How Australia Perfected Solar Power and Then Went Back to Coal

[nomadpete]

Been away for a while and surprised to see this thread doing so well after all this time.

 

Coal fired power stations do have one efficiency improvement option not previously mentioned on this thread:

 

Presently under construction at Kogan Creek (700MW) plant - is a 35MW boost achieved by passive solar preheating of the water. Lots of pipes and mirrors. Time will tell how well it works.

 

There was a larger proposed 250Mw stand alone solar (with gas backup at night) planned but it got canned when government funds were revoked (according to what I heard). That would have been a interesting start for Australia.

 

Also, regarding bulk energy storage, We already have a pumped storage hydro power plant here in Qld - capable of up to 600Mw output which can be deployed in 14 seconds when needed. It has been operational since the 1980's and although it is not on line all that often, it does permit the grid to be run with less 'spinning reserve' so it's existence actually improved the overall efficiency of all other power generators simply by being available, so they didn't have to burn coal just in case it was needed. Remember that it takes a lot of time to bring big steam engines on line if they are suddenly needed.

 

Re: efficiency of power stations, well as Dafydd said, there is only so much you can get out of a particular power station. However, over the years there has been noticable improvements in boilers and burners, etc. So the newer units are more efficient than the older types. Many new units run gas since it is cheaper to use as well as 'greener'.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Coal fired power stations do have one efficiency improvement option not previously mentioned on this thread:

Presently under construction at Kogan Creek (700MW) plant - is a 35MW boost achieved by passive solar preheating of the water. Lots of pipes and mirrors. Time will tell how well it works.

Liddell has a small experimental solar preheater.

 

There was a larger proposed 250Mw stand alone solar (with gas backup at night) planned but it got canned when government funds were revoked (according to what I heard). That would have been a interesting start for Australia.

...a familiar story. Australia, the "could have been" land.

 

Also, regarding bulk energy storage, We already have a pumped storage hydro power plant here in Qld - capable of up to 600Mw output which can be deployed in 14 seconds when needed. It has been operational since the 1980's and although it is not on line all that often, it does permit the grid to be run with less 'spinning reserve' so it's existence actually improved the overall efficiency of all other power generators simply by being available, so they didn't have to burn coal just in case it was needed. Remember that it takes a lot of time to bring big steam engines on line if they are suddenly needed.

 

Re: efficiency of power stations, well as Dafydd said, there is only so much you can get out of a particular power station. However, over the years there has been noticable improvements in boilers and burners, etc. So the newer units are more efficient than the older types. Many new units run gas since it is cheaper to use as well as 'greener'.

Good to see these developments, but it's a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Gas is being promoted as "more green" when the reality is that it's only "a bit less polluting".

 

Australia has lots of gas, but thanks to lack of vision by the likes of John Howard, we're pretty well giving it away- and, unlike all other gas exporters, we're not reserving any of it for our own industry.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you want to politicise it, I think you'll find the time to set policy was back around the Whitlam era.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

If you want to politicise it, I think you'll find the time to set policy was back around the Whitlam era.

Politicise? Everything we do has a political aspect. In the energy context, what did Whitlam do that subsequent governments could not change?

 

 

[Guest Captain1]

...... a familiar story. Australia, the "could have been" land.

Why do some people always expect a government subsidy, as if it is free money with no strings attached?

 

 

 

If a "250Mw stand alone solar (with gas backup at night)" is a viable proposition, then private industry and/or green entrepreneurs should fund and develop it.

 

 

 

I disagree that the rest of us (the "Government") should be expected to fund feel-good issues that others will not, unless it is in a clearly proven national interest.

 

 

 

An example are the magical feel-good wind turbines blighting sections of the country. What a great experiment that has been. And we mug taxpayers are all kicking the can for mega-dollars.

 

 

 

Or consider Bob Carr's Desal Plant in Sydney which has never turned a wheel and will cost a fortune to "maintain", even while it does nothing, just so that wimpy politicians didn't have to bite the bullet and build a new dam (heaven forbid) or extend the city's water storage capacity. I had desal systems to make water in a couple of my boats over the years and they have been, and always will be, a pain in the a*se to maintain. The cost of Carr's ill-considered tree hugger legacy will be borne by the people of NSW for decades.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Politicise? Everything we do has a political aspect. In the energy context, what did Whitlam do that subsequent governments could not change?

