the largest contributer, they affect the health of EVERYONE that breathes in their toxic fumes.
So why would you have one in your house they also account for many fatalities in house fires, the emissions are toxic the fuel is getting more expensive and taxes will force them out of existence, they line your ceilings with microscopic soot, as well as your lungs. It cannot be the cost, up $3500 + installation + Council approval, + cleaning flue, + wood, whether purchased or not there is considerable cost environmentally to buying or collecting wood as well as the hip pocket.
The AHHA lies to you about their DWH, it is the only home appliance that you can own that the government (through local councils) will buy back off you if you install cleaner alternatives, like flued Gas or Reverse cycle Air con.
Launceston was targeted with a massive DWH buy back scheme removing nearly a third of DWH and replacing with Gas or Air Con, this resulted in a corresponding drop in the death rate due to respiratory and heart disease
DWH are a relic of the past and wood fuel will become an expensive commodity if not a good enough reason to dump ancient technology, what about better health for our children, Regards Frank.
An alternative to the AHHA site: Australian Air Quality Group - Woodsmoke (http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/)

[Tank]

Very interesting Chucaro, written by the same bloke that tests woodheaters for the AHHA, this same man that said that no woodheater in the home situation would or could comply with the AS4013/EPA standards, because the Lab tests were unrealistic and that real world emissions could be 100 times higher.
The problem with this is that the AS4013/EPA limits are confined to PM10 and not the deadly PM2.5 which is the largest part of the emissions, PM2.5 is the killer, Why is the standard set at PM10 which is only an irritant, I'll tell you why because Australia's Polluting industries would have to spend considerable money to comply if the standard was raised to PM2.5.
Stuff our health the bottom line of polluting industries is more important, because we can't speak about Politics I will say no more.
One other sore point is that when all these scientists are working out formulas to provide to legislators they are all working on the false premise that no DWH will emit over 4g/kg. of wood burned, when in real life it is much, much higher, so when laws are passed they are based on false figures, Regards Frank.

[Chucaro]

Frank if a person would like to live of the grid (or have to), his home is about 1 km for the power post and there is no gas, there is not other economical alternative.
Yes, perhaps about 240 w of solar panels and few batteries will be possible to supply light ( kero and oil lamp it is far to expensive for the Aladin lamp)and other uses like charging running small appliances.
You have to balance things not just go radical against one or two issues.
That is part of the problem that we have in Tasmania with some people here that like to be called Greens.

[Mick_Marsh]

Frank if a person would like to live of the grid (or have to), his home is about 1 km for the power post and there is no gas, there is not other economical alternative.
Yes, perhaps about 240 w of solar panels and few batteries will be possible to supply light ( kero and oil lamp it is far to expensive for the Aladin lamp)and other uses like charging running small appliances.
You have to balance things not just go radical against one or two issues.
That is part of the problem that we have in Tasmania with some people here that like to be called Greens.
There are plenty of alternatives out there to heat your home.
Firstly, wanting to be energy efficient, you would have installed triple glazing on the windows and insulated the ceiling, walls and floor. I know people who have done just that. They rarely need to put on the heater or the cooler.
The next thing you could do for those times you do need to modify the internal temperature you could use a split system running from your solar system. Run it through the day when your cells are producing and you won't have to run it on batteries at night as the insulation will prevent the heat transfer in and out.
The other thing you could use to heat the house is hydronic heating. You could use a gas boosted solar heated system. You can use gas. Propane. A lot of rural properties have a small gas tank at the front of the property which is filled by a tanker. As you have a super efficient house using solar wherever possible for heating and losing little heat the gas usage will be minimal.

[Tombie]

I'm a fan of Plutonium in a pot on the floor... Gives me a warm glow...

[Rurover]

Just to be clear, the walls were compressed earth blocks, not mud bricks. Making mud bricks occupies every weekend for a year and unless the clay content is exactly right, they crack, curl and shrink. My earth blocks were made in just over a day. The clay content was not critical and they didn't crack, curl or shrink.

I'm keen to know how you made your "Earth Blocks". Did you need a press of some sort,or was it done by a commercial contractor perhaps.
If by using a press, then can one make a home-made version or is it a specialist machine?

Alan

[Tank]

Chucaro, right from the beginning of this Thread my posts have consistently said I am referring to DWH installed in Cities and Towns, with neighbours living only metres away from one another. I don't think anyone has a problem with people on acerage that are not affecting their neighbours with the emissions from their DWH.
People like John (JDNSW) have no choice in the matter, you need a cut lunch and a six pack of stubbies to get from his front gate to his house, It would cost ridiculous amounts of money to supply Electricity, let alone water and sewerage to his house. Also most of the charges coming in will not affect him as he can collect his own fuel.
The problem is with DWH in residential areas.
Governments, Local, State and Federal are now doing something about it because it is hurting them financially due to health costs generated by emissions from DWH they are not concerned with the suffering of victims and their families, it's the bottom line, as ever, Regards Frank.

