I think governments need to bite the bullet and take over the coal stations that are privately owned and ensure that they are maintained and able to fill the gaps that will arise until enough VRE and storage is installed.Hopefully in the next 12 months, before the election, we start and see some vision as to how we are going to achieve this super power status.
At the moment, we are heading toward three years in and there really isn't a lot of meat on the plate.
If it wasn't for the cheer squad having nothing to cheer about, there would be an outcry of, WTF is going on.
But that's the world we live in know, hopefully the Government is going through a period of reflection and pondering options.
That's the real issue and the other problem with the situation is, if the Government is having trouble with moving it along, it must make the private sector extremely nervous.Things just aren't moving fast enough now.
Not sure what happens in other states, but according to the ABC , here in Victoria, the existing agreements require the company to remove or replace the turbines at the end of their economic life.I would like to be proven wrong but i have read that the landowners are responsible ultimately with the removal of the big fans.
So if/when the wind farm collapses at the end of its profitable life, your council and environmental agency will knock on your door and say remove that ugly dangerous toy.
Talk about a poisoned gift...
as long as the owner of a wind farm business do not realise it could be a cheaper option to close door...Not sure what happens in other states, but according to the ABC , here in Victoria, the existing agreements require the company to remove or replace the turbines at the end of their economic life.
The oldest windfarm in Victoria at Coddington is coming up for 20 years in production, so we will find out soon enough.
From ABC News
View attachment 182465
Mick
It would make economic sense for an operator/owner of a wind farm to have to pay into a trust account, perhaps on a yearly basis, for the removal of these windmills if they couldn't be refurbished at the end of a reasonable life span.Not sure what happens in other states, but according to the ABC , here in Victoria, the existing agreements require the company to remove or replace the turbines at the end of their economic life.
The oldest windfarm in Victoria at Coddington is coming up for 20 years in production, so we will find out soon enough.
From ABC News
View attachment 182465
Mick
Same goes for nuclear reactors I would suggest.It would make economic sense for an operator/owner of a wind farm to have to pay into a trust account, perhaps on a yearly basis, for the removal of these windmills if they couldn't be refurbished at the end of a reasonable life span.
Definitively and why for Australia, nuclear option can only reasonably be managed/owned by the governmentSame goes for nuclear reactors I would suggest.
But then the Nuclear is likely to have a longer lifespan.Same goes for nuclear reactors I would suggest.
but the dismantling cost will annihilate all profits from initial energy production as do all the western reactors....But then the Nuclear is likely to have a longer lifespan.
Mick
No way, think of the CO2 emissions....we could burn diamonds too..plenty of pure carbon
Indeed, that would be the issueNo way, think of the CO2 emissions....
Mick
More than weight, i would use volume because one kg of H2 is not exactly a kg of coal volume wise, and especially for gas.Thought I would put this post in as a reference for energy density, IMO it is an important part of power generation and really is one of the critical components of the debate regarding power generation.
Batteries have come a long way in the last hundred years, especially in the last 20 years, as has solar generation and everyone is expecting things to continue to improve on the battery solar development pathway.
Where the debate goes pear shaped IMO, is when the same people who espouse expected improvement in the development of renewables technology, have a completely closed mind on the potential improvements in nuclear generation and the benefits that could bring:
Without being political and only talking about energy density, I thought it would be worthwhile trying to explain energy density in a comparison form so that those who are interested can see the difference in the energy density of different energy sources.
It has to be remembered for each energy source the lower the energy density of the resource, the more of it you are going to need to produce the same amount of energy, that's why it is quoted in Mj(energy) / kg(volume).
Of course there are issues involved with all of the energy sources, be that mining and processing, through to toxic waste, but everything has to viewed in the context of what you are trying to achieve while taking everything into consideration.
Energy density is the amount of energy that can be released by a given mass or volume of fuel. It can be measured in gravimetric energy density (per unit of mass) or volumetric energy density (per unit of volume). Gravimetric energy density is relevant when comparing the energy efficiency of fuels.
Batteries, different types:
View attachment 182548
Batteries and alternative fuels:
View attachment 182552
Energy densities of common combustible fuels:
View attachment 182549
Energy density of cross section of common fuels and nuclear:
View attachment 182550
Was that really necassary, in the context of trying to keep it simple, for some who are simple. LolMore than weight, i would use volume because one kg of H2 is not exactly a kg of coal volume wise, and especially for gas.
But outside gases where the comparison is a bit twisted, this is indeed the area where most "science unaware" people..to be kind.. are really out of their depth
A 34kg battery has less energy than burning a 1kg lump of wood.. science
So good luck to heat your houses on batteries
Ok apologies but most do not realise the difference between a battery and a 60l tank of diesel, even at 20% efficiencyWas that really necassary, in the context of trying to keep it simple, for some who are simple. Lol
You mean like only having 1 of the 4 generating units at Loy Yang A working right now?Hopefully we see some serious headway, before unintended consequences start to raise their ugly heads, because if that happens everyone starts to get nervous.
What the Government hasn't worked out is, fixing a worn out coal fired power station isn't as simple as throwing more money at it.You mean like only having 1 of the 4 generating units at Loy Yang A working right now?
Station output past 30 days by unit stacked 4, 3, 2, 1 from bottom of chart upwards.
Latest day is incomplete but unit 4 tripped at 5:50pm so that leaves unit 1 as the only one running. Versus Monday 5th August it was all going fine, all four were on.
View attachment 182577
Are these stations just not being maintained , or are they so old it's not worth maintaining them?You mean like only having 1 of the 4 generating units at Loy Yang A working right now?
Station output past 30 days by unit stacked 4, 3, 2, 1 from bottom of chart upwards.
Latest day is incomplete but unit 4 tripped at 5:50pm so that leaves unit 1 as the only one running. Versus Monday 5th August it was all going fine, all four were on.
View attachment 182577
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?