Yes talking to my mates at the Christmas get together, it is all a bit hit and miss, lots and lots of batteries.Cheers SP will do I asked the question wondering where the pain will go to hide the problems suspect it will cost a motsa regardless.
Disappointed WA is heading down the tubes energy wise still a tiny amount of wriggle room but not for long.
It kinda makes you wonder how these people ever got any services at all.This is an outstanding story of how to build large scale solar farms AND dramatically improve the quality of life of local indigenous people.
Just give them a chance and a job. Well worth reading the full story. Certainly offers an example and blueprint for many similar ventures
How a small town's trajectory changed after the construction of a 600-hectare solar farm
7.30
/
National regional affairs reporter Jane Norman
Posted 5h ago5 hours ago, updated 26m ago26 minutes ago
View attachment 167595
How a small town's trajectory changed after the construction of a 600-hectare solar farm.(Jane Norman)
Link copied
Driving past the high-tech jumble of photovoltaic panels, poles and torques, Bel Atkinson says to her kids proudly: "I built that out there."
It's not easy to spot the massive solar farm from the highway. You might catch a glimpse of the Sun's reflection on the black glass panels if you're lucky.
But its position — largely hidden from view — is at odds with the impact it's had on Narrandera – a small town in New South Wales with wide, tree-lined boulevards and historic buildings, on the banks of the Murrumbidgee River.
View attachment 167596
Narrandera is a town in the Riverina region of southern New South Wales.( ABC News: Jane Norman )
"The legacy that the solar farm has left in this town is generational change," said Shaurntae Lyons, fighting back tears as she talked about it.
And it started with the simplest things.
A unique partnership
Justin Coburn from Beon Energy arrived in town — well before any ground had been broken — in search of a workforce to build what would become the Avonlie Solar Farm.
As luck would have it, he found a "force of nature" in Lyons, a Wiradjuri Yorta Yorta woman with whom he'd form a unique partnership.
View attachment 167597
Justin Coburn and Shaurntae Lyons formed a unique partnership.(ABC News: Matt Holmes, Jane Norman)
When asked to identify the barriers to employment in town, Lyons answered bluntly: ID. Photo identification.
Many of her mob had never had a job because they'd never had the most basic paperwork required to even apply for one.
They were essentially living as invisible citizens.
So, with Beon's backing, the idea for an "ID Day" was born.
Word got out on the "Koori grapevine" and more than 100 people turned up at the local TAFE, where a production line of sorts had been set up.
At the first desk, the local Aboriginal Cooperative Gundyarri helped organise birth certificates; then it was Medicare cards and finally, Unique Student Identifiers which the workers would need to obtain their construction tickets for the solar farm. All of it was free of charge.
Within days, these people were on the workforce map. The first barrier to employment had been cleared.
A workforce was waiting. But they were 'invisible' until one company took a chance
When Justin Coburn first came to Narrandera in search of a workforce to build a solar farm, he was met with scepticism and questions. Soon a unique partnership formed and the project brought an overwhelming sense of pride for the 30 First Nations men and women who worked on it.www.abc.net.au
All interesting questions and worth speculating on.It kinda makes you wonder how these people ever got any services at all.
Any time I go to a mediacal facility, I get no service unless I supply a medicare card.
Do none of them have drivers licenses?
Do they not have to deal with centrelink to get whatever benefits they can muster?
Mick
That would be helpful !!!Here is a link to the AEMO report.
Someone might summarise it in plain English for the plebs.
I think there is every expectation that renewables, storage and gas will be sufficient in Australia, to retire the current fleet of coal generators.The AEMO report of last week.
Zero Nuclear generation going out to 2050 by their estimate. Zip. Narda.
In quiet corners of the world you find sanity.
Referring to the full report not the media release but in short:Someone might summarise it in plain English for the plebs.
Would you agree that on any objective assessment, pumped storage and or on river hydro wins hands down over gas turbines ? No emissions, no fuel cost, lasts for centuries etc.Referring to the full report not the media release but in short:
Wind, solar and storage (batteries + pumped hydro) will do the bulk of the heavy lifting in Australia.
For the rest AEMO has assumed all existing conventional (large scale on river) hydro continues to operate but that no more is built, thus requiring a 16.2GW fleet of gas turbines operated intermittently to fill the gap.
Not stated by AEMO but my own comments are that to the extent there’s anything to debate it falls into three basic categories all of which relate to deep firming:
1. Fuels other than natural gas to run the gas turbines.
Key arguments being that alternative fuels (eg diesel, kerosene, naphtha, butane, propane, ethanol, methanol, distillate fuel oils, etc) don’t have the costly infrastructure requirements that natural gas does. Downside is a higher fuel price but for intermittent use it may stack up financially.
2. Large scale on river hydro most certainly is a technically viable alternative to gas in the context of the NEM.
Whether it should be built or not comes down to economics plus an inevitably controversial value judgement regarding the value of nature conservation versus the value of avoiding fossil fuel consumption.
From a technical perspective however it absolutely can be done with projects primarily in Qld, NSW and Tas but there’s some potential in Vic also.
3. That in theory hydrogen production, storage and consumption on the same site (so not for export etc) is an alternative option. Nobody’s done it anywhere yet, and SA is aiming to be the first, but if it works the it’s another option albeit a technically inefficient one.
Other storage technologies could possibly play a role too. Eg the compressed air energy storage project at Broken Hill (noting that BH is on the grid contrary to popular assumption that it isn’t - the line runs down toward Mildura. It’s only a single line however, any failure means loss of supply, hence the desirability of having at least some generation at BH. Hence the 2 x 25MW diesel fired gas turbines that have been there since then
Well , the obvious:Would you agree that on any objective assessment, pumped storage and or on river hydro wins hands down over gas turbines ? No emissions, no fuel cost, lasts for centuries etc.
