Australia will need to deal with an estimated 30,000 tonnes of old EV batteries by 2030
Experts warn the large volume of e-waste could pose health, environmental and fire threats
The national body set up to deal with battery waste says the industry needs to take urgent action
Basher said
06:05 PM Jun 1, 2023
And your point is what,? To create and promote all those NOT wanting change? All the doomsdayers would be getting hard ons about now! Basher
Whenarewethere said
06:21 PM Jun 1, 2023
Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of button cells & similar go into landfill each year now.
Don't think there are many in our block of units disposing of them properly. Me included with about 3 out of 4 batteries eventually end up in the bin.
Whenarewethere said
06:29 PM Jun 1, 2023
10,000,000 9v batteries for fire alarms. That's 460 tonnes. I reckon the bulk of that is going in the garbage each year.
woolman said
09:18 AM Jun 2, 2023
I don't see batteries as a sustainable method of storing power. Maybe a big lacky band or clock spring is an option. We have had 7 day clock springs for decades. Just need a bigger one.
Hydrogen is also a possibility.
I hope some one is thinking outside the box here.
Put your thinking caps on, nothing should be too far left field
Neil
Gundog said
09:40 AM Jun 2, 2023
woolman wrote:
Hydrogen is also a possibility.
Yes it is a possibility however, which one do you want Blue Hydrogen uses fossil fuel to create, where Green needs electricity.
This is the elephant in the room, it is not used as domestic fuel, due to several reasons : Hydrogen is not easily available and cost of production is high. Unlike other gases, hydrogen is not readily available in the atmosphere. It requires processes like electrolysis of water for its production. This is a very costly process and time consuming. Thus when does the production become cheaper, firstly it requires electricity just how much Solar,Wind and Battery would be needed to sustain 24/7 production, what happens when those power sources become unavailable.
Presently Wind and Solar plus Battery nationally are generating about 10MW of power, considering it takes 50kWh and 9 litres of water to make 1kg of Green Hydrogen
Aussie1 said
08:03 PM Jun 2, 2023
Nuclear only way to go. Clean efficient and cost effective. And please don't bore me with disposal issues.
Whenarewethere said
09:12 PM Jun 2, 2023
Mining tailings issues then.
peter67 said
10:18 AM Jun 3, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Nuclear only way to go. Clean efficient and cost effective. And please don't bore me with disposal issues.
Yup.
Cuppa said
11:42 AM Jun 3, 2023
Nuclear - cost effective?
Aussie1 said
03:18 PM Jun 3, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Nuclear - cost effective?
As your humorous emoji says yes
Not to be confused with the vote that will further divide Australians
-- Edited by Aussie1 on Saturday 3rd of June 2023 05:06:24 PM
deverall11 said
04:30 PM Jun 3, 2023
From MIT:
Another option for producing hydrogen comes from a perhaps surprising source: reacting aluminum with water. Aluminum metal will readily react with water at room temperature to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen. That reaction doesnt typically take place because a layer of aluminum oxide naturally coats the raw metal, preventing it from coming directly into contact with water.
Using the aluminum-water reaction to generate hydrogen doesnt produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and it promises to solve the transportation problem for any location with available water. Simply move the aluminum and then react it with water on-site. Fundamentally, the aluminum becomes a mechanism for storing hydrogen and a very effective one
Gundog said
05:10 PM Jun 3, 2023
deverall11 wrote:
From MIT:
Another option for producing hydrogen comes from a perhaps surprising source: reacting aluminum with water. Aluminum metal will readily react with water at room temperature to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen. That reaction doesnt typically take place because a layer of aluminum oxide naturally coats the raw metal, preventing it from coming directly into contact with water.
Using the aluminum-water reaction to generate hydrogen doesnt produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and it promises to solve the transportation problem for any location with available water. Simply move the aluminum and then react it with water on-site. Fundamentally, the aluminum becomes a mechanism for storing hydrogen and a very effective one
Where does that method fit within the 8 colors of Hydrogen I previously posted, the most expensive hydrogen to produce is Green Hydrogen which is the prefered type for renewable lobby.
Cuppa said
06:00 PM Jun 3, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
Nuclear - cost effective?
yes
What is the source of your informatiion? As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity.
smwhiskey said
07:00 PM Jun 3, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity.
But if the conspiracy theory is to believed, we'll need less electricity because people glowing in the dark will negate the need for lighting.
Gundog said
07:16 PM Jun 3, 2023
smwhiskey wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity.
But if the conspiracy theory is to believed, we'll need less electricity because people glowing in the dark will negate the need for lighting.
Aussie1 said
07:17 PM Jun 3, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Aussie1 wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
Nuclear - cost effective?
yes
What is the source of your informatiion? As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity.
I have my opinions , and have no interest in quantifying or answering to you or anyone else here to justify them.
Nice try but Cobber.
Cuppa said
09:13 PM Jun 3, 2023
Aussie1 wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
Aussie1 wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
Nuclear - cost effective?
yes
What is the source of your informatiion? As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity.
