ecoww

	*www.ecoww.com - Plans to NetZero*
	*Factual information and solutions*
	Home Gas prices Power prices NetZero Scientific Method Inquire Nuclear Contact

	*NetZero means NO carbon*	*Renewables means higher power bills*
	The aim is for no CO2 discharge in our electric power generation, and to have power available 24 hours a day. This can be easily achieved at a low price with nuclear power. Solar and wind are intermittent sources and therefore require backup so we have power as required all day. Batteries or some other storage must be provided. We examine the feasibility of the storage options that are being suggested by government reports. The cost of building these backup systems, which have to be paid for, whether they are used full time or not, results in solar/wind being much more expensive than nuclear.	We need to apply the Scientific Method to this problem. The arithmetic is simple.
		*The huge cost of solar/wind*
		The "renewables" are INTERMITTENT SUPPLIES. To fully cost them we must include the cost of power sources to provide power when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Whatever backup source is used the building costs must be paid for, even if little power is used. We have costed options using battery power with useage 10% of the solar maximum capacity. The option of adding the capital cost of gas backup even with no allowance for any fuel costs more than doubles the price of sunny day solar. In both of these cases the solar power cost we have calculated are an under estimate. We have also calculated the cost with backup when the sun is not shining.
	Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) Carbon Separation & Storage (CSS)

		*And another impractical idea.*
	The government's plans rely throughout on something they call "CCS", "Carbon Capture and Storage". No such technology exists, there are plants involved in the extraction of methane gas, and fertiliser manufacturing where CO2 can be easily "Separated" from the feed stock. i.e. "CSS" not "CCS". Any laboratory method of capturing CO2 from the hot flue gases of a gas turbine can only separate out a maximum of 60% to 80%. Thus 30% will continue to be discharged, NOTzero. Further, neither CCS nor CSS are viable for large scale use since the only storage available is in reservoirs, usually oil fields where the CO2 can be used to force more oil out of the ground. Since such resevoirs are usually in remote areas and have limited volume available this is not a feasible future option.	*And another impractical idea.*
		Another impracticable idea suggested is the use of hydrogen as a backup fuel. Huge loses occur in every step from the electrolosis of water, to convertion to ammonia liquid fuel, to storage, to transport and then to produce power for end use. Total loses add up so much that it takes 9 to 18 kWh to put 1 kWh to a generator. Using power at 7c per kWh from wind power it will cost between 63c to $1.26 to fuel 1 kWh for the end user. Electric power at 10 times the going rate is not feasible. Way more costly than even batteries.

		*Final storage idea by definition doesn't work*
		The CSIRO and AMEO reports propose "adiabatic" compression of air as an energy storage. An accurate definition of "adiabatic" is "impossible". Adiabatic compression is compression without heat loss, in practice the temperature will reach levels much too high for any compressor or engine to survive.
We provide accurate costs for nuclear and renewable backup, we use other costs from government reports unchecked. We are in the process of checking all costs.

	*The table below is from AEMOGenCost2024-25ConsultDraft with additional data for renewable backup and nuclear.*