Exactly, there have been a number of Labor governments in since then, so let's leave Howard out of it.

 

The bottom line to the thread title is that Solar power has not been developed to a viable level yet.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If only the LNP had told the ALP when the drought was going to break those desal plants would never gone ahead. Another sad case of the LNP putting politics ahead of the national interest

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Why do some people always expect a government subsidy, as if it is free money with no strings attached?

If a "250Mw stand alone solar (with gas backup at night)" is a viable proposition, then private industry and/or green entrepreneurs should fund and develop it.

Captain can you please provide a list the major projects built in this country that did NOT benefit from taxpayers subsidising roads, rail, electricity? I doubt there has been a single development that did not claim something from the public purse, including tax benefits. NONE of them would have been possible without taxpayer-funded legal, educational, financial, transport and communication infrastructure.

 

We wouldn't begrudge corporations their big profits if they put a bit back into the community. It's not just the poor who take handouts.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-29/a-third-of-top-australian-companies-pay-less-than-10pc-tax/5775870

 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/james-hardie-paid-an-average-of-0-in-corporate-tax-over-past-decade-20140929-10nntx.html

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140512-zr9o3.html

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You don't donate to the ALP and LNP without expecting something back in return, that's not the concept behind "open for business".

 

 

[nomadpete]

As I see it, the reason that we need some government encouragement to put in pilot systems is this:

 

We are a small country and there is not, at present, enough financial incentive (read that as 'not enough massive profit to be made') for any big investor to spend up big on the R & D required to develop a new power station (or anything else). The big investors seem to want a predictable, fast return on their investment - and that is not going to be guaranteed with any new technology. So we elect governments in the vain hope that they will make long plans that may not have an immediate profit but are in the best interests of us voters. (That should start an arguement!).

 

Surely anything that reduces our polluting habits is going to be good for us in the long run, regardless of your stance on the whole climate change debate. Remember, although climate change is not new (in geological timelines), nobody can really tell us what impact the various climates of the past have had on the inhabitants of our planet, but we sure can count the present impact of man made pollution in terms of extinctions since we humans started playing with our toys.

 

CO2, methane, CO, Sufphur dioxide, heavy metals, various factory wastes, even our own sewerage, etc, all eventually have a negative effect on us. Power generation should be seen as a small but neccessary part of a wholistic approach to protecting our collective home.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have to look at the massive hidden subsidies the Existing generators get. They are trying to get the most profit out of their existing "investments" Coal is becoming a high risk proposition and investors should have been properly advised on the share prospectus or annual report(s). The distribution network is the major cost and a less centralised system would require less cost. When you travel the outback you can only marvel at the infrastructure costs and transmission losses incurred to get power to some of these places. The actual power is just over 10% of what YOU pay at your end. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

FT, regarding the cost of electricity.....

 

I dispute your 10% claim. The last stat that I heard in our industry claimed that Transmission ( HV towers etc) and distribution (poles and wires) combined, represented approx 40% of the consumers bill. I haven't verified that recently.

 

However, Recently it has proven cheaper to extend the grid all the way out to Roma and many points between in order to supply the Gas industry with its energy. This is costing a bucket of money and I believe that the CSG companies are contributing. They had to option of using their own gas to run onsite generators but it was still cheaper to install all that infrastructure than it was to generate locally.

 

The individual power stations are run as normal businesses, I don't think they get any subsidy. Except maybe indirectly with stuff like diesel subsidies for coal mining? The less cost effective ones simply don't get put on line as often as the better ones. Our National Electricity Marketing organises that.

 

As an aside, I read a recent report which says that removal of the carbon tax will only reduce the production cost of power by approx 2.2c per KwH (at the power station). This does not translate to massive drops in our electricity bills. Our government had promised something that is not in their power to deliver. I have observed that the actual bulk generation costs in Qld and N.S.W. have escalated very significantly over the past couple of years (we have these on display in our lunch room). I don't have an answer for this, but it seems that the consumer price rises have been related more to power station costs than they are to transmission costs, which have not risen in the same proportion.

