Power generation issues in South Australia

 
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Thank you Don D for the nice things you have said about me. I had no idea you knew me that well.
brianph
Did I refer specifically to you?
“Renewables are unreliable” represents old fashioned views about how an energy system should operate. It’s true that many in the industry still think that way, either because they are locked into 20th century technology and practices, or because their narrow business interests demand that it be so.
brianph
Too bad for places like Arrium or other large scale industry that needs reliable base load power - they need to get with the program and only make products when the wind blows (or doesn't blow too much).

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
The physics, chemistry, biology, climatology, meteorology and glaciology (there are probably more) will not change to suit us. If we don’t wake up and do something, the inexorable working out of the laws of physics will surely come back to bite us.
brianph
Allow me to explain at length. I, too, believed in the absolute undeniable truth of climate science once upon a time.

Ten years or so ago at the height of the very long and somewhat unprecedented drought we were having in southern Australia I read Tim Flannery's book (among others) and I was as convinced as anyone else that anthropomorphic climate change was a real and tangible thing AND that the drought was absolutely irrefutable evidence of this happening. Flannery (at that time) was also going around telling people that the drought was the new normal and in response most state Premiers decided that the construction of desalination plants was the way to go - because after all, as Tim Flannery assured us - the dams would never, ever be full again.

Fast forward ten years and I don't think there's any denying that the construction of these desal plants was an over-reaction and boondoggle ($30-$40 billion down the drain in Victoria's case) to what now appears to be a cyclical phenomenon. Yet people who are the Aussie experts on climate change are still telling us that - yes - they were still right all along and that the unusually wet winter that we've just had combined with the odd storm is also part of the global warming phenomenon… we should expect the sky to continue to fall because of increasing carbon dioxide but perhaps not in the same manner that they were telling us it would ten years ago.

So… years ago it was manifesting in one way but now it's unpredictably changed how it expresses itself? Can't make up its mind? In the meantime we have to spend billions upon billions of dollars subsidising and directly funding one particular scientific clique's idea of what is right (Al Gore - for example - has undeniably become very wealthy from writing and speaking about his climate science since he left politics) when in fact they can't reliably predict the actual impact on a place like Australia.

Now I'm not saying that people like Andrew Bolt, Lord Monkton etc have the answer either but I think it's a handy point of reference to remember that behind every barrow there's someone pushing it and often they're doing it because they have a life-long academic body of work to protect, a speaking tour, a book to promote… I've seen this in my own former academic life, people protecting their little empires. Flannery (for example) was absolutely, undeniably wrong about his predictions - so how can I take him seriously when he tells me now that overflowing dams are just another manifestation of the phenomenon of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when his book told me the opposite was true ten years ago? Why should we believe that the sky will fall in if we don't put a price on carbon dioxide if the 'empirical evidence' can't actually tell us what the result of increasing carbon dioxide actually is? Is increasing carbon dioxide really that bad or is it just someone with a barrow to push telling us that we should be doing it their way, buying their books, supporting their research foundations, attending their lectures, their own alarmist evidence getting them appointed as head of their own governmental authority?

Now with regards to Port Augusta's decommissioning: It's hard not to see things like the shut-down of that coal-fired baseload capacity as being driven by an ideological agenda and a subsequent "pricing structure" that is not actually good for us. Bad for jobs, bad for industry, bad for consumers and as Alex C was indicating on the last page - South Australia was not actually ready for the closure of such a large baseload provider because renewables are not capable of providing that kind of consistent service (at some stage in the future with battery technology perhaps they will but not right now) and the national grid is not up to protecting us from extremely hot (and still) days. Because of an idea.

I'm sceptical and cynical - that's all.
  steam4ian Chief Commissioner

Comment has been made about BHP.

Closing Northern Power Station causes them some issues relating to voltage management and fault sustaining on their feeder to the OD site.

They have been seriously looking at retaining Northern PS not as an energy generator but as a VAR generator. The steam end of the set would be replaced by a small driver capable of bringing the generators up to speed where they could then be used as synchronous condensers. each set would add about 1.5 GVA fault level to the system making it more robust and better able to ride through events like 28/09/16.

No coal would be needed.

The boilers would be capable of modifying to gas firing or could be replaced by the HRSG of a combined cycle system. There is significant base load on the area including Nyrstar, Arrium and BHP.
  David Peters Dr Beeching

Location: "With Hey Boy".
Well the hand over date of the railway back to government has been announced. The railway will be returned to state government in July 2017 in an operating condition.  