I have my opinions , and have no interest in quantifying or answering to you or anyone else here to justify them.
Yep, of course you have your opinion, but when you posted "Nuclear only way to go. Clean efficient and cost effective." you didn't claim the statement as opinion, but presented it as fact.
If making such statements it is not unreasonable to be expected to support them.
Regardless of your intention, it is incorrect whether intended as opinion or fact, but yes you are entitled to hold an opinion which is incorrect. Just don't expect others reading it to take you seriously.
If I had wanted to 'have a go' I would simply have told you that you were wrong, & provided supporting material, but I was polite & asked you for evidence of what seemed incorrect to me. Subsequent googling confirmed what I had thought to be the case.
As for your initial dig about my avatar (not an emoji btw) - it was unnecessary.
Your defensiveness suggests to me that you know you made a statement of fact that you cannot back up.
Here is a link to an article about the comparative cost of nuclear power, there are many similar from a variety of sources.
No need to pursue further undue acrimony, I'm not looking for a blue, just to not allow false facts to pass unquestioned.
Aussie1 said
08:10 AM Jun 4, 2023
Yawn
Gundog said
01:07 PM Jun 4, 2023
Cuppa whats the point of posting a link that is behind a pay wall ?
Whilst the headline is an attention grabber, perhaps the story line could be head in the sand BS like blackout promotes whichnis factually incorrect.
How many billions of dollars that have been spent on subsidies to build Solar and Wind along with Hydro, and yet power prices continue to rise, the continued narritive that renewables are cheaper is a bald faced lie.
Cuppa said
04:28 PM Jun 4, 2023
Gundog wrote:
Cuppa whats the point of posting a link that is behind a pay wall ?
None......... But I read it without problem & I have no subscriber account.
Perhaps there is a limit to the number of times you can read AFR articles without paying & you have exceeded it? Maybe I just got lucky?
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 4th of June 2023 04:30:18 PM
Gundog said
05:13 PM Jun 4, 2023
Its easy to find an alternate view that supports your position.
A 2019 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency study, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs With High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, found that the integration of large shares of intermittent renewable electricity is a major challenge for the electricity systems of OECD countries and for dispatchable generators such as nuclear. Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh.
However whats never considered in the renewable position is they can never provide 24/7 power, even with battery support. At some point in time you need base load power from fossil fuel.
Cuppa said
05:50 PM Jun 4, 2023
Your anti renewable stance is one you have made clear. The issue here is the relative affordability of nuclear power generation, & also whether it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. I guessing you also consider climate change to be a worldwide hoax?
yobarr said
06:17 PM Jun 4, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Your anti renewable stance is one you have made clear. The issue here is the relative affordability of nuclear power generation, & also whether it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. I guessing you also consider climate change to be a worldwide hoax?
And so it is. Can"t be bothered trying teach the sheep, but this will possibly help? Cheers
The sheep appear to me to be those who fail to recognise their 'sheepness' whilst asserting that they have a 'special insight' which allows them to dismiss overwhelming worldwide scientific opinion.
Gundog said
06:59 PM Jun 4, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Your anti renewable stance is one you have made clear. The issue here is the relative affordability of nuclear power generation, & also whether it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. I guessing you also consider climate change to be a worldwide hoax?
So okay will you please enlighten me as to how renewables will power Australia with Wind, Solar and Hydro without baseload power 24/7.
These included installing about forty 7MW wind turbines every month until 2030, and 22,000 500W solar panels every day for the next eight years, or 60 million by 2030.
They may need to install many more turbines and solar panels than forecast by Bowen. For instance, no 7MW wind turbines have yet been installed in Australia, the biggest is just short of 6MW, although some have been assumed, such as at the green hydrogen project in Western Australia.
A 500 watt panel measures 1m x 2m, therefore 60 million panels will need a minimum of 120 million square meters of agriable land to plant them, dont worry about the lost food production as we can buy that from overseas,
rgren2 said
07:10 PM Jun 4, 2023
Climate change is real, but, is it caused by man? Australia definitely has little impact.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-01/electric-vehicle-battery-waste-projections-uts-research/102417114
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-01/electric-vehicle-battery-waste-projections-uts-research/102417114
And your point is what,? To create and promote all those NOT wanting change?
All the doomsdayers would be getting hard ons about now!
Basher
Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of button cells & similar go into landfill each year now.
Don't think there are many in our block of units disposing of them properly. Me included with about 3 out of 4 batteries eventually end up in the bin.
10,000,000 9v batteries for fire alarms. That's 460 tonnes. I reckon the bulk of that is going in the garbage each year.
I don't see batteries as a sustainable method of storing power. Maybe a big lacky band or clock spring is an option. We have had 7 day clock springs for decades. Just need a bigger one.
Hydrogen is also a possibility.
I hope some one is thinking outside the box here.
Put your thinking caps on, nothing should be too far left field
Neil
Yes it is a possibility however, which one do you want Blue Hydrogen uses fossil fuel to create, where Green needs electricity.
