The cost of the Government demanding that a target be met, the owners just put the cost back on the taxpayer, well as if that wasn't obvious.
'$1.7b in damages a year': The estimated cost of keeping Australia's largest coal-fired power plant running
The NSW government is currently in talks with Origin about using taxpayer subsidies to extend the life of the plant in the state's Hunter region. It follows a review that found the state should discuss delaying the plant's closure to help prevent blackouts due to the slow building of renewables.www.abc.net.au
he cost of keeping Australia's largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, open beyond its 2025 closure date could be $1.7 billion a year in economic, social and environmental damages, according to a cost-benefit analysis based on overseas carbon pricing, which the New South Wales government recommends.
The NSW government is currently in talks with Origin about using taxpayer subsidies to extend the life of the plant in the state's Hunter region.
It follows a review that found the state should discuss delaying the plant's closure to help prevent blackouts due to the slow building of renewables.
The government intervention comes just 18 months after Origin announced it planned to bring forward Eraring's closure by seven years to 2023.
That would make way too much sense and put way too much responsibility on the politicians, much easier just to throw money at it and say "what more can I do? It's not my fault".Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.
Cut out the middleman's profits and they may find they could break even.
Riiiight.....Ms Cooper's concerns were around the potential impact of the surveying on sea life, including whales which carry Indigenous songlines.
Fckn noisy for ones that can't be heard.Riiiight.....
The inherent nature of electricity systems is that if you want them to work reliably then not all the bits make a profit.Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.
So how do we fit that into a privatised system that works on a profit basis?The inherent nature of electricity systems is that if you want them to work reliably then not all the bits make a profit.
That's the fundamental flaw with the idea of generation being a competitive market. Nobody want's to own the unprofitable bits, bearing in mind that which ones those are will shift over time - with the added problem that the losses occur in the latter years of operation thus creating a huge financial incentive to close when the profits dry up rather than when the need is removed.
That's fundamental though. It should always be the highest marginal cost plant that fills the reserve role, and that generally is the plant near end of life. You don't build plant intentionally to be the reserve - in short you run the new stuff as priority because it's more efficient and put the old but still functional equipment into the reserve role.
A single utility, regardless of whether it's government owned or privately owned, can fund that so long as it has reliable supply as an objective. Eg if we look at it historically then all utilities had an "old clunker" somewhere that was technologically antiquated but still in reasonable shape and fully functional. When the need arose it roared into life and the public was unaware there was any drama going on behind the scenes.
The great irony that the biggest obstacle we now have to renewables is their lack of a "social license" to do so.Maybe the government should just buy the thing and run it at a loss if necessary to keep the lights on.
Cut out the middleman's profits and they may find they could break even.
One can only presume that Chris Bowen who is now the OZ expert in offshore wind generation is aware of the development.Globally, over £620 billion of investment in offshore windfarms is anticipated by 2030 and, for the world to hit net-zero emissions by 2050, the generating capacity from offshore wind must increase by a staggering 1,120 GW. The subsea cable sector for offshore wind has been estimated at £100 billion over the next ten years.
Mr Gordon added, “This scale of expansion and opportunity can only be achieved by installing and maintaining thousands of miles of reliable cables under the seabed.
“There is an urgent need for a holistic approach to finding solutions which can be implemented as offshore wind increases in scale and technical capability with higher voltages and dynamic elements.”
GUH has established the Subsea Cables Forum to bring the industry together to develop a roadmap for improving the quality, reliability, and therefore insurability, of cables, which is crucial to achieving global offshore wind ambitions, particularly in the nascent floating offshore wind arena.
This will involve the development of a set of industry-led, recognized standards and best practice guidelines, encompassing the life of the cable that would be adopted by developers, suppliers, contractors, warranty surveyors and others and accepted by insurance bodies.
According to one developer, the cost of insuring a 1.2GW offshore wind farm over its lifetime is in the region of £350 million and insurance brokers estimate that the costs of floating offshore wind will be 30% higher than fixed bottom ones.
Gordon explained, “With the shift from fixed to floating offshore wind, where the dynamic nature of floating cables is even more challenging, the critical issue of their reliability must be addressed as a matter of urgency.”
“It’s clear there are inherent issues affecting the performance and reliability of subsea cables that are within the industry’s control. Failures can stem from any stage in the cable lifecycle – from design to manufacture, handling and installation, through to operation and maintenance.
“Identifying potential weak points throughout the lifecycle of the cable is imperative to ensuring this offshore infrastructure operates robustly and efficiently to bring clean, green renewable energy ashore.
“We need better information sharing and a move away from a siloed approach, that is often ‘secrecy driven’ and ‘NDA heavy’. Introducing shared learning, data logging and increased transparency will create a more open environment for best practice to be developed.”
I tend to think Chris sings from the Martin Luther handbook of 'I had a dream', rather than any engineering handbook and the final hit will be to the taxpayers bankbook. LolOne can only presume that Chris Bowen who is now the OZ expert in offshore wind generation is aware of the development.
Mick
The alarming bit is this:Pretty much an example of cherry picking in my opinion.
little-known but fundamentally important aspect of the power system.
When you flick a switch, the electricity that illuminates the light in the room is new.
Brand new.
One would think all options are being looked at, weird that an alternative route wasn't chosen, if you can believe the media report in total.Is Snowy Hydro 2.0 fatally flawed ?
Would it be more efficient to abandon the project and develop another hydro site ?
Or has it gone too far already and is too big to fail ?
'You've screwed up, haven't you?': The $2 billion mistake behind Snowy 2.0
Snowy Hydro's tunnelling machine caused a sinkhole and spent months barely moving, then the troubled project's tunnel began filling with gas.www.abc.net.au
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?