I wonder if the AK cars will make another trip to Leigh Creek before handover?

http://flinderspower.com.au/leigh-creek-railway/
AN830
Would they really need to though as I cannot see the state government maintaining  it in top quality condition if nothing is going to run on it. There is no other traffic on that line other than the coal trains. I would not be surprised if the State government sell of the infrastructure that is above ground for scrap or reuse or something and then selling of the right of way after that. The government here is having a fire sale on unused asset's like this and any excuse to get a few dollars for something they seem to grab of late.

They will probably do this and then in the future some mining company will find a valuable source of some wanted mineral etc and the railway line will be long gone.  This is South Australia and things like this do happen. Either that or they will do what happened to the Mt Gambier line just leave it in place and let nature take it back. Either way it will probably not remain as a usable line though. Another nail in the rail coffin in SA.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The Leigh Creek Railway is redundant and has no future and there is little use pretending it has. The rails can be left as a "just in case" up until the sleepers are close to making the track impassable and at this point the rails should be recovered and sold.

The problem with baseload power in Australia is that there is too much, prices are too low for too long at the power generators gate and hence no one in his right mind would fund base load infrastructure. In the case of SA, while I agree it needs its baseload, the issue is the coal is railed nearly 280km and the power transmitted over 300km to the bulk of the users, cost wise getting in from large scale operations in Vic is cheaper. The Wind is a RE thing, like it or not its there and in Vic. However its not base load as is the solar and hence needs the transmission capacity to send the electrons where they need to go and that includes the big battery in the snowy and across the Bass Strait. There are a few other smaller batteries around, including Brisbane's 500MW pump back hyrdo plant at Wivenhoe.

The issue that happened in Sth Aust this year is mostly poor timing. Northern should not have been allowed to close until Heywood was ready. However this would not have helped in the storm as it would have been also cut and also tripped Arrium in the process as its turbine needs a grid to synchronise to.

There is obviously a big question mark on the towers in SA and why they fell over, some have their foundations pulled, others bent over. Did they fail in realistically low wind speeds (I don't think so), where they under maintained? or was there a localised meteorological event occurring?

Comments regarding nuclear are pointless as it would have also been tripped as it would have been built up north from Adelaide and the power price from Nuclear is higher than SA's nominal price. Although I still support a nuclear power industry in Australia with cradle to grave operations based in SA. The problem with SA for nuclear or coal is that its grid is small, a decent nuclear plant is 2 x 1400MW. SA rarely goes over 1400MW. Likewise a typical coal package plant with two turbines is 800MW.
  prwise Locomotive Driver

The Leigh Creek Railway is redundant and has no future and there is little use pretending it has. The rails can be left as a "just in case" up until the sleepers are close to making the track impassable and at this point the rails should be recovered and sold.

The problem with baseload power in Australia is that there is too much, prices are too low for too long at the power generators gate and hence no one in his right mind would fund base load infrastructure. In the case of SA, while I agree it needs its baseload, the issue is the coal is railed nearly 280km and the power transmitted over 300km to the bulk of the users, cost wise getting in from large scale operations in Vic is cheaper. The Wind is a RE thing, like it or not its there and in Vic. However its not base load as is the solar and hence needs the transmission capacity to send the electrons where they need to go and that includes the big battery in the snowy and across the Bass Strait. There are a few other smaller batteries around, including Brisbane's 500MW pump back hyrdo plant at Wivenhoe.

The issue that happened in Sth Aust this year is mostly poor timing. Northern should not have been allowed to close until Heywood was ready. However this would not have helped in the storm as it would have been also cut and also tripped Arrium in the process as its turbine needs a grid to synchronise to.

There is obviously a big question mark on the towers in SA and why they fell over, some have their foundations pulled, others bent over. Did they fail in realistically low wind speeds (I don't think so), where they under maintained? or was there a localised meteorological event occurring?

Comments regarding nuclear are pointless as it would have also been tripped as it would have been built up north from Adelaide and the power price from Nuclear is higher than SA's nominal price. Although I still support a nuclear power industry in Australia with cradle to grave operations based in SA. The problem with SA for nuclear or coal is that its grid is small, a decent nuclear plant is 2 x 1400MW. SA rarely goes over 1400MW. Likewise a typical coal package plant with two turbines is 800MW.
RTT_Rules
Yep - that is an excellent summary of where we are today, with a couple of clarifications

It is unknown why the wind turbines fell off, but it was most likely due to disturbances in voltage and possibly harmonics from adjacent lines faulting and then tripping. With Northern running there would have been much stronger voltage support in the area which may have enabled these wind turbines to ride through the disturbance.

