World energy supply and demand, renewables and fossil fuels

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » Energy

World energy supply and demand, renewables and fossil fuels

(105 posts) (16 voices)

Started 5 years ago by Catopsilia
Latest reply from Catopsilia

Tags:

« Previous 1 234 Next »

Catopsilia
Member

To scipe
Thanks for linking to that piece about the semi-annual report of Grant King, CEO of our friendly energy utility, Origin Energy.
Mr King does not seem to be so rigidly "on message" as our Federal Ministers are obliged to be. In fact, his message is quite delightfully mixed.
Where is Origin going, really? Do they have a grand vision for the future, or are they kicking the proverbial can down the road?

http://reneweconomy.com.au/about
The Australian website concerned, "RenewEconomy" seems to be rather less blatantly promotional and doctrinaire than most. It may be a useful source of information for threads such as this one ("World energy supply and demand, renewables and fossil fuels") and another one: "Alternative Energy...are we spending our money wisely?"
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/45951

There are other threads of similar global scope:
"Climate Change - Australian and World progress"
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/1511/page/4
And what I believe is the longest thread on the forum (1051 posts), begun by sun2steam:
"Climate Change - scientific discussion"
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/2190/page/36

Posted Tuesday 23 Feb 2016 @ 12:59:34 pm from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

I see that the website "RenewEconomy" that scipe and I quoted above has been mentioned more than once in the thread "Renewable Energy News", begun two years ago by dlvb19.
The poster dmaunder rates that website much as I would: "Sometimes a bit too rose-colored glasses, but generally pretty good."

Posted Friday 4 Mar 2016 @ 1:04:01 pm from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

"What is Energy Security? Definitions and Scenarios"
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/03/what-is-energy-security-definitions-and-scenarios/
Evan Hillebrand summarises here a comprehensive study of possible scenarios for the future of world affairs as they depend on energy.
His concluding paragraph:
"We put an IPCC scenario in our book because some people who helped us put it together believe in the seriousness of the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Many people do. On the other hand, when Dr. Closson and I talk to audiences about our book and we present the scenario based on these climate assumptions and the political response to the perceived threat, the IPCC scenario is always rated the least likely of the eight we present—even less likely than the nuclear attack on Tel Aviv–because most people don’t believe the underlying assumptions are very realistic."

Posted Friday 4 Mar 2016 @ 1:06:08 pm from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

Global emissions of CO2 may have peaked in 2014.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600871/have-global-co2-emissions-peaked/
A credible source, but without stated primary sources, at least for non-subscribers to "MIT Technology Review".

Posted Thursday 10 Mar 2016 @ 6:36:55 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

The implications of the possibility that the rate of human CO2 emission has peaked some decades before expected, are discussed at length by Ugo Bardi:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/an-epochal-change-have-co2-emissions.html

Posted Thursday 10 Mar 2016 @ 6:43:08 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

"As Asia’s main physical oil trading hub, the number of parked tankers sitting off Singapore’s coast or in nearby Malaysian waters is seen by many as a gauge of the industry’s health. Judging by this, oil markets are still sickly: a fleet of 40 supertankers is currently anchored in the region’s coastal waters for use as floating storage facilities. The tankers are filled with 47.7 million barrels of oil, mostly crude, up 10% from the previous week..."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-oil-storage-idUSKCN0YA129

Posted Sunday 22 May 2016 @ 12:19:05 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

Peak coal?

Could we have reached the peak of world coal production?
The production of coal in China, and in the world, has now fallen.
Gail Tverberg thinks this may have been the peak, which may never be reached again.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/06/20/china-is-peak-coal-part-of-its-problem/
Tverberg's thesis is that the peak of production of a fossil fuel is not determined by the deposits getting scarce, but by failing demand. This reduced demand is not due to people becoming more responsible about saving energy, but by people getting poorer. The reason they are getting poorer is that all the cheapest energy has been used up, so that mining and drilling is more expensive.
This is just the first step in a ladder of consequences which Tverberg describes in detail.
China produces very nearly half of the coal produced in the world, which is nearly four billion tonnes of oil equivalent per year. One of Tverberg's graphs shows that China's production has fallen a lot in the last two years. Another graph shows that world production has fallen similarly. Australia's annual coal production of about 300 million tonnes of oil equivalent is small. However, the same problem of cost of mining applies here: coal seams that were thick enough and shallow enough to mine a few years ago cannot be mined now.