Like Henry Hoke's clockwork car.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1---from-the-desert/9627166
Other ways Hydrogen is made
This is the elephant in the room, it is not used as domestic fuel, due to several reasons : Hydrogen is not easily available and cost of production is high. Unlike other gases, hydrogen is not readily available in the atmosphere. It requires processes like electrolysis of water for its production. This is a very costly process and time consuming. Thus when does the production become cheaper, firstly it requires electricity just how much Solar,Wind and Battery would be needed to sustain 24/7 production, what happens when those power sources become unavailable.
Presently Wind and Solar plus Battery nationally are generating about 10MW of power, considering it takes 50kWh and 9 litres of water to make 1kg of Green Hydrogen
Mining tailings issues then.
Yup.
As your humorous emoji says yes
Not to be confused with the vote that will further divide Australians
-- Edited by Aussie1 on Saturday 3rd of June 2023 05:06:24 PM
Another option for producing hydrogen comes from a perhaps surprising source: reacting aluminum with water. Aluminum metal will readily react with water at room temperature to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen. That reaction doesnt typically take place because a layer of aluminum oxide naturally coats the raw metal, preventing it from coming directly into contact with water.
Using the aluminum-water reaction to generate hydrogen doesnt produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and it promises to solve the transportation problem for any location with available water. Simply move the aluminum and then react it with water on-site. Fundamentally, the aluminum becomes a mechanism for storing hydrogen and a very effective one
Where does that method fit within the 8 colors of Hydrogen I previously posted, the most expensive hydrogen to produce is Green Hydrogen which is the prefered type for renewable lobby.
But if the conspiracy theory is to believed, we'll need less electricity because people glowing in the dark will negate the need for lighting.
If making such statements it is not unreasonable to be expected to support them.
Regardless of your intention, it is incorrect whether intended as opinion or fact, but yes you are entitled to hold an opinion which is incorrect. Just don't expect others reading it to take you seriously.
If I had wanted to 'have a go' I would simply have told you that you were wrong, & provided supporting material, but I was polite & asked you for evidence of what seemed incorrect to me. Subsequent googling confirmed what I had thought to be the case.
As for your initial dig about my avatar (not an emoji btw) - it was unnecessary.
Your defensiveness suggests to me that you know you made a statement of fact that you cannot back up.
Here is a link to an article about the comparative cost of nuclear power, there are many similar from a variety of sources.
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-energy-too-expensive-to-replace-fossil-fuels-20220711-p5b0pd
No need to pursue further undue acrimony, I'm not looking for a blue, just to not allow false facts to pass unquestioned.
Cuppa whats the point of posting a link that is behind a pay wall ?
Whilst the headline is an attention grabber, perhaps the story line could be head in the sand BS like blackout promotes whichnis factually incorrect.
How many billions of dollars that have been spent on subsidies to build Solar and Wind along with Hydro, and yet power prices continue to rise, the continued narritive that renewables are cheaper is a bald faced lie.
None......... But I read it without problem & I have no subscriber account.
Perhaps there is a limit to the number of times you can read AFR articles without paying & you have exceeded it? Maybe I just got lucky?
Try this
https://reneweconomy.com.au/slow-expensive-and-no-good-for-1-5-target-csiro-crushes-coalition-nuclear-fantasy/
and this
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/may/nuclear-explainer
-- Edited by Cuppa on Sunday 4th of June 2023 04:30:18 PM
Its easy to find an alternate view that supports your position.
A 2019 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency study, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs With High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, found that the integration of large shares of intermittent renewable electricity is a major challenge for the electricity systems of OECD countries and for dispatchable generators such as nuclear. Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh.
However whats never considered in the renewable position is they can never provide 24/7 power, even with battery support. At some point in time you need base load power from fossil fuel.
Your anti renewable stance is one you have made clear. The issue here is the relative affordability of nuclear power generation, & also whether it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. I guessing you also consider climate change to be a worldwide hoax?
And so it is. Can"t be bothered trying teach the sheep, but this will possibly help? Cheers
The sheep appear to me to be those who fail to recognise their 'sheepness' whilst asserting that they have a 'special insight' which allows them to dismiss overwhelming worldwide scientific opinion.
So okay will you please enlighten me as to how renewables will power Australia with Wind, Solar and Hydro without baseload power 24/7.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-staggering-numbers-behind-australias-82-per-cent-renewables-target/
These included installing about forty 7MW wind turbines every month until 2030, and 22,000 500W solar panels every day for the next eight years, or 60 million by 2030.
They may need to install many more turbines and solar panels than forecast by Bowen. For instance, no 7MW wind turbines have yet been installed in Australia, the biggest is just short of 6MW, although some have been assumed, such as at the green hydrogen project in Western Australia.
A 500 watt panel measures 1m x 2m, therefore 60 million panels will need a minimum of 120 million square meters of agriable land to plant them, dont worry about the lost food production as we can buy that from overseas,