The interconnector is pretty much as ready as it will ever be. Although it seems to have tripped whilst well within it's thermal ratings. It appears that maybe that AEMO has a stability trip on line that tripped it causing further problems. Will need to wait till final report to find out.

Interestingly the SA govt has instructed AEMO yesterday to operate the interconnector in a different fashion. Details in AEMO Market Notice 55222.  The nitty gritty bit is
"These constraint equations will limit Heywood Interconnector transfers in both directions under conditions of low power system inertia in South Australia, in order to limit the Rate of Change of Frequency to below 3 Hz per second for the non-credible co-incident trip of both circuits of the Heywood interconnector"
Which seems to imply SA needs to have it's own 'in state' synchronous generation and not rely on the interconnector as it has in the past
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
My understanding is the bulk of the wind (+350MW) dropped off because the towers fell over, after which the only inter-tie available couldn't cope.

As per my previous comments on Nuclear power.

If such a power station could be built around the Bordertown area, Adelaide is 250km west and Melbourne about 400km east, but a reasonable load in between. This would justify 3 turbines, 1 x 1400MW for the bulk of SA's power, 1 to shutdown the Hazelwood smog machine and another growth considering it takes 8+ years from approval to availability.
  prwise Locomotive Driver

My understanding is the bulk of the wind (+350MW) dropped off because the towers fell over, after which the only inter-tie available couldn't cope.

As per my previous comments on Nuclear power.

If such a power station could be built around the Bordertown area, Adelaide is 250km west and Melbourne about 400km east, but a reasonable load in between. This would justify 3 turbines, 1 x 1400MW for the bulk of SA's power, 1 to shutdown the Hazelwood smog machine and another growth considering it takes 8+ years from approval to availability.
RTT_Rules
Have you had a chance to read
http://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/Media-Statement-South-Australia-Interim-Report

And this is a goood read
ABC analysis of the prelim report
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-06/uhlmann-on-power-blackout-in-south-australia/7906844?section=analysis

I can send you a SLD of that part of grid if that helps, but there were always paths on the 275KV system for the wind farm generation to get out, even to the north, but more so the south. Generally SA 275KV lines rated at 450 - 600 MVA, so even one line could have handled the wind farm generation in that area

In regards to nuclear it will take at least 8 years to get to the point of having a govt even able to utter the word. First of all Australia need to go through a growing up process and realise the world doesn't owe us a living. We just at the point where the current gov't is sort of uttering those words guardedly. But until we get pollies that put nations interests ahead of own it will be slow going.
But even if we get the public on board in a couple of decades the economics of nuclear are challenging simply because we are a small dispersed nation. If you could roll out say 5 all the same you start to get some economies of scale and it looks a lot better. Alah France. Maybe by then though there may be a solution to the RE base load conundrum.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Have you had a chance to read
http://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/Media-Statement-South-Australia-Interim-Report

And this is a goood read
ABC analysis of the prelim report
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-06/uhlmann-on-power-blackout-in-south-australia/7906844?section=analysis
prwise
The AEMO interim report is indeed an interesting read.
Interesting that the AEMO report says that 14 of the 22 downed transmission line towers appear to have sustained damage AFTER the "Black System" event occurred, that is their damage didn't cause the "Black System"

And still a couple of mysteries to be analysed.
  62430 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Metro Adelaide
The AEMO interim report is indeed an interesting read.
Interesting that the AEMO report says that 14 of the 22 downed transmission line towers appear to have sustained damage AFTER the "Black System" event occurred, that is their damage didn't cause the "Black System"

And still a couple of mysteries to be analysed.
Pressman

Note however that the 14 towers taken out after the "Black System" were on the Davenport - Brinkworth line which is the northern continuation of the Brinkworth - Templers West line which was the first of the 275 kV lines to be downed.  I had a look today at the Davenport - Brinkworth line near Melrose where the towers were bent to the ground and it looks as if it will be some time before that line is restored.  Fortunately none of the Mid North wind farms are directly connected to the Davenport -Brinkworth - Templers West 275 kV line.  Most are connected to the two Davenport - Robertstown lines which were restored with the temporary towers earlier this week.  Snowtown 2 is connected to the Davenport - Bungama - Para 275 kV line at Blyth West.  Ironically this line is the oldest of the four 275kV lies from the north but it survived unscathed.