 

At present, the gas industry in Qld is using around 10% of generated electricity. Note that they have not yet started bulk pumping the stuff to Gladstone yet! I would like to know if they are going to pay the same tarrif as us! Our consumption in Qld has plateaued in the last six months or so, due probably to private PV panels contribution. So one might assume that private PV panels represent maybe aroung 10% peak into the grid. This contribution would not affect the generator's cost per Mw. It might affect the retailer's billing, but most private PV systems are not on the early lucrative feed in tarrif so I don't put the price rises down to the private roof top PV systems. Mine, for instance is on a one for one deal, which will get to less than that after a couple of years.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

is it the case that private industry will ever look to fund (for profit) infrastructure that has useful lives in the 50 to 100yr mark? My experience is that private industry with a long term outlook rarely if ever exceeds 20 years....... I imagine the Snowy scheme with a useful life of around 40 to 70 years would be a tough sell to build from new for private industry?

 

Or do I have that wrong?

 

I note that significant private investments in, for example, underground freeways, in Brisbane and Sydney have been so good for the consortiums involved that many have been sold at liquidators instructions at least twice with perhaps more to follow? So that's worked well sofar....

 

Andy

 

 

[dazza 38]

Why do some people always expect a government subsidy, as if it is free money with no strings attached? 

 

If a "250Mw stand alone solar (with gas backup at night)" is a viable proposition, then private industry and/or green entrepreneurs should fund and develop it.

 

 

 

I disagree that the rest of us (the "Government") should be expected to fund feel-good issues that others will not, unless it is in a clearly proven national interest.

 

 

 

An example are the magical feel-good wind turbines blighting sections of the country. What a great experiment that has been. And we mug taxpayers are all kicking the can for mega-dollars.

 

 

 

Or consider Bob Carr's Desal Plant in Sydney which has never turned a wheel and will cost a fortune to "maintain", even while it does nothing, just so that wimpy politicians didn't have to bite the bullet and build a new dam (heaven forbid) or extend the city's water storage capacity. I had desal systems to make water in a couple of my boats over the years and they have been, and always will be, a pain in the a*se to maintain. The cost of Carr's ill-considered tree hugger legacy will be borne by the people of NSW for decades.

Same as the Desal plant at Tugun on the Gold Coast, it was hardly ever used and costs a fortune to maintain, another blunder from the previous state Labor party.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If only the LNP had told the ALP when the drought was going to break, those desal plants would never have been built. Its a shame the LNP puts politics ahead of the national or state interest.

 

And now, large parts of QLD are still in drought and the LNP refuses to advise when the drought will end.

 

 

[PA.]

Global warming or Global Con?

 

 

Source link.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

interesting revelations, shields up

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

[bexrbetter]

You guys are seriously joking blaming either Labour or Liberal for the constant downslide aren't ya's?

 

They have both had enough turns since Whitlam and Fraser eras and yet apparently are colluding to achieve the same goal. You could sit here all day and argue who was better or worse but lets not pretend they have been on the same road regardless of driving down the right or left lanes.

 

Coal is becoming a high risk proposition and investors should have been properly advised on the share prospectus or annual report(s).

Advise Investors properly? The joke forum is elsewhere,

 

 

[facthunter]

It IS required by law. In that game a lot of money can change hands if you don't comply. Non disclosure is fraud. Not everyone gets caught. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

interesting revelations, shields up

I'm a bit confused FT. Are these animals adding to coal reserves or generating solar power?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I believe they are guarding the secrets of the green conspiracy.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I believe they are guarding the secrets of the green conspiracy.

I don't care, I just want to know what time the BBQ is, just need to finish the foil wrapping and throw some sauce and garlic in as well .....

 

 

[Methusala]

Good to see that the right wing nut jobs are sooo concerned with protecting the public purse that thePM's advisor now wants a royal commission into thr BOM's conspiritorial global warming falsehoods! This country is so on the skids.

 

[Marty_d]

Good to see that the right wing nut jobs are sooo concerned with protecting the public purse that thePM's advisor now wants a royal commission into thr BOM's conspiritorial global warming falsehoods! This country is so on the skids.

Cutting CSIRO... wanting a royal commission into CSIRO... funding ONLY religious school counsellors... looks like the anti-science / pro-religion barrow is well and truly being pushed.