The great blackout of 2016

Remove this Banner Ad

Hawk Dork said:
The environment is not a free dumping ground so companies can make more profit.
Click to expand...
And it's not a business environment whereby our companies are made uncompetitive with overseas businesses given our share of the pollution on a worldwide scale is but a piss in the ocean. When ALL large polluting countries [our business competitors] are on board talk to me then...Until then the pain is not commensurate to the gain.
 
Uh Oh everything that shines is not necessarily gold....

Another energy expert bringing some reality to the Elon Musk offer...

Remember Musk did not become a Billionaire by being charitable and a pushover obviously...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...k=260fdd1ae0fc331974ddd613e372925f-1489398510

But Dr Roger Dargaville, of the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne, told news.com.au he believed the pledge would ultimately be too expensive to deliver. He said Mr Cannon-Brookes could struggle to finance the project because it would probably make a loss in today’s market. According to the institute’s calculations, the price for batteries needs to come down to less than $250 kilowatt hour before it can be profitable. During his Twitter exchange, Mr Musk quoted a price of $US250kWh for a 100 megawatt hour system. But this converts to $331kWh in Australian dollars, and the price doesn’t include installation costs. Dr Dargaville said there was also confusion about whether Mr Musk meant to quote for a 100 “megawatt” system, or for a 100 “megawatt hour” system. It’s also unclear how many hours of storage the system would provide, either two hours or four hours. Mr Cannon-Brookes asked for a quote for a “100MW” system, but Mr Musk responded by giving a price for “100MWh” system. The difference could be significant. “If you want to build a system with four hours storage and 100 megawatt capacity, it would be a 400 megawatt hour system, and that would cost four times as much as a 100MW system,” Dr Dargaville said. “I know energy professionals that get this confused, it’s a real issue in understanding what people are talking about. “It’s a bit confused at the moment, and more details need to come out before we can properly assess what’s on offer.”
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Haven't had a chance to digest the Labor plan for SA power, any thoughts? I see a cost of $500M though.
 
I believe this is in response to the more recent blackouts where extra generators weren't turned on when there was excess demand.
People aren't happy with renewables, but then aren't happy when a solution to provide stability to the power grid (with fossil fuels) is proposed.

This is a wider ranging issues than simply renewables vs fossil fuels or libs vs labor, the whole national grid is unsustainable.
 
secondary said:
I believe this is in response to the more recent blackouts where extra generators weren't turned on when there was excess demand.
People aren't happy with renewables, but then aren't happy when a solution to provide stability to the power grid (with fossil fuels) is proposed.

This is a wider ranging issues than simply renewables vs fossil fuels or libs vs labor, the whole national grid is unsustainable.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this battery proposal is it's a bandaid solution as from my read of it it will only supply about 2 hours of supply of "back up" to the system when and if required? So in days of low wind output what happens, all well and good to put in another gas fired power station but unless I'm mistaken that will actually push up the price of electricity in SA when in operation, that's without factoring in where Jay intends to source the gas from due to the shortage of cost effective supply already?
 
Bicks said:
The only problem with this battery proposal is it's a bandaid solution as from my read of it it will only supply about 2 hours of supply of "back up" to the system when and if required? So in days of low wind output what happens, all well and good to put in another gas fired power station but unless I'm mistaken that will actually push up the price of electricity in SA when in operation, that's without factoring in where Jay intends to source the gas from due to the shortage of cost effective supply already?
Click to expand...
Yes and no, it isn't necessarily a band-aid solution. Yes, if it's used by itself, but it's likely it will be used in conjunction with the gas powered plant.
Also, it depends if it's 100mw battery back, or 100mw/h, which are two vastly different things.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled about a new gas plant. I'm aware it's a transition to renewables, which is eventually what most of the first world nations will strive for.

