#Official Energy Thread

[urban]

Although I think more money should be spent on legitimate renewables, from what they say, significant reductions in atmospheric carbon will be achieved, which is all good by me.

This will only hold about 50 days worth of Aust's CO2 emissions.

[Bulldozer]

I don't know. Obviously it'd be a good thing for SA by providing employment after the gas fields empty, but on the other hand what happens if this stuff leaks out? CO2 is heavy and hugs the ground so every oxygen breathing thing around the leaks will die. I'm no gas well engineer, but it seems to me that keeping pressurised gas sealed in underground has to be a lot harder than pouring a liquid down.

Overall I think this sequestration crap is exactly that and nothing more than another excuse for the rabid greenies to use to prevent the adoption of nuclear energy. (Think about it... what is going to happen with demand on the grid when plug-in electric cars go mainstream? Toyota is apparently making the next model of the Prius a plug-in.)

The oceans probably suck up more CO2 each year than this project will over its entire life.

[Ho Really]

[...]

The oceans probably suck up more CO2 each year than this project will over its entire life.

Oceans emit carbon dioxide as they warm up and absorb it when they cool down. So, if they keep warming up due to global warming we have a problem.

Cheers

[urban]

Bulldozer you should replace greenies with coal miners. The coal industry is supplying the govt with some very loosely interpreted figures.

I don't see how geosequestration can solve the CO2 problem. Some reports say that half the energy created by a coal powered station would need to be used in the process.

[Ho Really]

Plant more trees I say.

Cheers

[toby1]

The subject is often alluded to but I haven't seen a dedicated thred for it yet. I have two solar panels on my roof (pre-existing when we bought), but they are currently not registering any power return to the grid. There are people looking at this for me but I would be interested to know how many of us have working panels used for electricity generation?

Also perhaps someone here has a passing interest in electronics and can offer some tips on minor (or major) power generation. As an example I am looking at rigging up an outdoor LED lighting system powered by a small solar cell and batteries - mostly because I do not have accessible power outlets outdoors. Seems to be possible but I haven't done the research yet ...

[Norman]

I'd love to have solar cells on my roof one day, getting rid of the need for coal and other dirty power plants.

[Will]

I would eventually like to install solar cells or a wind turbine on the roof. But due to price constraints, the contribution that i have made as of yet is to switch our energy source to 'green energy'.

[toby1]

I would eventually like to install solar cells or a wind turbine on the roof. But due to price constraints, the contribution that i have made as of yet is to switch our energy source to 'green energy'.

i understand turbines to be fairly unsuitable for domestic use? too big/heavy for most structures (and apparently nosiy too?) but if you think otherwise please let me know!

and i too am on "green power", whatever that really means

certainly seems so far that we are mostly keen but unable to spring the $$$ to make it happen.

[omada]

toby1 said: and i too am on "green power", whatever that really means

yeah i'm on green power, can someone tell me how this works?? If your on this option, apparently then they use renewables for your power generation or they invest more money in renewables?? I don't quite get it, as we surely they do not have enough renewables to meet the demands of customers taking the green power option..

[AG]

I am currently in the process of switching to some reliance on solar energy, having new panels installed on our roof tomorrow. And yes, our house is returning energy to the grid.

[Bulldozer]

Solar is still just not worth the money for anything other than remote power, even with the massive subsidy the government gives you.

[toby1]

toby1 said: and i too am on "green power", whatever that really means

yeah i'm on green power, can someone tell me how this works?? If your on this option, apparently then they use renewables for your power generation or they invest more money in renewables?? I don't quite get it, as we surely they do not have enough renewables to meet the demands of customers taking the green power option..

I believe it to mean that by entering the green contract the provider agrees to guarantee that a certain percentage (??) of your power will come from renewable sources like wind, solar, whatever else they can use. But i agree that it is unlikely that they will be able to give us 100% renewable anytime this year or next.

and Bulldozer: surely it is worth haveing some power generation going on at home. sure it might be pissweak in a single place, but the more rooves are rigged up the more power going back in, and so the less coal/gas necessary to power the population.

in short - it ain't great, but it's a start

[Bulldozer]

and Bulldozer: surely it is worth haveing some power generation going on at home. sure it might be pissweak in a single place, but the more rooves are rigged up the more power going back in, and so the less coal/gas necessary to power the population.

Might make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside, but at current prices you'd be a hell of a lot better off switching to "green" power. I crunched the numbers a few years ago because we used a lot of electricity (running machinery) and as far as I'm concerned, even with the increased government subsidy you'd have to have more money than brains or be mentally unhinged to go solar when you have the grid available. If you're in the outback where your only other option is a genset then it makes sense because it's actually cheaper - hence why homesteads are all switching to it.

If the government spent as much on subsidising solar installations as it costs to build a nuclear plant then you'd get lot less power than the nuclear plant.

[AG]

$25bn resources boom spree
November 23, 2007 01:15am
MINING companies in South Australia will spend billions more dollars on infrastructure in half the time that was expected.

Costs are rising and projects are being developed more quickly, SA Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive Jason Kuchel said yesterday.

The chamber now expects companies to spend $25 billion in the next 10 years, rather than $20 billion over 20 years.

"I don't think anyone in SA – governments, local governments, regional development boards – really understands just how big the resources boom is going to be," he said.

The upgrade came as the State Government appointed a high-powered committee to co-ordinate infrastructure development.

"This group will identify the issues and plan the way forward in what is an absolutely crucial sector for SA," Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway said.

Full details of the chamber's forecasts will not be released until early next year but Mr Kuchel said the sector expected its power needs to increase five-fold, water, gas, road, rail and port use to treble and job numbers to double.

As well as $25 billion spent by mining companies, the chamber expects hundreds of millions more to be spent by private sector companies running such services as ports, rail and electricity.

State and federal governments also would have to allocate millions of dollars for public services.

"If some of our large regional towns double in population, is anyone really ready for the requirements for schools, teachers, roads, health services, sewerage, all these sorts of things that the mining companies won't generally be providing?" Mr Kuchel said.

He argues mining will make SA less reliant on the River Murray and more able to develop green energy as the sector will help make such projects as desalination and geothermal plants commercially viable.

Mr Kuchel said many mines would use highly saline or mineral-laden water that could not be used for drinking or agriculture.

The Resources and Energy Sector Infrastructure Council will be headed by the chairman of minerals explorer Adelaide Resources, Paul Dowd, and includes BHP Billiton's Graeme Hunt, Beach Petroleum's Reg Nelson and public servants Jim Hallion, Paul Heithersay and Raymond Garrand.