[Mick_Marsh]

I'm keen to know how you made your "Earth Blocks". Did you need a press of some sort,or was it done by a commercial contractor perhaps.
If by using a press, then can one make a home-made version or is it a specialist machine?

Alan
My cousin lives in a house made with rammed earth walls. You get the trhermal mass from the walls. It is cool in summer and warm in winter. Hard to paint though.
Rammed earth blocks. Sounds interesting. How heavy are the blocks?

[Chucaro]

There are plenty of alternatives out there to heat your home.
Firstly, wanting to be energy efficient, you would have installed triple glazing on the windows and insulated the ceiling, walls and floor. I know people who have done just that. They rarely need to put on the heater or the cooler.
The next thing you could do for those times you do need to modify the internal temperature you could use a split system running from your solar system. Run it through the day when your cells are producing and you won't have to run it on batteries at night as the insulation will prevent the heat transfer in and out.
The other thing you could use to heat the house is hydronic heating. You could use a gas boosted solar heated system. You can use gas. Propane. A lot of rural properties have a small gas tank at the front of the property which is filled by a tanker. As you have a super efficient house using solar wherever possible for heating and losing little heat the gas usage will be minimal.
Yes Mick.I appreciate it and also it is possible to design the house and not use any heating or cooling apart of the natural climate inputs.
I have done it in two houses that I built, one inland and the other in the coast, both in Queensland.

[vnx205]

We dealt with a company called Sun Earth Homes. They designed the house, made the blocks and supplied the other materials needed to complete the house.

They used a machine that consisted of a diesel engine, a hopper to add cement, an auger type of pug mill, a hydraulic ram which compressed the earth in a mould that rotated and ejected the blocks onto a conveyor belt. It produced a block every 6 seconds.

The earth was dug from the side of a small dam on the property. I had some river sand added to get a more interesting texture and I chose to have cement added. There was just enough moisture in the blocks to cure the cement.

The external wall blocks were 300 x 250 x 100 mm and the internal walls were 300 x 175 x 100 mm. I think the external blocks weighed 13 kg.

As the blocks came out of the steel mould, they had a rather boring appearance like steel troweled cement. I chipped back the surface both inside and out using a modified panel beater's air chisel. I also chose to spray the surfaces with a product made at the time by Monier but I think the name has now changed.

The National Building Technology Centre in Ryde tested the blocks for dimensional consistency, compression strength resistance to erosion and declared the suitable for unprotected external walls.

The company is still in Frenchs Forest and there are other companies that offer similar block making services. I'm not sure if Sun Earth still offer exactly the same services as they did in 1990.

Sun Earth Homes Pty Ltd | Building Design & Drafting Services | frenchsforest.com.au (http://www.frenchsforest.com.au/listing/building-design-drafting-services/sun-earth-homes-pty-ltd/368877/)

I have attached a couple of photos of the house.

if you have any other questions, I will do my best to answer them.

The view from the South East. Photo taken moments before we drove off on our trip to Broome.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nqwz1n51jNY/VCvmIL4HuaI/AAAAAAAAAI8/4RHEznRIBxE/w910-h600-no/Leaving%2BHome.jpg

From the North East.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s-4C8gG_rrs/VCvml6kTc4I/AAAAAAAAAJU/YPGtE-LOapU/w956-h717-no/DSC00010.JPG

Daughter's bedroom.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nabJ9xFOig4/VCvmbtCYzOI/AAAAAAAAAJM/1bvcDMnoiws/w956-h717-no/DSC00013.JPG

View from lounge room through kitchen and dining room to laundry.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9ZwbuhMScLY/VCvmS2mJXwI/AAAAAAAAAJE/72NxJloyID0/w956-h717-no/DSC00015.JPG

[disco man]

That is a lovely home mate,very well done:)

[Mick_Marsh]

WOW!

Compressed earth with the ease of bricks.
That is an excellent idea.

[vnx205]

I wanted it to look as much as possible like a conventional house.

What made it special was the way it performed. On 37+ degrees summer's days walking into the house after work felt like entering an air conditioned building, even though it had no cooling, and that was even before I fitted the ceiling fans.

[Homestar]

Nice house and a great idea. :)

[Ausfree]

Love your house!!!:D:D Isn't it strange how a LandRover owner always manages to get a LandRover in their pictures!!

[PAT303]

Lovely house,your series three is the sexiest thing,you should have posted it in the best looking car thread. Pat