- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,841
- Reactions
- 19,150
Key thing is none of this is generic.
Looking at the Australian context we've plenty of examples historically of power generation options that were technically workable and at face value seemed reasonable enough that serious effort was put into evaluation of them in detail. Ultimately though they turned out not to be the best option once that evaluation was done and it turned out that some issue, most commonly geology, resulted in higher costs than had been assumed.
On the other hand, that process is also where the good ones came from. Start with the high level identification of the options, do a proper evaluation, and just as some will fail others will pass.
For an example of one that some here would likely have a financial interest in, since AGL owns it:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Zoom out and you will immediately see the context that this is located on an island but it's an island only just off the coast. It's also in a very urban location. That however isn't the end of it, there's more to the magic than that.
To the immediate west you will note two bays that are not natural, those being the cooling water intake to the two power stations. Meanwhile hot water is discharged just out the front as can be seen here (note there are three outlets in total)
https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.80...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
All that had to be done to create that was to build a simple causeway which prevents the hot water flowing back to the intake and forces it to take the long way around thus providing effective cooling. That causeway also serves as the road access to the island.
Reason I mention it was this was one of the "obvious" sites identified a long time ago, indeed it was reserved for a future power station back in 1947, construction ultimately commencing in 1963. Because even without satellite images, engineers correctly spotted the situation I've described and noted the urban location along with navigable water made it a very suitable site for a thermal (fossil fuel) power station. Very close to the largest load in the state, cooling water right out the front with no major infrastructure required, and it wouldn't be difficult to get fuel to the site.
All that really changed over the years was the fuel itself.
Original assumption in 1947 was it'd be coal delivered by ship or train.
By the time construction commenced, oil had become a cheaper and thus preferred option and construction indeed commenced on 'A' station as oil-fired steam plant. Noting for the record 'A' station consisted of 4 x 120MW units, each with their own dedicated boiler.
Then during the construction period, natural gas was discovered at Moomba (central Australia) and ultimately piped to the Adelaide metro area with supply commencing two years after the power station commenced operation. The boilers were then converted, one at a time, to use gas.
So that's an example of one that worked out. An "obvious" site that, upon proper investigation, didn't turn up any major geological or other problem and which was ultimately built. There's plenty more like that, indeed it's the history of most of Australia's power stations.
The well known Yallourn plant in Victoria, the original stations, were much the same. Land that had a river out the front and a coal mine out the back, literally. Can't get much better than that, it was an other "obvious" one, albeit with some hassles in keeping the river out of the coal mine but those were solvable.
On the other hand this one was not to be: https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.86...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
Companies were formed, holes were dug and ultimately some coal was mined but ultimately geology made it not impossible, just uneconomic despite being just 13km from the Melbourne CBD and 7.5km from what was already (since 1918) a power generation site then using imported coal.
Incidentally that site does have a notable point in terms of who was involved, notably Herbert Hoover. That Hoover yes, later US President. Once you know that detail, all of a sudden his enthusiasm for rural electrification and hydro development as President starts to fall into place.
Point being historically we got to the best solutions not by deciding on the energy source first but the opposite. Look at all the options and if the best one happens to be coal, hydro or whatever well do that then.
The only thing that really skewed that is if there was some grander plan. Eg the Dartmouth dam (Vic) was primarily built as a water storage for agricultural and town supply. It does generate electricity from a power station at the base of the dam and a smaller one downstream, but ultimately water is the primary reason it was built. That being so, other sources of electricity weren't an alternative to it, the "grand plan" was mostly about water with the hydro-electricity just a useful bonus.
The same rationally applies today. Look at all the options, and that means specific projects not just choosing a resource, and see what comes out of it.
Once that's done and proper numbers (financial and electrical) are available, then it's possible to sensibly evaluate them. That's when it's possible to have the public debate as to whether it's worth spending a bit more on an electricity scheme that also secures Sydney's water supply for a larger population, or whether it's worth spending more to avoid a particular option on environmental grounds be that due to emissions to the atmosphere or anything else. Or whether it's worth biasing toward local resources and employment, or whether it's worth biasing toward regional development or whatever.
Point being without the numbers it's impossible to have that discussion, since it's a very different thing to say option x will cost 10% more but comes with these benefits and is thus worth considering in that context versus if it costs 200% more and is clearly unaffordable.
So that's an answer without a real answer but that's the rational process. Identify the specific options, evaluate, make decisions.
Getting closer to an answer well going fully renewable in some places is easier than in others. Tasmania is always the standout at a state level, I can say with confidence that renewables do beat fossils on cost in Tasmania. Between wind and hydro, the state has more than adequate resources, plus solar works better than most would assume as long as it's very carefully located. On the other side of the coin it's a relatively expensive place to be using coal or gas.
There are also very good renewable resources, that is wind, solar and hydro, in northern Queensland and on that I'll add the former Queensland Electricity Commission did put some serious work into investigating some (but not all) of those until politics put a stop to it. I'm willing to speculate though that going 100% renewable at least for Mackay and areas further north, would very plausibly stack up on economic grounds and a very high % renewables should stack up for Qld as a whole. Not due to ideology, just due to high grade resources and a load profile that's conveniently well suited to them.
At the other end of the scale there's Victoria. Resources aren't great and the load profile's seriously painful, being substantially inverse to the output of renewable resources. Beyond what can be achieved within those limits, plus leaning on Tasmania, the rest gets difficult big time.
Then there's the politics. Having a high grade, economic resource is one thing but it won't help if it's not allowed to be developed.
One thing there is almost universal agreement on is that offshore wind isn't economic. You'll find very few who disagree on that one, CSIRO being among those whose data shows it to be high cost. One one hand the resource is good over water but it's the cost of developing and maintaining it that's the killer financially. What's far more attractive are pointy bits of land sticking out into the water or islands. That way you get the benefits of offshore without actually being offshore. Downside - you'll also run head first into protestors.
