Printable View
It is the same business model as for worked out mines, Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The company stops earning revenue, it stops paying its bills, a liquidator is appointed, he examines the lovely agreement about site regeneration but there is no money to do this so it becomes irrelevant. The liquidator recovers what he can and pays 2 cents in the dollar, takes a very generous fee and closes his books.
Muggins the taxpayer is left to either ignore or clean up the mess.
Well I suppose the question is: if not gas (as a stop-gap) then what else? Hydro, Coal, Nuke are all too slow to build (apart from myriad other problems) so is there actually anything else available?Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
How long to build a gas-fired PS? 4-5 years maybe?
How much cleaner are they than coal?
Is it feasible to build smaller gas plants and put them in a few locations (e.g. near the industries that will need them)
Is it indeed feasible for some of those larger industries to build their own, more or less on-site?
Some months ago I posted that there were (from memory) 5 coal-fired plants shutting down by 2028, representing a little under half the production capacity off ff-powered plants, and that's if everything goes to plan. I wouldn't think that renewables will be ready by then (storage wise).
The New York Times is reporting:
BREAKING NEWS (paraphrased by FF)
Volcano Erupts in Iceland Near Power Plant, in ‘Worst-Case Scenario’
Iceland’s weather service had warned that a volcanic eruption was likely after thousands of earthquakes were recorded this month.
A volcano in Iceland began erupting, with lava fountains reaching up to 330 feet and the glow visible from central Reykjavik.
The location of the fissure poses a risk to the nearby Svartsengi Power Plant and the town of Grindavík, which was evacuated in November following heightened seismic activity.
The Eyjafjallajokull (pronounced EYE-a-fyat-la-jo-kutl) volcano had been dormant for nearly two centuries before it sprang back to life more than 13 years ago.
It will be on other news platforms soon enough. The very first thing I wanted to know was (and which was not addressed): "What type of plant is it? Surely they are not stupid enough to have a nuke in Iceland?"
No, they are not, it's a Geothermal.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
A few questions there. There are typically two types of gas plant. The first and most simple is a "once-through" installation where the gas turbine drives a generator and the exhaust gas goes straight to atmosphere. it is relatively inefficient and has a carbon intensity of .8 ( I'll come back to the carbon intensity). They are basically a jet engine coupled to a generator and can be installed within a couple of years probably as they are off-the-shelf type products delivered on the back of a truck. They are relatively easy to site and are fairly compact. They are expensive to run particularly with the way Australian gas has gone. These are the installations that are commonly referred to as "peaking" plants.
The more advanced gas stations are the HRSG (Heat recovery Steam Generator) plants. These capture the exhaust gases and divert them through a low steam pressure conventional boiler. Consequently, the heat from the exhaust is utilised and a much more efficient process results. Their carbon intensity is around .6 (providing the low pressure boiler is being utilised). Their response time for the gas turbine aspect is similar to the "Once Through" types but the steam generator would be much slower.
Australia already has quite a few (a lot) of these plants, but the expense of running them limits how much they are used. The fuel is expensive so they tend to come online when prices are elevated.
The carbon intensity is a reasonable comparison of how polluting different types of power plant are and reflects the amount of CO2 they pump into the atmosphere for each MW they produce: In tonnes! The best coal fired stations have an intensity of .9, which includes the supercritical units, but the older stations would be >1.0 up to around 1.2. The old hazelwood, brown coal station, which has been shut down for some time was around the 1.6 mark! The carbon intensity is also an indicator how much they cost to run and at what price they are economic, but I emphasise it is not the only consideration. Debt levels and other commercial impositions would also play a large part.
At the rate we are going in the storage stakes, by 2028 there may well be some large gaps if authorities don't wake up. My solution for the moment, is to make Canberra the first region off the rank when it comes to load shedding.
Regards
Paul
Edit: In talking about construction time I ignored approval time. Double the figures for approval too.
But since we all know that the decision on load shedding priorities will not be made in Millmerran, it's pretty safe to say that, as usual, Canberra will look after Canberra.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Now, if only they could harness the energy in all that hot air that Canberra produces ... :rolleyes:
Given that ACT electricity is 100% green, i.e. solar, wind or hydro -- even if a big chunk is sourced from NSW's coal plants, the ACT has contracts in place that "prove" otherwise -- so turning the lights off first in Canberra won't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
Generally speaking, when demand outstrips supply, AEMO has a schedule for which areas are switched off first. As an example, it is different in NSW to Queensland. In QLD industry is prioritised and the general populace is sacrificed. In NSW it is the other way around with industry being the first to go. It is a completely different scenario if the supply deficit is due to a failure of the lines or power plants.
As for Canberra, I don't know what goes on there. Apparently not very much that is ultimately worthwhile or beneficial to the public in general. However, I am starting to step on the political boundaries there so no more of this.
Regards
Paul
Too logical to be implemented. Obviously derived by an engineer and not by a political operative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I really only adopted the philosophy surrounding going to war. If the Bureaucrats who made that decision had to lead the first charge, there would be no wars. Point out that when the electricity goes out they are first to go without (make that wherever they chose to reside and not just Canberra) and we will see how soon things get fixed.
Regards
Paul
Federal Parliament sits 3-4 days per week for 18-20 weeks per year. That's top whack 80 days per year, which gives them a 21.9% chance of being in Canberra when a load shedding happens. Not exactly a shed load of a chance.
Still too logical, Paul.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
That did occur to me so I had already slightly modified the proposal in post #one thousand seven hundred and forty nine :D . I think you were typing at the same time.
Regards
Paul
I had no idea about this scheme until my local member sent me an email this morning. There are 400 batteries being installed across the country. One of them is in Blaxland (lower Blue Mountains), and the other at Hobartville, near Richmond.
Community Batteries for Household Solar
| Your Say Endeavour Energy
I can see any mention of the capacity ( or in the pdf), but it's certainly a great step in the right direction.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
While I was aware that pilot schemes had been introduced in new communities, in principle allowing them to be independent of the grid, I was not aware of the extent of the link you posted so thanks for that.
There is a little more information here on the extent and sizes, although I am not sure how many are just proposed and how many are up and running. As you said: " A step in the right direction."
Community Batteries for Household Solar program - DCCEEW
The largest individual battery looks to be 0.525MW so these are fairly small. The largest installation (11 batteries) was 1.44MWs.
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Is "Fedferal Government" (third paragraph in the document) a political statement or a typo, do you think?