Posted Tuesday 21 Jun 2016 @ 7:30:38 am from IP #
divestyoursuper
Member

The idea that people are getting poorer is hard to sustain. Has everyone done the 'How rich am I test'

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/

Posted Wednesday 22 Jun 2016 @ 2:49:56 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

Hi, divestyoursuper
Certainly we are rich. Richer than Croesus.
Just not rich enough to afford the energy that we are using now.

Posted Wednesday 22 Jun 2016 @ 8:00:08 am from IP #
divestyoursuper
Member

Catopsilia said:
Hi, divestyoursuper
Certainly we are rich. Richer than Croesus.
Just not rich enough to afford the energy that we are using now.

It's a fair point Catopsilia - I love that notion that the truly wealthy person is the one who has no wants.

Posted Wednesday 22 Jun 2016 @ 10:38:25 pm from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

And can we afford sand for the concrete we need (or want)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/opinion/the-worlds-disappearing-sand.html?_r=0

Posted Monday 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:28:39 pm from IP #
dax
Member

It really doesn't matter whether there is enough sand to build modern monstrosities, you need a functioning society for the future to continue to build crap. The possibility of there being a future beyond the 2020's, is remote. The only need for concrete buildings is so they can be build high, which in reality is a waste of resources, purely for profit growth.

If we were a sensible society fixed on the viable future, we would be moving to building with natural long term methods. But world societies are based upon profit growth, single point distribution, multinational corporate control and exorbitant profit growth, only favouring a few ideological elites.

We have to move to sustainable fuels, like solar generated electricity and in the beginning, seed oils to replace destructive fossil fuels.

It's very true the richest people are those who are satisfied with their lives, have prepared for the real future, have their essential needs for survival and psychologically strong. They have no need to want constantly, or to keep up with the Jones, as the majority do. They utilise technology sensibly and only use it to improve their future, not abuse it as consumerism does.

People are getting poorer, but not in the ways most look for, monetary wealth. Life style, living conditions, health, fitness, education, dietary and community health, are all making us poorer rapidly. A psychologically strong person focused in the reality of the future, would be rich in many ways, but maybe not economically. These people are self sufficient as best they can, reliant upon no one, have no current or potential health issues and have positive plans enabling them to provide for their future, no matter the outcome of world societies.

Posted Tuesday 28 Jun 2016 @ 1:31:23 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

The second topic raised in this thread, after coal-fired power plants in China, was the enormous (and catastrophically increasing) consumption of energy by the internet.
Articles on this topic were not easy to find.
Kris De Decker, of "Low-tech Magazine" has applied his mind to it with a series of articles.
One is "Why we need a speed limit for the internet"
[Note it is wrongly labelled.]
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/can-the-internet-run-on-renewable-energy.html
Another is "How to build a low-tech internet"
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/how-to-build-a-low-tech-internet.html
To those of us who are collapseniks, the choice in the near future seems to be between a low-tech internet and no internet at all.

Posted Tuesday 28 Jun 2016 @ 8:44:26 am from IP #
johnmath
Member

Catopsilia said:
To those of us who are collapseniks, the choice in the near future seems to be between a low-tech internet and no internet at all.

I'm pretty sure that the interconnectedness of everything through the internet isn't going to outlive neoliberal economics. All those schools and libraries who have burned their books and 'engaged' with the information age are heading for a huge shock: content on the 'net' only lasts as long as someone pays for the servers that hold the content to run.

Already the average age of content on the 'net is just 5 years. And internet content isn't moderated or edited. 95% seems to be just someone's notion of what might be, not actual real information. On top of that, the censorship of content is extraordinary with mainstream 'search' engines actually being no more than paid directories with marketing. No mainstream 'search' engine accesses more than a fraction of 1% of total internet content.

Oh, and stop trying to claim some sacred ground as a Collapsenik. No other rational informed position of understanding about the state of the environment is possible, so no special label other than realist is required.

Posted Tuesday 28 Jun 2016 @ 1:13:13 pm from IP #
dax
Member

I download everything of interest technologically and store them on HD's. Figure the internet will collapse within the next few years as it becomes congested and internet terrorism becomes the norm, as differing ideologies fight to gain control and force their deluded fantasies onto others. I also save materials and commodities that will be needed in the future for survival and have a good size workshop to make just about anything I need.