AEMO have indicated they will provide an update to the preliminary report on Wed 19 October but that the detailed analysis and recommendations could take six months.
  ANR Deputy Commissioner

This thread will just not die .... will it?

Is the Leigh Creek coal field the SA Premier's silver bullet?

What more will it take to reopen the Northern Power station?

How long would it take to build a new one?

No more dirty political tricks, but lots more dirty coal on its way to PA.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
This thread will just not die .... will it?

Is the Leigh Creek coal field the SA Premier's silver bullet?

What more will it take to reopen the Northern Power station?

How long would it take to build a new one?

No more dirty political tricks, but lots more dirty coal on its way to PA.
ANR
Blackouts forecast for NSW tomorrow and they have plenty of coal fired power.

Maybe that's not the real issue.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
I suspect, base load generation sort of IS the issue. As base load essentially means coal or nuclear (and we have no nuclear in this country), coal generation is the issue, whether that coal is turned into electricity at Port Augusta in northern South Australia or at Traralgon in eastern Victoria.

Until recently, as a very broad generalisation, electricity generation could be broken down to:
  • Base load for demand that is always there. Even at 4.00 am lots of electricity is needed for industry that runs 24/7 but also street lighting, domestic fridges and dozens of other things. In mainland Australia, this means coal powered.
  • Intermediate load generation. Typically gas powered
  • Peak load. Generation that can be turned on quickly for short periods, typically hydro dams or fast but inefficient gas turbines. Plus these days, long distance imports from other states, (although transmission losses over long distances can be fairly high).
However recently we have added another type of generation to the mix:
  • Intermittent generation. Assets that provide power at unpredictable times like wind turbines and to a lesser extent, solar. It's impossible to reliably predict when these will be working (wind turbines have a capacity factor of around 30%),
So if intermittent generation assets are to be used, more peak load generation assets need to be available, so they can be turned on quickly if the wind doesn't blow as much as was predicted. Thus things like wind turbines are absolutely ideal for Tasmania where they have an abundance of hydro electric power, but are not so ideal for places like South Australia where there is almost none.

With the closure of base load coal generation assets in South Australia, the state has been relying on gas generation to provide base load power 24/7, which is not what most gas power stations are designed for, so they can not run for months at a time. Thus the heavy dependence on imports of electricity from Gippsland in eastern Victoria. However the ability of Victoria to export power will be greatly reduced when the huge Hazelwood power station in closed down in the next month or so.

So things will probably get a lot worse in S.A. While there is no chance of me being asked, if I were advising the state government, I reckon they should consider:
  • Getting some form of base load generation has to be the first priority. Can Port Augusta be reopened? If not, then speedily decide whether nuclear or coal is preferred and then build a power station ASAP without dithering or delaying.
  • While waiting for base load to get working, quickly explore possibilities for small scale generation that be installed in months, such as more micro hydro in places like Adelaide water supply pipes, the Goolwa barrage and anything else. No political stunts, no public enquiries, just commission an engineering firm to investigate almost any form of micro generation with a report due in a couple of months, NOT a couple of years. Then immediately call tenders for the suggested options to be built, funded by the state government if necessary.
  • Beef up interstate connections. Long distance transmission losses make these pretty wasteful , but they will be essential in the years before the next base load power station is up and running
  • Be ready to hire diesel generators. During Tasmania's recent drought, diesel generators had to be hired and transported to the state so they could supplement reduced hydro output. This is even more wasteful than importing electricity over vast distances, but if things go pear shaped, both may be essential to keep industry operating and the lights tuned on.
If the South Australian government fails to do those things, their only alternative courses of action would be to:
  • Run a round in circles with their hands above your head screaming hysterically... or
  • Get a bunch of hippies to sit in a circle holding hands and meditating. Then hope that the karmic energy they generate is picked up by the electricity transmission network... or
  • Close down and move interstate.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Thanks Bogong.
Both informative and succinct. Smile
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
If the South Australian government fails to do those things, their only alternative courses of action would be to:
  • Run a round in circles with their hands above your head screaming hysterically... or
  • Get a bunch of hippies to sit in a circle holding hands and meditating. Then hope that the karmic energy they generate is picked up by the electricity transmission network... or
  • Close down and move interstate.
Bogong
Great post Bogong, love the happy ending.

