 | The Bullroarer - Monday 8th September 2008 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Wednesday 10th September 2008 |  |
12 comments on A National Electricity Grid For Australia
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
12 comments on A National Electricity Grid For Australia
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Interesting article but I don't know why carbon capture/sequestration even got a mention.It is off-with-the-fairies stuff.
Obviously the problem of renewable source power supply has to be tackled on multiple fronts to ensure reliability and cover problems with new technology.The idea of a national grid is excellent.
The comment above about bush fire risk to trunk power lines is only valid,just barely,in areas of tall eucalypt forest where a bad fire can crown.Most of the proposed trunk routes are through areas of sparse vegetation.
The article gives little space to geothermal which is probably the best chance to take the bulk of base load away from coal.Geothermal is a proven technology and it appears that Australia is well endowed with the resource.Given that a lot of geothermal prospects are in Central Australia it should not be too difficult to include NT in the national grid.It also should be possible and desireable to electrify both trans-continental rail lines.In addition,the proposed inland line from Melbourne to Brisbane and points North should be built as an electrified route.
However,all this is pissing into the wind if the Powers-That-Be don't get off their shiny bums and get cracking on real action instead of arguing about silly accounting(? Ponzi)schemes re carbon trading etc ad nauseum.Talk is cheap.That is why the vested interests are bent on prolonging the talk fest.
A first small step would be a complete moratorium on the construction of new coal fired power stations.This would put the coal and power industries on notice that they have to adapt to changing circumstances or perish.
Hi thirra,
You have raised several good points. I raised CCS because this appears to be central to Garnaut report and white paper thinking. No investment of $$ billions is going to occur without considering "what if" CCS does work! The point I was trying to make was that this technology has not been proven and will take until at least 2020 to know if it works at a reasonable cost, so new coal fired plants are going to be risky, hence the need for renewable energy.
The point about geothermal energy using hot rock, is that it shows great promise, but until 100MW capacity is built and running its going to be hard to know the costs and to finance 1GW let alone 10GW capacity all in 12 years.
The risk of power lines to fire is a lot less in the low rainfall regions, and even 2GW capacity is still only a small part of overall power. Note that power plants in gold fields rely on one pipeline, so a grid electricity supply is adding a second back-up.
As far as I can see the carbon trading scheme is aimed at making coal fired power much much more expensive. The most recent Garnaut report that very few seem to have read, indicates that carbon price may go to $60/tonne CO2e, costing coal fired electricity 6cents/kWh just for the pollution permits, about 300% higher than present costs, making it more expensive than wind, solar or geothermal.
Thanks,Neil.The sticking point with the carbon price as applied to coal power generation is whether the sods get exemption and to what degree.It appears to me as a casual observer that they are pushing all the appropriate government/union/industry/consumer buttons to achieve a next to free ride.
Also the government has not commited to implement Garnaut,even the watered down version which he seems to think/hope might be accepted.I am rather sceptical about their courage in this and other matters.
Sorry for my cynicism but looking back on the last 10 or 20 years it has been a long road to perdition as far as convincing these meatheads on environmental concerns.
I realize that CCS is still a live issue but it is just a diversion by the aforementioned coal interests.
Overall - a good article and good ideas - Best wishes.
thirra,
Petrol is getting a 3 year exemption, some export sensitive industries are getting 90% exemptions, that leaves coal and gas fired electricity to shoulder most of the costs.
If Garnaut's 17% reduction from 2010 levels( 10% from 1990 level) is taken up, that will mean at least 24%(7%existing, plus 17% new) of energy will have to come from renewable sources by 2020. Most of that will probably come from replacing coal plants( especially brown coal) or mothballing, with additional wind generation, and building new NG plants, but only using during peak demand or low wind conditions.
I don't see how we could reduce total carbon emissions by 27%(20% reduction of 1990 level) by 2020, unless all coal was replaced by NG and some wind, then we would have a peak NG crisis, because NG would have to be base load.