- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,345
- Reactions
- 17,673
Well we would have met.
As for what the East Coast is doing I have no idea.
My career is limited to maintenance, installation and operation of W.A power infrastructure.
Large thermal, down to small remote diesel and solar thermal generation.
What amuses me is the current trend to just blow up viable plant, with no regard for the possibility of extending its life, also no regard for the capital cost to replace it.
I'm guessing the gas pipeline from the Cooper basin, down to Adelaide, goes fairly close to Port Augusta.
Therefore, from what I've read, the Power Stations at Port Augusta could probably been saved if converted.
But as is the way with politicians, no way we are not going coal, blow it up.
Just dumb politics.
If they had converted it to run gas/coal, maybe the transition to renewables wouldn't be so painfull, for S.A.
But on the other hand, it does give the ignorant empowerment, to just bag dirty coal and highlight their limited knowledge of thermal generation.
Northern was in pretty good shape though so far as I'm aware. Commissioned 1985 and no major problems although at a guess it was coming up for some significant maintenance (that's just a guess as the owners didn't go into such details publicly). Capacity was 540 MW and could go a bit higher under the right conditions.
years after opening.
By the early 1980's SA was somewhat desperate to move away from gas as a fuel and plenty of options were examined. Numerous sites for new coal-fired plant were investigated as was the possibility of converting Torrens Island to coal as WA had done at Kwinana. They even had a pretty hard look around the state to see if they could do something, anything at all, with hydro since the need to move away from gas as a matter of urgency was clearly understood.
Ultimately building Northern won out since it could generate about 40% of SA's total annual electricity consumption at the time and with Playford B remaining in service this would halve the state's use of gas for power generation in one fell swoop. At that time the added generating capacity was a bonus which helped tip the balance in favour of building Northern rather than converting Torrens Island but the real objective was to do something, anything that worked, to cut reliance on gas and to do it ASAP.
ETSA's future planning at that time was to in due course build more coal-fired capacity plus a pumped hydro scheme thus moving further away from reliance on gas. Both aspects were investigated in some detail and suitable sites identified but it never went ahead since the industry changes happened in the meantime.
Interesting you worked on Muja C. I was a trouble shooter for some of that project. I remember all too well staying at the Crown Hotel in Collie and freezing my a4se off. Also worked on Callide, etc.
Well smurph, from wiki they are two 260MW generators, their boilers could have been quite easily converted to gas.
So why was the anti gas so prevalent in the 1980's?
I know the Cooper Basin is rather depleted now, but what was the problem back then?
So who did you work for Aitons, Ical or Parsons?
250 MW each when installed, later tweaked to get a bit more out of them which took them to 270 - 280 each depending on if everything was going perfectly or not.
Concerns about wasting a premium resource and running out of it.
At the time Torrens Island PS was using 70% of all gas in SA and was by far the largest gas consumer in Australia. With much of the Cooper Basin gas locked up in contracts to supply NSW, the fear was that SA could be left completely without gas (literally zero) by the late 1980's.
Against that backdrop the SA government did legislate to prohibit the future sale of gas produced in SA outside of the state. That was contrary to the Australian constitution which prohibits restraint on trade between states but they did it anyway (governments actually governed back then). They also ramped up exploration both privately funded and government funded - heck they even drilled near Tasmania.
Ultimately they did find more gas in the Cooper Basin and that along with reduced consumption and later supply from Vic prevented a crisis but it was very real at the time.
As was pointed out on this forum several years ago, the way customers were being charged for electricity, would have to change.
The current method of charging for usage, isn't as effective with appliances become more efficient, and solar panels reducing demand.
The probable outcome, would be an ever increasing service cost, for connection.
Well the W.A Government has taken to the idea, with both hands.
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/power-surge-to-hit-solar-homes-ng-b88515496z
This charge will increase from 48.6¢ a day to 94.9¢ a day. WOW
the increase in service charge is just a recognition that the costs involved in providing power to homes and businesses comes in two parts.The inevitable victims will be those who can't afford solar panels and will now find their power bills massively increased.
A very courageous decision by the government politically.
the increase in service charge is just a recognition that the costs involved in providing power to homes and businesses comes in two parts.
1, Generation costs (vary depending on usage)
2, cost of distribution infrastructure (largely fixed costs)
People with solar still require a link to the grid, and benefit from using the grid as their "battery" so to speak, So its unfair to have the people without solar paying for the solar peoples "Battery".
So the daily service costs have to increase, so that the solar uses end up paying for their fair share of the grid costs.
This then should mean usage charges should come down a little, or atleast not go up as high as they otherwise would have if the service charge wasn't increased.
Profit margins are regulated in most cases, and are limited to what is considered a reasonable return based on the capital they have invested and the risks etc. most regulated assets are earnings some where between 8% and 12% ( generally at the lower end)All this treats electricity as just another commodity where the suppliers have to make a profit. (Think health)
Electricity is actually an essential service and should be delivered by governments for the benefit of the whole economy. This means that the State budget sometimes have to take a hit in order to achieve the lowest cost to the public, and doesn't have to feed the pockets of foreign shareholders who don't actually have to depend on the service.
If you have Solar, and you want to use power at night, you need a way to store your excess power during the day and then draw it back at night.Solar penalised, 'death spiral' for power grid, critics warn after power supply charge increase
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...uld-send-power-grid-into-death-spiral/8644258
At the moment the cheapest place for you to store and retrieve this power is the grid, and it is silly to expect to use this service for free.
Who said people expect it for 'free' ?
Whether you have solar or not you still pay an access charge and a usage rate, but the argument seems to be that solar users have reduced demand so the company will jack up everyone's rates and serves them right.
This is where national interest and company profits clash. It's in the national interest to reduce power consumption by installing solar cells (and Finkel recommends subsidising people to do this), but when this results in a fall off of company profits the prices get hiked so people are effectively punished for reducing consumption. And what about the solar cell users return on investment ? Obviously that doesn't matter.
This is one case where national interest and company profits are mutually exclusive and national interest needs to win in this case.
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?