The SA Gov't is making a lot of noise about taking action on this issue this morning (apptly it is everyone else's fault, not theirs) but the problem i see is that the SA treasury doesn't have any money.

So option C above may be the best option for most people (as it was for our family in the late 80s) as the bill will have to be footed by Electricity consumers.

BG
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Thanks so much for the positive comments on my early morning post, as well as the private messages.

I wrote it when I wasn't fully awake, so looking over it now, it's a bit verbose and the grammar is so shocking that it makes me wince.

A few thoughts on the situation:

Of course we have to burn less fossil fuel, but we have already reduced our CO2 emissions at a faster rate than almost all other western countries. So while Australia should do it's best to remain ahead of our peers, if we shut down base load generating capacity without replacing it with reliable generation, industry won't put up with it and will move to countries that do have reliable electricity. This will partly destroy the wealth generating assets that give us such a high standard of living.

As I said in my earlier post, we need more reliable base load and peak load generation. Our political masters on both sides agree with that broad statement. However the unfortunate truth is that it would be nearly impossible to build a new coal or nuclear power station in Australia as the protests by powerful lobby groups would intimidate any government that considered approving them. Ironically those same lobby groups are the ones pressuring state governments to force existing base load generators to close.

With all this new intermittent generation coming on line, we also need more peak load power to be ready to step in if the wind drops. Hydro electricity is the most desirable as it can be turned on in about two minutes while it takes about 20 hours to get a coal powered generator going. The dams that supply water to hydro generators can store lots of water and release it through the turbines for brief periods when the demand for electricity is highest, so they operate as a sort of battery, storing potential energy for when it is needed. However while there are lots of good sites for potential hydro electric systems, building them is even more "politically impossible" than building a coal or nuclear powered base load station.

So essentially Australia is screwed in relation to electricity generation. If politics prevents anyone building new base load or hydro powered peak load power, then with an increasing population, we'll have to rely on unreliable intermittent generation like wind turbines combined with maintenance intensive gas power stations run by a (relatively) expensive fuel. I wish I could see an alternative to this unfortunate future, but I can't. Sad
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Most practical thing to do to reduce CO2 is close the aging coal fired and build modern coal fired running on the best coal and if its imported from NSW/Qld then so be it. Also look at waste heat recovery and use for other purposes from the same power stations. Australia has a history of building stand alone power and industry.

The alt to coal is Nuclear. There is insufficient hydro options left to make a big enough difference to even bother with this to much. Maybe options of pump back peak supply like Brisbane's 500MW hydro plant, but not much else.
  fzr560 Chief Train Controller

This thread will just not die .... will it?

Is the Leigh Creek coal field the SA Premier's silver bullet?

What more will it take to reopen the Northern Power station?

How long would it take to build a new one?

No more dirty political tricks, but lots more dirty coal on its way to PA.
Blackouts forecast for NSW tomorrow and they have plenty of coal fired power.

Maybe that's not the real issue.
bingley hall
Plenty? We have a lot more coal fired power than SA but a lot less than we used to have. Of course we also have less power intensive industry than we used to. Plenty of variables in play but I've not yet heard how dirty power from the Latrobe Valley is better than the dirty power from Port Augusta.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Blackouts forecast for NSW tomorrow and they have plenty of coal fired power.

Maybe that's not the real issue.
bingley hall
Official message just received:

I have just received notification that ACTEWAGL have been advised by the national power regulator of power supply issues potentially affecting the eastern states of Australia.



ACTEWAGL has been instructed to shed 52MW of power in Canberra between the hours of 2 and 6pm today with a further forecast for tomorrow still to be advised.


There is, as Bing said, no shortage of generation.
So are they shedding load to avoid paying for additional intermediate or peak load power?
Shedding load doesn't cost you anything but running up a dozen big gas turbines  for four hours (above) probably does cost quite a lot.

You make more money by cutting supply.

In my case...

In the event that mains power is lost, site power generators will operate in order to maintain business operations.

Since we don't have opening windows, I hope that includes air conditioning and not just the network..

Will lumps of coal still be handed around in the House of Representatives if those lights go out?

Peter
  fzr560 Chief Train Controller

Most practical thing to do to reduce CO2 is close the aging coal fired and build modern coal fired running on the best coal and if its imported from NSW/Qld then so be it. Also look at waste heat recovery and use for other purposes from the same power stations. Australia has a history of building stand alone power and industry.

