All Activity

True but it does have to be quite hot: The Temperature Limits Standard industrial wind turbines are engineered according to international IEC 61400-1 standards, which dictate a normal operational ambient temperature limit of 40°C and an extreme survival limit of 50°C. [1] When weather conditions push past these thresholds, turbines protect themselves using a two-stage defense mechanism: [1] Thermal Derating (Curtailment): When ambient air temperatures rise between 40°C and 45°C, the turbine's control system automatically throttles or "derates" its power output. By reducing electricity generation, the turbine limits the internal heat produced by electrical resistance. [1, 2, 3] Automatic Shutdown: If the ambient temperature crosses the critical maximum limit—usually 45°C to 50°C depending on the specific model—the turbine will initiate a full safety shutdown. [1, 2, 3] Why Extreme Heat Causes Issues Even though turbines use internal liquid or air cooling systems, they ultimately rely on the outside air to dump that heat. [1, 2] Inefficient Heat Exchange: When the surrounding air is extremely hot, the temperature differential between the turbine's internal components (like the gearbox or generator) and the outside environment shrinks. The cooling loops can no longer dissipate heat effectively. [1, 2, 3] Component Protection: The oil in the gearbox can thin out excessively under extreme heat, reducing lubrication and risking catastrophic mechanical friction. Similarly, generator windings can suffer insulation melting or permanent damage if they overheat. [1, 2, 3, 4] Thin Air Dynamics: Hot air is less dense than cold air. Less dense air provides less aerodynamic lift on the blades, requiring the turbine to work harder (generating more internal heat) just to produce the same amount of electricity. Regional Adaptations To combat this, manufacturers build specialized "hot climate packages." Turbines bound for desert environments like parts of Australia, the Middle East, or the Southwestern United States feature upgraded, heavy-duty cooling fans, larger liquid-to-air heat exchangers, and altered internal insulation to withstand ambient operational temperatures up to 50°C before shutting down. 2. Thermal Derating Over Full Shutdowns When temperatures do spike above 40°C in parts of South Australia, Victoria, or New South Wales, modern wind farms are engineered to dynamically adapt. [1] Rather than shutting down completely, turbines usually undergo thermal derating (throttling back total output by 10% to 20%) to keep internal temperatures safe while continuing to supply power to a stressed grid. [1] Because the majority of Australia’s wind assets are located in coastal or elevated southern regions (which rarely sustain ambient temperatures above the 45°C–50°C critical cutoff), full thermal shutdowns are exceptional events.

Sounds like a wind turbine except they dont need to be old. Hot windless days! Hot windy days. They derate, cooling water for genetator and converter get too hot causes them to stop. When we most need them!

OLD Coal-Fired Power stations are notoriously unreliable and obsolete.(inefficient and Polluting. NO parts available) Their Capital value has been amortised so on the books they look profitable. Usually fail when needed most . Hot days. with no warning. and not back on grid for ages. One in Qld, the co Owners are suing each other. Nev

Scotland they are paying windfarms not to produce electricity because of transmission constraints. Government is paying to keep Eraring power station open in NSW. The worst thing it is probably still making money, just not enough.

Well.. given we risk assess them, I sort of have seen how it is done Governments don't cover our losses

We may need to disagree on that. Worker safety and then $$$$$. Less energy security = more money from governments to fix

Actually, given project finance is usually collateralised/financed against the cash flows of yhe asset it is financing, it is in their interests to make sure that asset is going to perform as expected/promised... And they generally do go to decent lengths to ensure that.. so in an indirect way they do care

I think it infers exactly that.

They don"t care aboyt Australias energy security either

As Jerry points out, the financial balance must be separated from the political and media (vested interests). The big players are voting with their dollars against fossil fuel power stations. They don't give a rat's about environmental issues. Their investments are based upon best return for dollar. And they don't see value in fossil fuel, or nuclear energy.

Reliable comparison costs are available if you seek them Out.. Each country has different circumstances. Distance and sparse population is a feature of ours. The concept of a GRID has to be Justified in my view.. It's prone to failure and expensive. we have Plenty of Sun and it doesn't mean the Land can't be used for Grazing or cropping at the same time There's a lot of Buildings yet to have it installed to full capacity .Nev

I don't see the thread saying 100% powering it... Follow the money.. If it wasn't economic to do it, it generally wouldn't be done.. and it certainly wouldn't be used.

Tou're quite right re the levelised cost. But taking these into account, a) it is still cheaper and b) it also doesn't take into account hte ongoing capital investment required to fossil burning plants that isn't needed for renewables in any of the same way. Your point on naming a country that exists solely on solar and winbd is moot, by the way. In the scheme of things, these are newer technology at scale and existing infrastructure in countries where it is applicable would make sense means its a transition, not a big bang. That is the politics, not economic side, Maybe we should make Australia the first to go the whole hog, but a lot of established vested interests will have their noses put out of joint, and they happen to contribute to the major political parties' cofferss... South Australia's electricity isstill relatively expensive due to structural factors which have always made it expensive compared to eastern seaboard states. @octave has already prvied the info above - I don't need to repeat it suffice to say fossils will be more expensive. But if you want to pay more, be my guest,,,

Which channel you watch can have a big bearing on that. Most are a waste of time, or even Propaganda. Nev

Victor Willis, lead singer of the group Village People, (Y.M.C.A., In The Navy) died on Monday after a short but agressive illness.

