Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Geoff Gardiner on January 16, 2010 at 3:59pm

Yes it seems such a waste of water doesn't it?
Think of how great that would be

Permalink Reply by John Cartwright on January 16, 2010 at 4:07pm

Colin,
There is a plenty of hot wind in Canberra for sure, but to drive a engine, well I think it still may not have enough grunt.

When you start talking of plans like the Bradfield Scheme then we are starting to talk some sense and I wonder if the so called renewed NATS COULD BRING THEMSELVES TO INTRODUCE PLANS LIKE THIS TO THEIR PLATFORM.

Do they have vision in their future plans or just happy to have a white car, we will see.
Not sure how many hydro plants would be possible in that scheme but worth looking into.

My thoughts on alternative energy options is if the goal is to replace coal as the main energy source provider then any other source if it can not run 24 hours a day is not a suitable choice.

So that leaves hydro expansion and nuclear

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 16, 2010 at 5:46pm

The last bit about the so;ar cell panel makes sense. The one I have driving a pump for a waterwheel in the garden is 5 W. Would be easy fo install too. Stirling engines might not deliver enough power but there are some very interesting working models. The answers to our future are out there, and thanks Geoff

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 16, 2010 at 6:07pm

About 26 years ago, a proposal with 6 pages of topograohic detail was prepared for the SA Government to bring water by canal and pipeline from Lake Argyle to Burke, a delivery site chosen because most of the the infrastructure for the greatest benefit is downstream from Wentworth. Part of my 60's-70's life was developing the Ramco Heights Irrigation Area at Waikerie. My task for the Argyle Project was to calculate earth volume from the topo, others the infrastructure etc as a practical idea. I made a trip to Yuma in the US and examined the specifications of the canal from Great Boulder for citrus and "truck" farms but I have no idea now where the paperwork might be. I think that the cost of an engineering survey was estimated at $7.2 million to take 2 years. Since then, I have conducted a risk survey for the privatisation of the East Sector of the Metro Manila Water District in the Philippines, an area serving about 5 million residents involving a mountain tunnel ,open channels,pipelines system from the Agno River to La Mesa Dam, a distance of more than 160 Ks. Flynn knew the terrain from the air better than anyone in his time and lakes were figured into the path of the survey I refer to. Just shows , one should never throw anything out, and again, the answers are out there somewhere.

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 16, 2010 at 6:14pm

The Corporatocracy Geoff and Colin

Permalink Reply by greg rauchle on January 16, 2010 at 6:31pm

Solar and Wind are working "really well" in the United States, Europe and the United Kindom right now with THE BIG FREEZE!

Permalink Reply by greg rauchle on January 16, 2010 at 6:33pm

Unfortunately FUSION is still many many decades in the future, if ever.

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 16, 2010 at 6:45pm

Google for "Solar House" the owners have a website for a day by day progress for a big home at Maine in the US and all of the specification and records from about 12 years ago. Fascinating to have someone iron out the bugs and put them on the web.

Permalink Reply by Russell Paul Luck on February 8, 2010 at 8:18pm

Hi all,
I saw a good doco on hydrogen fuel cells and now with the new Australian designed catalyst that you place in water under sunlight to seperate the Hydrogen and Oxygen, it is even closer to commercial standard.
Also on Electric cars well designed ones outpreform ANY internal combustion engine ones.
With no gear box and minimal moving parts they go.
And with the new tech in batteries... well, goodbye petrol monopoly.
And Fusion was generating more power than was required to initiate it back in 1993 when I was studying Physics at high school.
It should have moved forward since then.

Permalink Reply by John Paul McKerral on February 14, 2010 at 3:24pm

Geoff, I believe that people when talking of intermittent sources of power generation that they should mention if they consider it for base load or not. If for base load, they should explain what is to be used to fill in when the intermittent source is unavailable, wind not in the correct range, sun set or behind a cloud, sea calm, slack tide etc. Otherwise, it is just pie in the sky and is no more than hot air. Also economics of the method should be considered. For interest sake, if the intermittent source is only 30% efficient, that is over along period you can only expect to realise an average of 30% of rated power, then you need to generate least 3.3 times as much power as the load requires and store extra for when the conditions do not permit generating enough to power the load. Also the cost of large scale storage of power must be included, found, created and paid for. I have not heard of any economical means of large scale storage of power. There was a study done on using solar generation with hydro storage, two storage dams with one 150 M higher and it worked out at 25 times coal fired electricity per unit of electricity generated for a specific load. Would you be happy to pay that for your power ?
What use would intermittent power be without a back up system to fill in when the intermittent source fails ? Would you be happy with no power under such conditions ? I wouldn't.
J. P.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page