The alt to coal is Nuclear. There is insufficient hydro options left to make a big enough difference to even bother with this to much. Maybe options of pump back peak supply like Brisbane's 500MW hydro plant, but not much else.
RTT_Rules
Yep and while we're being practical, what are we doing about people burning cow sh## in the third world? Too hard I guess. Far easier to de-industrialize first world countries and slug the dumb whites in the suburbs.
   My personal preference would be nuclear but the gunzel in me would love to see quad 90s dragging 12000 tonnes of hunter coal to Port Augusta. Yep, Never gunna happen.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Whoops, I didn't directly mention waste heat recovery / cogeneration as one of the mini / micro-generation possibilities to help South Australia, but it's surprising how many industries can generate a few megawatts for a fairly modest outlay.

I've been banging on about the benefits of pumped storage hydro for years in all sorts of places, hoping to bring it to the attention of someone that mattered. I like to delude myself that a ministerial advisor read something I wrote, because it's suddenly cropped up in statements from a number of pollies.

It's the "accepted wisdom" to say there are no good sites left for conventional hydro electric schemes to be built. While I am NOT a civil engineer, I reckon there are almost a dozen areas of south eastern Australia that might be suitable as they have the right combination of high river flows, steepness and stable, solid geology. So I'm not the person to write a report on this, but I reckon if one were commissioned, it would challenge the accepted wisdom and recommend a few sites for proper investigation.
But environmentalists would find a dozen reasons to try and block every one, so it's never going to happen.
  L1150 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Pakenham Vic.
Every time I have a shower or just turn on a tap I generate some hydro power. Almost no-one knows about this, but the Cardinia Dam east of Melbourne has a hydro plant on the outlet (3.5 MW I think). I think that goes to show that there is more potential for hydro than many people realise.Very Happy
  prwise Locomotive Driver


But environmentalists would find a dozen reasons to try and block every one, so it's never going to happen.
Bogong
Can you imagine trying to get the Snowy up now?  Spent 3 weeks up there in December and got the 'full tour' from a mate who used to work there.

It just nestles in with countryside and looks like it was always meant to be there.

But not a snowflakes chance in hell of something big like that ever happening again
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Most practical thing to do to reduce CO2 is close the aging coal fired and build modern coal fired running on the best coal and if its imported from NSW/Qld then so be it. Also look at waste heat recovery and use for other purposes from the same power stations. Australia has a history of building stand alone power and industry.

The alt to coal is Nuclear. There is insufficient hydro options left to make a big enough difference to even bother with this to much. Maybe options of pump back peak supply like Brisbane's 500MW hydro plant, but not much else.
Yep and while we're being practical, what are we doing about people burning cow sh## in the third world? Too hard I guess. Far easier to de-industrialize first world countries and slug the dumb whites in the suburbs.
   My personal preference would be nuclear but the gunzel in me would love to see quad 90s dragging 12000 tonnes of hunter coal to Port Augusta. Yep, Never gunna happen.
fzr560
Agree

If we want to chase CO2 the answer is simple, Nuclear!

- 3 x 4000MW power plants and 1 x 3000MW
- Locations, CQ, SW Qld/NW NSW, SW NSW/NE Vic and Western Vic/SE SA for the smaller one
- SA would also get a facility to concentrate yellow cake and covert to fuel rods (job creation)
- SA would also get an industry to treat spent rods and permanent underground disposal (job creation)

The existing gas, hydro, solar and wind and some coal would make up the gap in power above the nuclear and deal with peak.

Then rebuild and upgrade the East Coast SG corridor for spark freight and regional services.

Nuclear is more expensive, however this can be dealt with in a one off subsidy to the construction cost.

The total build time would be around 12 - 15 years and enable the existing coal fired to operate to end of life economically.

The nuclear power plants would have an economic life taking them to at least 2060 and enable Australia to hopefully move away from Nuclear to a new age energy source that has yet to be commericalised.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Every time I have a shower or just turn on a tap I generate some hydro power. Almost no-one knows about this, but the Cardinia Dam east of Melbourne has a hydro plant on the outlet (3.5 MW I think). I think that goes to show that there is more potential for hydro than many people realise.Very Happy
L1150
Agree but its small. Tasmania's total hydro output is less than Hazellwood Power station.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.