Does anyone else think they are watching an episode of Yes Minister when watching the politicians talk on the morning news or is it just me?

I particularly liked her role in 'To the Manor born". She and Peter Bowles were absolutely hilarious together.

There was this Gorgeous Film star who was going with and eskimo, But SHE broke it Off. Nev

Batteries are the quickest response to a need that there is. Pumped hydro would probably be the Next best, then a Jet aircraft engine on Gas which is horribly Inefficient. ( Jet engines can be started and opened up, without a Warmup.) Nev.

OK as long as you don't eat it raw. Nev

My wallet is like an onion. Every time I open it, it makes me cry.

Here's an irony about electricity generation. There is this idea of building giant incinerators to burn a lot of the waste our modern way of living produces. But wasn't the idea of going all in with the various renewable energy sources to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we were producing through burning fossil fuels to heat water to make steam to drive turbines to generate electricity?

Another comparison is that the South Australian 'big battery' is... The battery features 150 MW/194 MWh of installed capacity, as well as grid inertia support services. It looks like Australians are not waiting for the government to make the transition happen

I asked AI this: how much would a new coal-fired power station cost, and what impact would it have on electricity bills? The short answer is: A new coal-fired power station in Australia would likely cost A$8–15 billion, depending on its size and technology. It would probably increase, not decrease, average electricity bills compared with building new wind, solar, and battery capacity today. However, it could reduce exposure to gas price spikes if it displaced expensive gas generation. Here's why. Construction cost A modern high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal plant of around 1,000 MW would likely cost: Item Estimate (A$) Construction $8–15 billion Construction period 7–10 years Expected operating life 40–50 years The wide range reflects uncertainty because no large coal-fired power station has been built in Australia for decades, so there is no recent local benchmark. For comparison: The cancelled expansion of Medupi Power Station ultimately exceeded A$25 billion after delays and cost overruns. Recent coal projects in Europe and North America have also experienced substantial overruns. Why is it so expensive? Coal plants require much more than the boiler itself: enormous steam turbines pollution control equipment cooling systems ash handling facilities coal storage and conveyors high-voltage grid connection extensive environmental approvals. Modern emissions standards also require equipment that older Australian coal stations never had. What would electricity cost? This is where it gets interesting. The cost of electricity from a new plant is usually measured by the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE). Approximate ranges today are: Technology Cost (A$/MWh) Existing depreciated coal 40–80 New coal 120–180+ Gas peaking 150–300 (depends on gas price) Wind + firming 70–120 Solar + batteries 60–110 These figures vary between studies, but most recent analyses conclude that new coal is more expensive than new renewable generation with storage, largely because of its high upfront capital cost and ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses. Why are old coal stations cheap but new ones aren't? This often causes confusion. Australia's existing coal stations: were built 30–50 years ago, have largely been paid off, operate under older environmental standards. That means today's consumers mostly pay for: coal, maintenance, staff, repairs. A new station has to recover billions of dollars of construction costs over its lifetime. What impact would it have on household bills? For a typical Australian household spending around A$2,000 per year on electricity: Scenario 1: Coal replaces expensive gas Bills might fall slightly during periods when gas prices are very high because coal fuel has historically been cheaper than gas. Scenario 2: Coal competes with new renewables Bills would likely be higher than under a system dominated by new wind, solar, and batteries because the new coal plant's capital costs would need to be recovered from electricity consumers (or taxpayers). Scenario 3: Government subsidises construction If taxpayers funded part of the construction cost, electricity prices could appear lower, but the cost would be shifted from electricity bills to government budgets funded by taxation. Other considerations A coal plant also faces economic challenges because it operates best at a relatively constant output. Australia's electricity demand now has a deep midday dip caused by rooftop solar, making it harder for coal stations to run continuously at high utilisation. If a new coal plant generated fewer megawatt-hours than planned, its fixed costs would be spread over less electricity, increasing the cost per unit produced. Could private companies build one? In theory, yes. In practice, no major electricity company has announced plans to finance a new conventional coal-fired power station in Australia. The main reasons cited are: the very large upfront capital cost, long construction times, uncertainty over future electricity market conditions, competition from lower-cost renewable generation and storage. My assessment If Australia's objective were simply to build the lowest-cost new electricity generation, the evidence available today suggests that a new coal-fired power station is unlikely to be the cheapest option. Existing coal stations remain relatively inexpensive because their construction costs were paid off decades ago, but replicating that infrastructure today would require a very large new investment. Unless there were substantial government support or a major change in technology or fuel costs, that investment would probably place upward pressure on electricity costs compared with building a mix of renewable generation, transmission, and storage.