Energy infrastructure can be put to other good uses too, like this...
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3189819/down-to-earth-thrills-photos-video/?cs=95#slide=16
There is absolutely no way, I would be getting over that handrail.
I haven't done the abseil but it's on the list of things to do someday.
Anyone can visit Gordon Dam however, and if you're in Tas then it's worth the trip for the scenery alone (with or without actually going onto the dam) and the road is sealed all the way.
As for the dam itself, anyone can have a look from the top and it requires no special physical fitness - just the ability to walk down then back up some ordinary stairs from the car park. No chance of accidentally falling off as the rails are chest height.
Back to the future of energy generation and storage, Gordon is a highly unlikely place for a pumped storage scheme since doing that would require another dam downstream. That debate was done to death in spectacular fashion a third of a century ago and won't likely be revived anytime soon - let's not go there now. But there's space in the power station for another 2 machines (there's 3 at present) which would add more peak generating capacity. That would be of use if, at some future time, wind and solar are far larger contributors to the grid than they are at present.
At present, Gordon power station runs inverse to system inflows. That is, it generally runs base load during dry weather and peak load when it's wet. That's in order to use the very large storage capacity to take load off / put more load on other parts of the system which have much smaller storage (relative to annual inflows) according to prevailing weather conditions. It was more of a base load operation, with only 2 machines, when first built but the third machine was added in 1988 to offset seasonal fluctuation in output from the Pieman scheme (which has relatively little storage) commissioned in the 1980's.
It takes about 2.5 years, with zero operation of the power station and assuming average inflows, to raise the storage level from empty to full. That's massive storage and potentially very useful to integrate with intermittent renewables.
Was that the Gordon on Franklin, loonie tunes green fiasco, about twenty years ago?
It was settled in the High Court 32 years ago and the rest is history. A lot of people still have strong views over that issue but my personal view is very much "let it rest" so far as that one's concerned.
From a purely practical perspective, there's a lot that can be done with solar, wind definitely and maybe geothermal before there's any need to re-run debates about dams in the wilderness. Those things weren't options in an economic sense (technically yes but not economically) back then but they are now.
Energy efficiency too. There's no point ramping up supply just so that we can leave a few million office PC's running all night for no real benefit. Etc.
The point stands however that hydro, be it natural flow or pumped, is an extremely fast response means of generation and also the only "conventional" source which offers storage as an inherent part of it. It has a role to play in the future from existing schemes certainly and no doubt we'll see some re-working of some of them to direct production to a different profile.
Go forward another decade or two and by that time it ought to be a lot clearer where we're really heading. If solar and batteries haven't worked out on a large enough scale then, and only then, it might make sense to look at more contentious options such as big dams, nuclear etc.
That aspect, time, is why I have no problem with the continued operation of the brown coal plants in Victoria. Close them today and there's not too many real alternatives to building another fossil fuel plant. We're not going to get 6000 or even 1000 MW of base load generation up and running from solar in the next year or three. As such, it's a question of old coal for another 20 years versus new coal for another 50 years, no coal isn't an immediate option. But keep them going and within a decade it ought to be much clearer. With a bit of luck and sensible politics we'll be well down the track of a clear strategy that doesn't require a direct replacement such that a gradual, orderly wind down of coal-fired generation over the period 2025 - 2050 won't be a problem.
If it becomes clear that we can't achieve a real switch to wind and solar etc, for whatever reason, that's when we're faced with the hard choices about nuclear power, dams in the wilderness and so on. Right now there's no actual need to do either.
ELECTRICITY prices won’t rise and no one will be forced from their job when the Government shifts $4 billion in debt on to power company books, according to Treasurer Curtis Pitt.
Mr Pitt has the revealed plans to reduced Government debt by $4 billion by moving to Government-owned corporations
Power distributors Powerlink, Energex, Ergon Energy as well as generators CS Energy and Stanwell will pick up the debt, but Mr Pitt said it would not force power prices up.
“All of our advice is there should be no direct impact what so ever on electricity prices as a result,” he said.
To me the issue is, what is sustainable, with minimal impact.
Hydro is retention of normal weather events, over a small catchment area, then controlled release of the water.
The competition in the nascent battery storage market continues to intensify, with South Korean appliance manufacturers LG Chem launching a new 6.4kWh battery storage system that approaches the key $1,000/kWh mark.
The new battery storage system is being made available to consumers in the next few weeks, and follows the release into the Australian market of AU Optronics, promoted by AGL Energy, and rival offerings from Samsung, Enphase, Panasonic and SMA.
But the LG Chem system is already bringing costs down at the top end of the market – matching the assumed pricing of the much vaunted Tesla Powerwall, with the advantage that it is actually in the market.
LG’s Chem Residential Energy Storage Unit (RESU) 6.4kWhr battery is similar in size, shape and capacity, to the Tesla offering, and is expected to last 15 to 20 years, or at least 6,000 cycles. It is being offered in Australia at $A6,898. The first supplies have arrived in Australia via wholesalers Solar Juice.
Energy infrastructure can be put to other good uses too, like this...
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3189819/down-to-earth-thrills-photos-video/?cs=95#slide=16
...The reality is that a thousand gas-fired power plants built in the U.S. do not operate properly in white knuckle emergencies. In the discussion with regulatory staff, Troy Blalock, reliability expert at South Carolina Electric & Gas, explained how jaws hit the floor as NERC’s investigation into reliability questions found that all three of the gas generator manufacturers (GE, ABB, Siemens) predominant in the U.S. had for years been delivering equipment that fail to provide this “essential reliability service”. As word spread around the 3-day NARUC conference, this news caused the same speechless, open-mouth expression.
Smurph? Anyone? Does this apply in Oz? Is it significant as well as astonishing?
It's working nicely on King Island so now it's time to do the same on Flinders Island which currently relies on diesel for power supply.
http://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/ne...-work-start-flinders-island-hybrid-energy-hub
The way the diesel couples, and uncouples from the generator, is clever.
Sure is. Already have one on King Island so this will be the second.
The idea of making it all modular is that it may open up the possibility of sales elsewhere as an off the shelf "packaged" and proven solution. Eg remote towns anywhere that aren't on the grid, mining industry etc. Anyone currently using diesel for permanent power generation.
The Energy Networks Association says the proposals are deliberately calibrated to stop people from leaving the grid, and kicking off what is often described as the “death spiral”, as the networks seek to recover lost revenues from those consumers who remain.
The change to a decentralised grid, based around solar and storage rather than big centralised generation, is seen as inevitable, and many analysts say that networks – which in Australia account for more than half of most bills following a massive ($45 billion) and questionable spending splurge in recent years – will have to change the way they do business, or even write down the value of their assets.
But the networks are digging in, refusing to countenance write-downs, and now want consumers to pay for the networks whether they use them or not. Alternatively, they want any households that leave the grid to pay their “historic” share of grid capacity as a penalty for leaving.
Grid defection is likely to become a real option for many consumers, because of the huge falls in the cost of rooftop solar PV, and the falling cost of battery storage. Soaring network fees and rising fixed charges is reducing the pay-back for solar-only installations, but is likely to encourage more battery storage.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/net...ry-fees-for-all-to-stop-grid-defections-28523
Funny how large foreign and / or well connected local companies never seem to have to pay for their mistakes. Over invest and just work out a way to make the community pay for it.
And shows what a con privatisation of the grid system is. It's one of the few times you have to pay for not using a service.
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?