There are only realists and denialists on the planet, the true realists are not many, but there are many agnostic realists who sit on the fence in the hope they can jump the right way when the time comes and the majority agnostics are urban dwellers. Problem is, the time has come and gone for the majority.

The internet is controlled by the USA and when it goes down, unless we have smart politicians which we don't, we will lose everything. if we had smart pollies, they would be securing the internet future by localising it to Aus and then linking it to the world. This would give us better internet security and ensure when the world net become unusable,we can continue with our own.

The most hilarious thing is the supposed cloud storage, which is a great ploy for taking control of people, as they are so stupid they put their lives on the cloud and expect the owners of the cloud will not abuse pr steal their data. When the facts are, they do it every day at greater and greater rates. All you have to do is read their terms of use to discover they can do what they want with your data, sell it change it confiscate it or destroy it.

Interesting how gullible and enslaved ideological clones really are and how deep in denial of reality they are. Now they are claiming because sun spots have disappeared, we may be going into a mini ice age. Won't matter of it's and ice age or heat age, it's all collapsing rapidly around us.

Our societies are unable to sustain under the massive use and abuse of energies and fossil fuels, along with never ending human population growth and the extinction of most wildlife, for greed gluttony and profit growth. So it's a matter of being ready, then sitting back and enjoying the show.

Posted Wednesday 29 Jun 2016 @ 3:42:58 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Some good work being done on King Island to reduce fossil fuel use including using biodiesel, flywheels and batteries with solar and wind to ultimately provide 100% of the energy input.

Great live data from this site. Be nice to get this software to represent household use data on the wall of every home.

http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au

Posted Tuesday 2 Aug 2016 @ 12:38:16 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/

Why is it sitting at 87% from diesel at 16:14AEST?

IAEA

Posted Wednesday 3 Aug 2016 @ 6:16:02 am from IP #
axess
Member

IAEA,

Would that be biodiesel, this late in the day/

Posted Wednesday 3 Aug 2016 @ 8:58:46 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

"......use including using biodiesel,"

Posted Wednesday 3 Aug 2016 @ 10:00:29 am from IP #
Bushwalker
Member

The graphic on the webpage is not realtime.

If you want realtime data, you need access to an Apple device:

The phone App is available on the Apple App Store and can be found by searching for “KIREIP”

It will show you realtime data. Right now, (11:33PM in SA) Wind is varying around 350 to 500kW and Diesel is filling the gap to the demand of a bit over 1000kW.

Posted Wednesday 3 Aug 2016 @ 2:07:34 pm from IP #
IAEA
Member

"All internal combustion vehicles are woefully inefficient and need to be phased out. Hybrids are better, but on a watt-hour consumed per km travelled, EVs win hands down, especially when the electricity is produced renewably and locally, eliminating generation inefficiencies and transmission losses."

"So, we shouldn't be focussing on alternative fuels when those fuels are being used in vehicles that waste 70% or more of the energy contained in the fuel. It's just makes no sense at all to do so. The whole world needs to become more efficient, and to do that we need to move away from burning liquid fuels in reciprocating engines..."

"Posted Thursday 25 Nov 2010 @ 11:18:15pm"

The above was posted on this fora. The writer states: "All internal combustion vehicles are woefully inefficient ......".

What will the operators call this complex when, 100% of power was being generated from "diesel" during late morning today? Can the operators call this complex - King Island Renewable Energy?

Some time back, this operator were overjoyed at announcing that for a period of 33hrs. straight, 100% of generated power came from clean renewable wind.

Will this same operator proffer a new media release that for a period today, 100% of power consumed on the Island had been generated through the use of 'diesel'?

IAEA

Posted Thursday 4 Aug 2016 @ 3:07:13 am from IP #
Bushwalker
Member

IAEA. As usual, you are cherry picking a single poor renewables day and claiming it shows all renewables on King Island won't or don't work.

Previously, all power on KI was from fossil fuel powered generators. Like those who actually understand what we are doing to our planet by burning fossil fuel en masse, KI is moving forward.

"KIREIP, has one main goal – increase renewable energy generation and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Ideally, renewables will provide over 65% of the annual energy demand and when conditions allow 100% renewable energy use."

If you cannot or will not understand the facts in front of you then you are lost. A denier.

