Not in the sense of going head to head with basic supply. However if it going to be built for backup it needs to be cost effective compared to other solutions that serve the same purpose including not building it at all. Given the non-linear dynamics of the situation there is no simple answer to the question - it must be modelled. Unless all parties are prepared to release their model including its assumptions to allow experts to comment on which is more realistic it is just a war of words that achieves nothing at all.
3 Likes
Meanwhile, back in the world that some of us think might be real, things are on the move.
3 Likes
Future, all future.
What makes sense in the real world is what is being done NOW, to address current issues.
Clearly replacing clapped out coal generation with renewables is happening now.
Upgrading power management methods to cope with the change is happening now.
Upgrades to interconnects and distributed parts of the grid is happening now.
What some researchers are proposing for the future is of little interest to NOW.
The future? As in reality is the Gas powered Generator, it isnāt now. It is being built in the future, in that future will it have a ārealā role in supporting the Grid. It currently appears that most experts say it wonāt and mostly it is politicians who say it will.
Letās build the renewable powered grid instead of the FF powered one that seems to be the be all and end all in some politicians views.
5 Likes
Except that the cost doesnāt evaporate when the plant is not in use.
There seems to be an assumption that supply failure can be eliminated. Letās say that infinite reliability is achievable at infinite cost. The other end of the scale is no supply at no cost.
How much are we prepared to pay? What percentage of down-time are we prepared to put up with?
Sometimes the cost of backups and redundancy need to accepted regardless of any economic considerations. It just has to be done to cope with the hopefully rare situation where 99.9% reliability fails.
If the cost of having that backup exceeds the ongoing benefits, then so what. If the method of that backup is contrary to what is desired for the future, then so what. The backup is needed now, not in the future.
Yes for heart-lung machines etc where people die if the power goes off but that isnāt the situation of this proposed gas plant.
This proposed gas fired plant is where it is for purely political reasons, not because of backup or redundancy reasons.
It is where it is because a coal generator is to be shut down. Jobs lost. We must pander to the electorate and build a new plant whether it is needed there or not, not for supply reasons, but because of jobs.
Gas supply available? No, but more jobs to build a pipeline to it.
1 Like
One might ponder if there is a grander plan for the gas turbine peaking generator. Aside from any short term political gain from the promise. If itās not economically sound why proceed post re-election?
Once all signed for on the current premise, what could be next? An upgrade to a combined cycle base load power station. Gas supply to be assured by an expanded coal seam gas extraction. Of course putting all that out as the grand plan might make the proposal even more controversial?
As a peaking supply it will deliver few jobs outside construction. Unlikely to employ those supposedly displaced elsewhere in the valley.
1 Like
That would be a vote for the infinite cost option.
At the micro level, battery backups generally suffice. The Kurri Kurri plant is grid-scale. There seems to be some confusion here between point-load reliability and grid-scale reliability.
I am confused. In one post you are advocating backup regardless of cost, now you are saying no backup is required at all. If the backup at any cost comment was about some other situation that the proposed gas plant does not fit I donāt see why bring it up in this context and confuse things.
Just commenting in different ways to different posts on the subject of this new power plant specifically, and the subject of redundancy and backup in general.
It seems confusing to me just what the purpose of this taxpayer funded power station is to be.
The Government says it is needed to replace the retiring coal station and its baseload capacity. Maintain ample capacity to keep prices down. And it is to be located where it is even though there is no gas supply, because it will replace the coal station. Jobs.
AEMO says the baseload isnāt needed. The economic study indicates that if run as a baseload station it will be uneconomic using gas.
Snowy Hydro says it will only run when there are generating shortages, so therefore as a backup and will therefore generate power when prices are high on the spot market, and using gas is economic. So is diesel if prices are really high!
2 Likes
The political PR machine in action.
4 Likes
One way to reduce electricity costs. Promisingly, substantial resources are situated close to the population.
1 Like
In theory yes, but unlike the north sea (relatively shallow waters) the water depths off the Australian coast may significantly limit opportunities unless the wind turbines were mounted on floating platforms.
Such exist. There are deep water offshore oil rigs. Itās a question of the economics.
2 Likes
I donāt know if Iād be keen to mount windmills in FNQ waters or similar cyclone prone areas of NT and WA. Sth Tassie looks good from the chart as does the Tasman.
1 Like
The one built in the North Sea in 2017 got through a hurricane. Offshore floating oil rigs generally survive typhoons and hurricanes but sometimes they capsize or catch on fire. You would think there is some risk of the windmill failing but it would not have the same risk to the environment or human life if it did. I would imagine the chance of this happening now and then would be built into the cost-benefit analysis.
2 Likes
It is likely that such solutions would be needed. The wind farms in the north sea sit at depths between 0 and 50 metres, with most around the 20m depthā¦
There are coastal areas around Australian with similar depths, but these are usually close to coast or within shielded areas (Port Arthur or Harvey Bay for example). If they are to be positioned off coast away from land wind influences and potential land based communities, the depths will be considerably more. Technically possible, but as you have raised, would the economics stack up.
This website has sea mapping for around Australia:
http://www.gpsnauticalcharts.com/main/australia-nautical-charts-by-folio.html
1 Like
From the article:
There are many technologies. Floating wind turbine - Wikipedia
In my region (Hunter Valley), we have the offshore wind resource, numerous old mine voids that could be repurposed for pumped hydro energy storage, good grid connections (legacy of coal-fired generation), close to established demand and a skilled workforce. Iām sure thereās similar potential elsewhere.
2 Likes
