Fuel cells a reason not to give away our LNG ??

**pieces** · 09-11-09, 12:35 PM

Seen this company on the ABC yesterday.

Have a look they have a factory in Melbourne .
Generates power and by product is hot water .

Stuff the Chinese keep the gas for our selves . Were literary giving it away at the moment .

.

.

**trash** · 10-11-09, 04:42 PM

You underestimate how much gas we have.
Enough for all of China's demands, all of our domestic demands and enough to continue the supply for a very long time.

The same applies to coal and uranium and thorium and iron and aluminium and copper.

**pieces** · 10-11-09, 07:48 PM

What are we going to use when coal in Banded ????
What are we going to use when the oil runs out or that expensive we cant afford .

Im just saying dont be in such a hurry to off load our gas in 2 or 3 generations . What about your GGGGG grand children . Or is it pig out on every thing now and stuff future generations. Australia is going look like Afghanistan after it gutted of all its resources .
Natural gas should be treated as a strategic fuel resource as we have stuff all oil reserves .

Anyway this is a local company manufacturing a compact fuel cell unit and you will be able to have a 2kw natural gas power station in your house in the next 12 months for around $8,000 operating at 85% efficiency compared to coal fired at 22 -30 % .
It can pump out 2kw 24 /7 more then enough for the average house .
Maybe natural gas / Electric car is not far away either using this technology .

Im not saying its the best thing since sliced bread but its a very interesting technology .

Cheers.

PS the multinationals and money hungry governments will always say there's plenty for every one in the world . When its gone they just piss off and gut some other nations resources .

.

**Don Benosee** · 10-11-09, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by pieces

you will be able to have a 2kw natural gas power station in your house in the next 12 months for around $8,000

You'll pardon my cynicism when I say I'll believe it when I actually see it.

**Godzilla** · 10-11-09, 07:57 PM

Did anyone go through the second link?

Quoted from page 9.

Reduce CO2
Case study: Australia Victoria has the world’s highest CO2 emissions per capita
If CFCL units replaced just 7% of Victoria's electricity from brown coal, the State would achieve the Federal Government's target of a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions well before 2020.

Worlds highest CO2 emissions per capita?

How the heck have us Victorians overtaken the yanks in CO2 emissions? Sounds like we are burning too much brown coal down here, a very good case for going nuke.

**pieces** · 10-11-09, 10:31 PM

Are you willing to pay 4 or 5 times more for your power going nuke ????

**Godzilla** · 10-11-09, 11:07 PM

Why 4 or 5 times more, i have not heard of others paying those sort of figures for power.

France is producing it so economically and exporting its power to other countries to be making a 3 Billion Euro profit a year.

Quoted from here.

EdF early in 2009 estimated that its reactors provide power at EUR 4.6 cents/kWh and the energy regulator CRE puts the figure at 4.1 c/kWh. The weighted average of regulated tariffs is EUR 4.3 c/kWh. Power from the new EPR units is expected to cost about EUR 5.5 to 6.0 c/kWh.

So lets take the high side at 6.0 c/kWh.

My bill is 16.40 c/kWh

Now lets covert 6.0 c/kWh to Aussie and it comes to 9.69611 c/kWh

Shyite thats almost half what we pay, but by the time they put fat on it im sure its still under what we would pay.

Even with a 100% markup to pay for the plants and make the fat cats wealthy, its only 2-3 c/kWh more than we pay now.

**trash** · 11-11-09, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by pieces

Are you willing to pay 4 or 5 times more for your power going nuke ????

You mean solar or wind ? Or coal/gas with an ETS ?
Nuclear is on par with coal for production costs.

Sure nuclear can be a big investment, but it has equally big returns.
The advantage to coal is that we can build small stations at proportional costs to the larger units. With nuclear, cost savings come with big investments.

**pieces** · 11-11-09, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by trash

You mean solar or wind ? Or coal/gas with an ETS ?
Nuclear is on par with coal for production costs.

Sure nuclear can be a big investment, but it has equally big returns.
The advantage to coal is that we can build small stations at proportional costs to the larger units. With nuclear, cost savings come with big investments.

I have no issues with using it but the cost getting it built / maintenance / and waste are horrendous.
Yes nuclear is a big investment and they would slug us hard .

.