Posted Thursday 4 Aug 2016 @ 4:33:51 am from IP #
divestyoursuper
Member

If we accept the premise of IAEA and his ilk then we are just supposed to idle away the next decades because it is all too hard.

The ideology that underscores denial runs so deep I don't think the deniers understand it themselves.

Posted Thursday 4 Aug 2016 @ 5:05:50 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Solar gets refinery industry support in Qld.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-zinc-refinery-build-100mw-solar-plant-50245/

Posted Saturday 7 Jan 2017 @ 4:38:03 am from IP #
APR
Member

Interesting....

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

Posted Saturday 7 Jan 2017 @ 6:54:50 am from IP #
Morbo
Member

"The Korean-owned Sun Metals, as a large electricity consumer, has also been pushing for significant regulatory changes to Australia’s wholesale electricity market."

"Those proposals, although supported by the Australian energy regulator and the market operator, have been fiercely opposed by the owners of coal and gas fired power stations."

I guess the battle is on. Since demo thingy wento down the crapper and now its its corporatism, here is company vs company.

Posted Saturday 7 Jan 2017 @ 7:10:22 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

I had forgotten about Sun Metals Morbo. Have you submitted your submission to both the Chief Scientist and COAG re: the "five minute" rule?

This will be implemented when these two reports come out this year.

"The proposal comes from zinc smelter operator Sun Metals, which has asked the Australian Energy Market Commission to change the rule. Currently, pricing is set every five minutes, but financial settlement is made only every 30 minutes. Even the AEMC admits that this can distort the market, and push up prices unnecessarily."

"An example is illustrated in the graph below, which explains why operators of big generators, particularly gas or diesel-fired peaking plants, may object to the rule change."

"In this scenario, the dispatch price is $100 per MWh in the first five minutes, leaps to $13,800/MWh in the second, and falls back to $50/MWh for the remainder of the half hour."

"The trading price for the half hour is therefore averaged out $2,350 per MWh. Under current arrangements, the generator would receive just under $149,000 for this trading interval, but only $15,000 if it was settled on a five minute basis. That will deliver big savings to consumers."

"Sun Metals is pushing the “five minute settlement rule” because it says current arrangements “accentuate” strategic late rebidding, “where generators have been observed to withdraw generation capacity in order to influence price outcomes.” In other words, it accuses generators of acting artificially to create a price spike."

Quote submitted on 17 June 2016. Note the $13,800/MWh fig. This had to be in the fis yr. 2015/16, not the 2016/17 as the MPC is $14,000/MWh.

IAEA

Posted Saturday 7 Jan 2017 @ 7:42:49 am from IP #
IAEA
Member

http://220.157.74.28/Electricity/Data/Price-and-Demand/Price-and-Demand-Graphs/Current-Dispatch-Interval-Price-and-Demand-Graph-SA

Here is the first high price of power in the SA market place for 2017. It only took 7 days for the generators to get their grubby mits on the 'plebs' money. The gas peakers together with fossil fuel (diesel) are making hay while the sun shines before their route of funding, the 30 min. trade period is still available to be rorted.

Save the .csv file and keep as a record.

IAEA

Posted Saturday 7 Jan 2017 @ 11:05:04 am from IP #
Morbo
Member

"The Commission invites written submission on this rule change proposal by 16 June
2016"
no haven't submitted it. Don't think voters count anyway, the German word is Stimmvieh, a herd thats main purpose is to submit a vote to keep the appearance of democrasomething.
But what about that device to plug onto battery packs and that new provider which passes on the peak price to small generators? That device monitoring weather forecast, demand, capacity, spot price to prioritise where the generated (domestic) electricity goes.

Posted Saturday 7 Jan 2017 @ 8:29:23 pm from IP #
IAEA
Member

Morbo states ......

That device monitoring weather forecast, demand, capacity, spot price to prioritise where the generated (domestic) electricity goes.

If and when that “five minute settlement rule” comes into play, it may affect how Reposit and Diamond Energy offer that staggering, much sought after $1/kWh for power generated from your dom. PV sys.

Be advised thought, this is a trial offer and can be recinded at will at the beck and call of Diamond Energy. Pfitzy, up in NSW must be pulling his hair out at the thought that he may lose this income stream.

A moving target customers, a moving target!

IAEA

Posted Sunday 8 Jan 2017 @ 12:16:25 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 1 234 Next »