But it seems that there is no one in government prepared to go into bat for it, in the same way as some do for nuclear( a vastly more expensive option) . Are there any bodies prepared to publicly argue for hydro that you are aware of ? If so, what's stopping them ? BTW, great info as usual.
Just realised that I've responded to what's in another report not the one linked.Referring to the full report not the media release but in short:
It comes down to what the priorities are.Would you agree that on any objective assessment, pumped storage and or on river hydro wins hands down over gas turbines ? No emissions, no fuel cost, lasts for centuries etc.
You should rephrase the last bit: if climate change is created by CO2 releases and is as important xxxxxIt comes down to what the priorities are.
Comparing hydro and gas, the good points about hydro when comparing to gas are:
Extremely long lifespan - with proper operation and maintenance a lifespan measured in centuries is possible for most of the infrastructure, and even the relatively fragile bits should get to 100 years. So it's effectively a permanent solution.
Doesn't consume non-renewable resources on an ongoing basis once built, and the materials used in construction are plentiful.
A large portion of the money stays in Australia due to the nature of it. Not all, in practice the actual turbines and alternators would be imported, but the rest's all locally doable basic civil construction work.
Depending on the nature of the reservoir, lower ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and in many cases virtually zero. Does vary with what's under water though.
The ultimate inflation hedge so far as energy is concerned with minimal ongoing costs once built.
Negatives for hydro when comparing to gas:
Potential land use conflicts especially with regard to nature conservation and occasionally other land uses.
Higher capital cost.
Longer construction time.
Requires bespoke civil engineering versus gas turbines essentially "off the shelf".
Inflexible location versus gas turbines can go pretty much anywhere.
Substantial differences but no clear winner:
Fuel supply security risk. Hydro comes with the risk of climate change and drought, though somewhat mitigated by a suitably large reservoir, whilst with gas moving to reliance on imports that also comes with the risk of fuel supply disruption for geopolitical reasons. Both involve some risk, albeit different risks, with no clear winner.
Looking at all that, my personal view is "crunch the numbers". That is, take proper look at the hydro options and evaluate their financial and ecological aspects in an objective manner as compared to gas then making a decision. Bearing in mind it's not all or nothing - eg we could build some more hydro but still have some gas for example, it's not all one or all the other indeed with few exceptions most electricity systems use multiple generating technologies.
Realistically though, well if climate change is as serious as it's claimed to be then that does rationally tilt the balance firmly in favour of hydro over gas for deep firming, and with renewables doing most of the work in total, unless a particular project comes with an extremely high downside (eg wipes out a unique species for example, that would be bad most certainly).
Is there any potential to install/upgrade hydro at existing on river storages or do their current uses conflict with hydro operation ?It comes down to what the priorities are.
Comparing hydro and gas, the good points about hydro when comparing to gas are:
Extremely long lifespan - with proper operation and maintenance a lifespan measured in centuries is possible for most of the infrastructure, and even the relatively fragile bits should get to 100 years. So it's effectively a permanent solution.
Doesn't consume non-renewable resources on an ongoing basis once built, and the materials used in construction are plentiful.
A large portion of the money stays in Australia due to the nature of it. Not all, in practice the actual turbines and alternators would be imported, but the rest's all locally doable basic civil construction work.
Depending on the nature of the reservoir, lower ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and in many cases virtually zero. Does vary with what's under water though.
The ultimate inflation hedge so far as energy is concerned with minimal ongoing costs once built.
Negatives for hydro when comparing to gas:
Potential land use conflicts especially with regard to nature conservation and occasionally other land uses.
Higher capital cost.
Longer construction time.
Requires bespoke civil engineering versus gas turbines essentially "off the shelf".
Inflexible location versus gas turbines can go pretty much anywhere.
Substantial differences but no clear winner:
Fuel supply security risk. Hydro comes with the risk of climate change and drought, though somewhat mitigated by a suitably large reservoir, whilst with gas moving to reliance on imports that also comes with the risk of fuel supply disruption for geopolitical reasons. Both involve some risk, albeit different risks, with no clear winner.
Looking at all that, my personal view is "crunch the numbers". That is, take proper look at the hydro options and evaluate their financial and ecological aspects in an objective manner as compared to gas then making a decision. Bearing in mind it's not all or nothing - eg we could build some more hydro but still have some gas for example, it's not all one or all the other indeed with few exceptions most electricity systems use multiple generating technologies.
Realistically though, well if climate change is as serious as it's claimed to be then that does rationally tilt the balance firmly in favour of hydro over gas for deep firming, and with renewables doing most of the work in total, unless a particular project comes with an extremely high downside (eg wipes out a unique species for example, that would be bad most certainly).
Would you agree that on any objective assessment, pumped storage and or on river hydro wins hands down over gas turbines ? No emissions, no fuel cost, lasts for centuries etc.
Ideally you would use gas in the interim to build hydro and also use gas to fill any gaps.
Turbines give more flex ability and are scalable to an extent.
Longer term pumped hydro at least.
That is the crux of the matter and is the very reason all forms of energy have to be considered, gas is finite as W.A is recognising at the moment. Even if new sources are found it is still finite and it is polluting.Any form of energy comes with downsides. Wind turbines kill birds and end up in landfill in 30 years. Solar panels end up the same way. As we have said, hydro schemes can last for centuries.
Everyone seems to be thinking short term and gas turbines now seem imperative at least in the short term to keep the lights on.
As we have been saying forever, the whole energy system is politicised and engineers and scientists are deprecated to the level of "pointy heads" with their heads in the clouds.
It will end badly as we have said before.
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?