Also, battery packs are essential for operation of renewable generation of power through solar and wind. When you have such a fluctuating power supply, a battery pack will make it more steady.
Think of it more like a hybrid car, how the petrol engine kicks in to provide a bit more power when required.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SA :)

Y7DD5K.jpg
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t/news-story/b8719376517271e9b79d65f35366e146

Battery storage may have its place but this isn’t it
But Musk’s money-back guarantee always was on meeting a 100-day installation deadline rather than actually fixing South Australia’s problems caused by its over-reliance on intermittent wind and solar. To the dismay of armchair electrical engineers, Premier Jay Weatherill yesterday confirmed the solution to South Australia’s blackout problems would overwhelmingly be gas. Showing the hide of a rhinoceros, Weatherill cast the blame for South Australia’s predicament far and wide. But the cost of the latest instalment in a decade of electricity adventurism will be paid by South Australian taxpayers and long-suffering electricity users. Electricity consumers will be forced to buy a set portion of state-generated gas-fired power rather than cheaper coal-fired power from Victoria. This all adds up to an expensive fix and slippery slope to further nationalisation. With the heavy emphasis on peaking power, it still begs the question of what will happen when doldrum conditions again strand wind turbines for long periods over summer? Batteries may have their place, but this is not it.
Click to expand...
 
secondary said:
Yes and no, it isn't necessarily a band-aid solution. Yes, if it's used by itself, but it's likely it will be used in conjunction with the gas powered plant.
Also, it depends if it's 100mw battery back, or 100mw/h, which are two vastly different things.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled about a new gas plant. I'm aware it's a transition to renewables, which is eventually what most of the first world nations will strive for.

Also, battery packs are essential for operation of renewable generation of power through solar and wind. When you have such a fluctuating power supply, a battery pack will make it more steady.
Think of it more like a hybrid car, how the petrol engine kicks in to provide a bit more power when required.
Click to expand...
I know coal is dirtier to burn than gas, but gas is no picnic to get out of the ground in the first place...

seems absurd to shut down the Pt Augusta coal-powered station to build a "transitory" gas one. Keeping that up and running would be like pissing in the ocean as far as our CO2 emissions compared to the rest of the world's go.

N.B. I'm assuming the Pt Augusta station was still fit for service.
 
DD#23 said:
I know coal is dirtier to burn than gas, but gas is no picnic to get out of the ground in the first place...

seems absurd to shut down the Pt Augusta coal-powered station to build a "transitory" gas one. Keeping that up and running would be like pissing in the ocean as far as our CO2 emissions compared to the rest of the world's go.

N.B. I'm assuming the Pt Augusta station was still fit for service.
Click to expand...
Yeah, really not a fan of their comments regarding fracking.
Apparently it was cheaper to build this new one than buy an older one, I guess we will get more info on it all in time.

I'm glad they have said no to coal though, at the very least. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper, it's a terrible technology.
 
DD#23 said:
I know coal is dirtier to burn than gas, but gas is no picnic to get out of the ground in the first place...

seems absurd to shut down the Pt Augusta coal-powered station to build a "transitory" gas one. Keeping that up and running would be like pissing in the ocean as far as our CO2 emissions compared to the rest of the world's go.

N.B. I'm assuming the Pt Augusta station was still fit for service.
Click to expand...
No.2 Power Station [Northern Power Station] not to be confused with the original Power Station was still working well and efficiently at the time of it's closure, it was commissioned in 1985 so was relatively new when compared to Victoria's Hazelwood Power Station commissioned in 1964. Nortern Power Station was capable of producing 520MW of electricity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cap
  • Locked
The Cookers/Conspiracy thread
Replies
1
Views
207
relapse
relapse
Cap
The Wine thread
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
3K
Cap
Cap
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Competitions Crouch's Lock of the Week Game
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
5K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Punchy Bassett
The Bakery Thread.
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
arrowman
arrowman
Mutineer
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics Thread Part 4
387 388 389 390 391
Replies
10K
Views
122K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
  • Locked
Banter The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 2 (WARNING NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED)
397 398 399 400 401
Replies
10K
Views
150K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 3
402 403 404 405 406
Replies
10K
Views
234K
Scorpus
Scorpus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top