Swaggie
Subscriberjust to revisit this. i found some more info.Originally Posted by bee utey
http://engie.com.au/media/UploadedDo...0statement.pdf
Pelican Point second unit
Under the National Electricity Market (NEM) rules, generators can not bid plant into the
market if supply can't be guaranteed.
In this case, the second Pelican Point unit has no gas contracts in place, which means
ENGIE is unable to make the plant available to the market through the bidding system
operated by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
There is no commercial rationale to operate the second Pelican Point unit in the current
market environment in SA for a small number of days across the year.
However, once ENGIE was directed on by AEMO on February 9, we were able to promptly
start the second unit, ensuring our costs were covered, including gas to operate the unit.
Current Cars:
2013 E3 Maloo, 350kw
2008 RRS, TDV8
1995 VS Clubsport
Previous Cars:
2008 ML63, V8
2002 VY SS Ute, 300kw
2002 Disco 2, LS1 conversion
Yes, it raises the obvious question - why is there no contract in place to operate that plant?
I bet the SA Government changes that quick smart. Government regulation is obviously required.
Malcolm Turnbull's turnaround on renewable energy, from pro-carbon price to clean coal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Swaggie
Subscriberprivate company can do what they want (within the law) and choose the operate (or not).
part of the problem with privatisation.
Current Cars:
2013 E3 Maloo, 350kw
2008 RRS, TDV8
1995 VS Clubsport
Previous Cars:
2008 ML63, V8
2002 VY SS Ute, 300kw
2002 Disco 2, LS1 conversion
Master
SubscriberI agree - see my earlier post.
The government rush to cash in on taxpayer owned assets is uncontrolled.
Mainly because we let them do it.
Terry
80 109" 2.6 P ex Army GS, saved from the scrappie.
95 300tdi 130 Single cab tray.
2010 Guzzi 750
So Bee Utey...
What's with all the name calling?
You seem way to eager to start childish name calling at anyone who may disagree with your opinion.
Yes the batteries are being rolled out and trailed... the by products of production, the lifespan and the cost are currently horrendous and only affordable due to huge subsidies.
Coal fired power should have been emissions improved and remained active UNTIL these technologies are in place.. not made the public and industry the Beta testers.
If you're struggling with the concept of a commissioning roll out - where the old system remains until the new system is proven and stable then that is upon you - no need to name call...
1-2 years of cleaner coal generation whilst the grid, storage, solar, wind and nuclear technologies are rolled out / upgraded / developed / tested / proven - is hardly likely to cause any significant problems....
(Humour hat on)
https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo
AT REST
I don't think I called anybody a "name", merely described the behaviour of those people who post blatantly inaccurate 'memes" instead of sound argument. That wouldn't be you of course as you've backed your assertions with links to useful info. I think. I posted the Snopes link to debunk a "meme", now it's your turn.
Oh and here's another link to an argument against "clean coal", perhaps you could dismantle the arguments presented therein? With suitable links perhaps?
Coalition's "clean" coal plan revealed to be an "idiotic" fantasy : Renew Economy
Are you struggling with comprehension?
I said CleanER coal...
Only until the evolving technologies are in place...
You don't take the bracing down until the new supports are built and in place so you....
The Meme... was a graphical representation of Mining in general and a real processing plant doing underground process..
All it highlights is the reality behind the public perception of Solar/Lithium as being without a "dirty" side... I also laughed as I posted it (emoticon)...
Entertainingly the site you posted has an "Agenda" like many do.. and contains a huge amount of emotion and opinion.
The data portrayed seems to clash with science journals from the USA and EU on Emissions and Carbon storage technology.
Regardless I haven't advocated construction of further coal fired plants - have I
And I REALLY have no need to do the Google hero - quote a link to something thing.. I'll leave that to you...
AT REST
Not at all. Just no-one around here has detailed a viable plan for achieving this goal in a cost effective manner. Here's a simple idea for you: the quickest way to achieve less emissions in a NEM powered by a variety of coal plants might be: to shut down the dirtiest and oldest and run the cleanest and newest at a higher rate to improve their efficiency? Like, shut down mud burners like Port Augusta and Hazlewood, per chance? Run NSW and QLD black coal plants harder? Add enough gas peakers that are relatively expensive to run and make near-future grid sized storage very attractive investments? Naah, that would defy logic.
As for the meme, hahaha, presenting a giant copper mine in Brazil as a representative of a lithium mine, how we all "Rolled On the Floor, Laughing" at the clever joke.
And just for another huge laugh, here's an actual lithium mine in WA, Greenbushes:
Looks just like a lot of other mines, quite scary, don't you think? Nervous laughter all round!!!
I won't bore you with actual pictures of actual tar sands extraction procedures in case someone splits their sides laughing and sues me for it.
Oh and because I like learning about new stuff, here's another link I found with my fave search injun, Google, on what's happening around now with grid sized batteries.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-critical-mass
Great stuff, isn't it? If only Australians had such techno heads available to Get Things Done like that.
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
AULRO.com Copyright 2001 - 2025 Independently Owned and Operated by Dave Blears Computing - DavecandoIT - AULRO.com LAND ROVER and its logo are the registered trademarks of Land Rover. Land Rover is not affiliated with AULRO.com. |
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks