Printable View
Thanks Eevo,
Didn't know that. The point I was trying to get across is that it has advantages for the coal religion and the renewable religion, and therefore the wider group.
A bit of smart breathing space that maybe both sides can agree on and actually start to get to work together from.
cheers, DL
A few years ago off Fremantle they were trialing the use of tidal hydro electricity generation. No idea what happened to the trial but obviously would produce more electricity in areas with greater tide movements.
"Religious coal haters" don't set energy policy, big investment banks and large governments do. No sensible bank would fund new coal plants in Australia today as they'd be stranded assets shortly after completion. Therefore only governments can fund such things. A new high efficiency coal power plant would best be placed next to an existing black coal fired plant that is nearing its use-by-date. Hopefully the locals can be convinced to let it go ahead. It pretty much counts out SA and Vic because they only have brown mud to burn. The rate at which renewables and storage are advancing it would be cheaper all round to extend existing dirty coal plants for as long as needed rather than having a new plant stand idle shortly after completion. None of these big plants can be built in a hurry, this is Australia after all. :zzz:Quote:
Originally Posted by 350RRC
Most of the Snowy scheme is pumped hydro.
Problem is it would apparently take 5-7 years to become a reality, so it won't solve the current problems or replace Hazelwood.
So SA should go ahead with it's plans, I think. And figure out how to power it's pumps without using coal-fired power. Maybe batteries charged by wind and solar?
Tides are very regular so there is great potential to use it to charge batteries to store the energy until it needs to be drawn down.Quote:
Originally Posted by loneranger
The problems that have stopped tidal energy (or wave energy) from fulfilling its promise are basically threefold.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
1. Tides might be regular, but weather is not. All structures must be designed to withstand at the very least, a fifty year storm. Unfortunately, the parts of Australia that have large tidal ranges are in cyclone prone areas, so the fifty year storm is very bad. Also, being coastal, may be subject to tsunamis, although I would rate this risk as insignificant in Australia.
2. Because of the low pressure head available, to get substantial power, an awful lot of water has to flow through the system, meaning that everything must be on a much larger scale than a normal hydroelectric scheme generating the same power. This implies high construction costs and substantial environmental footprint.
3. Sea water is very corrosive compared to fresh water, adding to the cost of construction and maintenance costs.
JDNSW, it sounds like you have not researched, tidal/wave energy generating systems before your comments.
The principle is very simple, anchoring soundly and the harsh marine environment are stumbling blocks, but when compared to the massively rising costs of 'conventional' power generation it may find a niche.
As with all the developing alternate/renewable power generation methods , some substantial funding for research and development is necessary.
If it wasn't for our university students doing practical studies and models on things like this the world would be going backwards.
Perhaps you should check with Wollongong council.
PHOTOS: Port wave generator removal in doubt | Illawarra Mercury
Regards Philip A
Contrary to your suggestion, while I perhaps have not 'researched' it in detail immediately before posting, I have had an interest in it and have read a number of articles and technical papers on the subject for over forty years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
While it is possible that eventually it will become viable, the factors I mention remain formidable problems. Much more promising are the intermittent solar and wind, and their takeup worldwide reflects this. These both had workable systems that had been demonstrated to work even on a fairly large scale decades ago - they were just non-competitive financially. Tidal/wave energy has not even got to this first step. While demonstration systems have been built, as far as I am aware, none have been what could be described as 'successful'.
For those who claim that solar and wind are the cheapest power there is a very good article in WUWT That points out several things .
1 you cannot consider the cost of renewable energy in isolation. You have to add in the cost of the backup ie the cost to keep coal or gas plants on line to fill the dips. Eg Germany's "capacity Payments"
2 Electricity has a higher value when it is available when it is required.
all these are pretty obvious but seem to be forgotten by many .
The article is very dense and includes a lot of economic research but if posters have the time is well worth reading IMHO.
Exergy and Power Plants | Watts Up With That?
Regards Philip A